date:20091130

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 Yes, because there are two solutions to that problem.

 1) Add an extra tag in that single country that differs from the rest of
the
 world. But don't bother all the other mappers.

IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

 2) Any sufficiently sophisticated router will pre-process the data and it
can
 do something with different national defaults.

Yes, but I would like us to define what the different national defaults are,
so that everyone can work off the same playbook.

For example, in Noppia, bikes can do the wrong one down one way streets. One
way streets are just tagged oneway, nothing special.
In Stevia, they can't.

We define use cases:
UC1) Oneway street with bikes allowed in wrong direction
UC2) Oneway street with bikes not allowed in wrong direction

We have a 2x2 matrix:

   UC1
UC2

Noppia: oneway=true  | oneway=true;bicycle=oneway
Stevia: oneway=true;bicycle=twoway   | oneway=true

That's the table that needs to go in the wiki so that everyone understands
how to code the same thing in different countries.

Meanwhile the area for Noppia could be tagged
bicycle_rule:wrong_way_in_oneway_permitted or whatever.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:

 It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole
 planet.

 The real problem is that many people claim that there is no problem or
 that they have already solved it and everybody should just do as they do.

+1

 Several of the approaches would work on their own if they were completed
 to cover all use cases - but not with other interpretations using the
 same tags in different ways thrown in between.

+1. I wonder how to proceed...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
 solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

+1

 Yes, but I would like us to define what the different national defaults are,
 so that everyone can work off the same playbook.

I'm not a fan of this solution, because usually I don't think it's
necessary - not in this case, anyway (read on...).

 For example, in Noppia, bikes can do the wrong one down one way streets. One
 way streets are just tagged oneway, nothing special.
 In Stevia, they can't.

 We define use cases:
 UC1) Oneway street with bikes allowed in wrong direction
 UC2) Oneway street with bikes not allowed in wrong direction

 We have a 2x2 matrix:

    UC1
 UC2
 
 Noppia: oneway=true  | oneway=true;bicycle=oneway
 Stevia: oneway=true;bicycle=twoway   | oneway=true

 That's the table that needs to go in the wiki so that everyone understands
 how to code the same thing in different countries.

 Meanwhile the area for Noppia could be tagged
 bicycle_rule:wrong_way_in_oneway_permitted or whatever.

I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see
the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as
*already documented in the wiki*:

UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite
UC2: oneway=yes

(see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Mike Harris

As an Englander who has lived, albeit briefly, in Germany I do perhaps
recognise the difference between Germany and England as regards cycleways. I
think - but am not certain - that Germany is relatively unusual in having a
lot of cycleways that are NOT for pedestrians (foot=no) as Cartinus
suggests.

However, segregated cycleways are - I believe - common in both countries
(and others) - i.e. there are parallel 'lanes' for cyclists and pedestrians
(even if the separation / segregation is only by a  painted white line - and
[only in England, of course, never in Germany (;)] - often ignored by both
classes of user). Rather than use something a bit complicated like
highway=cycleway+footway=lane I tend to prefer the advice given in the
wiki at:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

which even addresses the dreaded snowmobile issue.

In a more general vein the use of the designated= tag has 'solved' a number
of related problems - at  least for me.

But long live chaos, anarchy and OSM ... (:)

Mike Harris
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Cartinus [mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl] 
 Sent: 30 November 2009 00:31
 To: talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
 
 On Sunday 29 November 2009 23:10:15 Steve Bennett wrote:
  Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have 
  consistency within each country?
 
 I'm not the one that leaves, but the answer would be yes.
 
 It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is 
 probably the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.
 
 The often mentioned German paths with a white line in the 
 middle (that separates cyclists and pedestrians) could have 
 been done with highway=cycleway+footway=lane or something 
 similar. That is analogous to how we treat e.g. a tertiary 
 road with cycle lanes.
 
 etc. etc. etc.
 
 The path crowd however wanted one solution for everything 
 and can't accept that people didn't want to redo all existing 
 tagging. Especially not in places where it simply works.
 
 The result is that some people use path as it is designed, 
 some people don't use path at all and other people use path 
 for what the translated word path means in their language 
 (often some kind of unpaved footway).
 
 --
 m.v.g.,
 Cartinus
 
 
 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Osm2SpatiaLite ?

2009-11-30 Thread Rory McCann

On 25/11/09 15:16, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Has anybody written a tool like osm2pgsql for importing OSM data directly into
 SpatiaLite database?  Alternatively, are there plans to make an OSM driver for
 ogr2ogr?  
 
 -Jukka Rahkonen-

For my own needs I created a script to convert from OSM files to a
sqlite database. It's no good if you want to use a GIS programme, but
it's fine if you want to play around and analyse some openstreetmap data.

The code is here: http://repo.or.cz/w/osm2sqlite.git
Blog post explaining it:
http://blog.technomancy.org/2009/11/29/osm2sqlite-a-programme-to-convert-from-osm-files-to-sqlite

Rory




signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Potlatch 2

2009-11-30 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Hi all,

I’d like to tell you about Potlatch 2, the all-new version of the 
OpenStreetMap online editor.

Potlatch 2 is a complete rewrite still with the same principle in mind: 
an editor which hits the right balance between speed, ease-of-use, and 
flexibility. It’s under very active development at the moment and I’ll 
include a link at the end of this mail where you can have a look.

But there are four big new features - and one behind-the-scenes change - 
to tell you about first.


== New feature - friendly tagging system ==

Potlatch 2 has a friendly, intuitive tagging system. The mapper can use 
graphical menus, dedicated fields, and icons to get the tagging just 
right - without the need to remember tag names and values.

For example, you can choose highway types from a set of icons, then add 
a speed limit by selecting the appropriate restriction sign.

All this is fully customisable using a straightforward presets file. 
Using this, you can create your own favourite tag combinations.


== New feature - WYSIWYG rendering ==

Potlatch 2 has an all-new rendering engine far in advance of the current 
one.

With road names, patterned fills, rotated icons, and much more, the 
editing experience can be like working live on the familiar Mapnik 
rendering, the cyclemap, Osmarender, or anything you like - making it 
much more approachable for the beginner.

Just like the tagging, the rendering is easy to customise. It uses a 
special form of CSS, called MapCSS, which lets you create 
wonderful-looking maps with just a few lines of text. The tagging and 
rendering together make Potlatch 2 ideal for ‘vertical’ mapping 
applications, such as a cycle-specific editor or a building/addressing 
editor. Stylesheets aren’t just about making the map look pretty: you 
can create stylesheets to help your mapping, such as one that highlights 
roads without names.

The rendering engine (Halcyon) is available as a compact (100k) 
standalone component which you can embed in webpages, so your custom 
maps can be used outside Potlatch 2.


== New feature - Beginners’ Guide ==

You couldn’t write instructions for Potlatch without writing 
instructions for OSM. The new Potlatch user needs to know about tagging, 
surveying, and copyright - but they’re certainly not Potlatch-specific.

So Potlatch 2 will have an accompanying ‘OSM Guide’, explaining the 
basics with friendly, illustrated text. It will be concise, focused and 
clear.


== New feature - vector background layer ==

Mappers are working more and more with imports. But the approach until 
now has been to import data directly into the map - and many people have 
pointed out the problems this can lead to.

Potlatch 2 will support vector background layers. You can load 
OSM-formatted data from servers or files, and work on bringing it into 
the map the way you want, at your own pace.

Because this integrates fully with MapCSS stylesheets, you can choose to 
temporarily hide background data, or show (say) only footpaths... 
whatever you like.


== Fully rewritten in ActionScript 3 ==

Potlatch 2 is written in ActionScript 3, a Java-like language with an 
open source compiler and full docs available online. The Potlatch 2 
source comes with instructions on getting started and is, of course, 
permissively licensed under the WTFPL.

Potlatch 2 thus far has been written by Dave Stubbs and myself. But we 
would love to see more people hacking on the source. There’s a 
potlatch-dev mailing list especially for this 
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev ).


== Playing with Potlatch ==

So where are we up to right now, and how long do you have to wait?

The tagging system, rendering engine, geometry editing, and server 
communication are all up and running - the core of the editor, and the 
real hard work.

Some other features, like Yahoo and tiled backgrounds, are finished but 
not currently exposed through the editor: they’ll be along shortly. 
Others, such as GPS track support, the Beginners’ Guide and the vector 
background layer are not coded yet but are intended for the initial release.

Potlatch 1 has some three years of development behind it, of course, and 
much of this feature set has not yet been ported to Potlatch 2. There’ll 
be countless little UI tweaks (no keyboard shortcuts yet, for example!); 
and as you’d expect for an in-development version, performance can 
sometimes be sluggish and there’s a lot of optimisations we’d like to do.

But with work progressing so fast, this seemed a great time to talk 
about it. Both the tagging system and the renderer are enormously 
flexible and we’d like to see people hacking on them as soon as possible.

So have a play, let us know what you think, and grab the source. You can 
find a read-only running version at:
http://www.geowiki.com/potlatch2/

or play with the renderer alone at:
http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/

Should you want to try a particular area, just put the lat and lon in 
the URL

Re: [OSM-talk] MapMaker competitions

Just had a look at MapMaker. One cute thing: I made a change, and when it
got moderated, I had a look at the comment. It had this:


Interesting notes about this edit:
This road is not smooth or has an unusual turn angle
User is very new
A mature feature has been modified


This is a very clever thing to build into collaborative editing software.
Rather than just present masses of unprocessed information, they pull out
the most salient aspects.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

  IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
  solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

 +1
 I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
 maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see
 the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as
 *already documented in the wiki*:

 UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite
 UC2: oneway=yes


You just pissed off Noppia. You just told them that every single oneway
street has to be explicitly marked cycleway=opposite. The citizens of
Noppia resent this, and most of them refuse to put it in. After all, they
reason, everyone knows that you can ride the wrong way up any oneway
street.

And you reply...?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Nick Whitelegg

I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
and when cycleway. I'm particularly troubled by the way Potlatch
describes path as unofficial path - making it sound like an
unpaved line of footprints carved through the grass.

I don't think highway=path means unofficial path. Though different 
people have interpretations, highway=path seems to be used most often for 
dirt paths in the countryside. An unofficial path where the landowner has 
allowed access (or doesn't mind access) should be tagged as highway=path 
*and* foot=permissive. Without the foot tag, many would assume the path's 
private.

Could someone give me guidance on a few specific scenarios:
1) In the parks near me, there are lots of paths, which I guess were
probably intended for pedestrians, but cyclists use them too.
Sometimes paved, sometimes not. I've been tagging them highway=path,
bicycle=yes (to be safe).

I generally use footway, rather than path, for paved paths but again this 
is a contentious point.
Do you know whether bikes can access the path? If a designated bike path, 
use highway=cycleway/bicycle=designated (optional). If you're not 
sure, use highway=footway and leave the bicycle tag out or use 
bicycle=unknown.

2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved,
and connecting streets together.

If a definite cycle path:
highway=cycleway

If not:
highway=footway; foot=permissive; [bicycle=unknown]

3) Genuine multi-use paths along the sides of creeks or freeways.
Frequently with a dotted line down the middle. Most people think of
them as bike paths, but plenty of pedestrians use them too.
highway=cycleway, foot=yes seems the most satisfying, but according
to the definition, it should just be a path? I tend to assume it's a
cycleway if the gap between two entrances ever exceeds a kilometre or
so...

This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is 
that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.

Nick






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2

2009-11-30 Thread Johnny Rose Carlsen

Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 I’d like to tell you about Potlatch 2, the all-new version of the 
 OpenStreetMap online editor.

This is fantastic, I was getting really tired of the BAN POTLATCH!!
messages here, now I look forward to BAN POTLATCH 2!! instead.

Anyway, keep up the good work :)

Best Regards
 - Johnny Carlsen

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 Just like the tagging, the rendering is easy to customise. It uses a
 special form of CSS, called MapCSS, which lets you create
 wonderful-looking maps with just a few lines of text. The tagging and
 rendering together make Potlatch 2 ideal for ‘vertical’ mapping
 applications, such as a cycle-specific editor or a building/addressing
 editor. Stylesheets aren’t just about making the map look pretty: you
 can create stylesheets to help your mapping, such as one that highlights
 roads without names.

 The rendering engine (Halcyon) is available as a compact (100k)
 standalone component which you can embed in webpages, so your custom
 maps can be used outside Potlatch 2.


Wow, that's all kinds of cool. Just had a play...really nifty. Looking
forward to coming up with my own version of CycleMap that won't bore holes
in my eyes :)

Also, I'm impressed that you've redone Potlatch. I actually thought Potlatch
1 was pretty good, and far superior to the GoogleMaps editor...which I
thought was pretty good...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
 wrote:

 Do you know whether bikes can access the path? If a designated bike path,
 use highway=cycleway/bicycle=designated (optional). If you're not
 sure, use highway=footway and leave the bicycle tag out or use
 bicycle=unknown.


That's a really hard question. Reflecting my biases here, but I tend to
believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a sign
saying otherwise. I actually find it very to objectively decide whether
paths in my neighbourhood are bicycle=yes. There are some narrow laneways
that I ride through - no idea if anyone else does, or whether the council
expects people to. Paths through gardens and parks are the same.

(I've noticed in the media sometimes a prevailing assumption that you can
ride a bike on a road, or on a designated bike path...and that's it. But I
think it has more to do with lack of imagination than actual restrictions.)



 2) Multi-use paths, like in new housing developments. Usually paved,
 and connecting streets together.

 If a definite cycle path:
 highway=cycleway

 If not:
 highway=footway; foot=permissive; [bicycle=unknown]


Lol. If I knew what a definite cycle path was, this thread wouldn't exist.
Well, I guess if there are painted bikes on the ground, it's definite. But
that's not many.


 This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
 that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.


I wish we could codify these general assumptions. Because they won't be
universal, which means there is bad map data being generated.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Richard Mann

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nick Whitelegg 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:

 This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
 that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.

 The crux of the matter is that this is not what the wiki says, and not what
at least some in Germany would like:

The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
you say foot=no
The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
cycleways and bridleways

And we have no way of resolving this :(
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann 
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:

 The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
 you say foot=no
 The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
 cycleways and bridleways

 And we have no way of resolving this :(


I think you just did resolve it.

I guess the other alternative is to have some new concept of German
bikepath and German bridleway, which all renderers will render the same,
but which routers will distinguish.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

  IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a
  bad
  solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

 +1
 I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
 maintain - and we don't have a good track record with maintenance (see
 the wiki... :P). You don't need it. Use this, which is exactly as
 *already documented in the wiki*:

 UC1: oneway=yes; cycleway=opposite
 UC2: oneway=yes

 You just pissed off Noppia. You just told them that every single oneway
 street has to be explicitly marked cycleway=opposite. The citizens of
 Noppia resent this, and most of them refuse to put it in. After all, they
 reason, everyone knows that you can ride the wrong way up any oneway
 street.

 And you reply...?

Hmm good question...

Several thoughts:

1) I told them that *the wiki recommends* that they do need to use
cycleway=opposite where appropriate.

1a) This is different to *me* telling them what to do - the wiki
carries more weight as it is the outcome of discussion (see the
discussion page, for example). It's also where newbies go to learn how
to map, and where others (me, at least) go for reference. Using a
common set of guidelines like this is key to maintaining consistency.
Also, importantly, if the Noppians think something is suboptimal in
the wiki, and want to re-open the discussion, propose something else,
etc., there are mechanisms available for that.

1b) Is it really so hard to add cycleway=opposite where applicable?
Really? Maybe I'm missing something (but then again, I'm one of those
strange people who have no problem adding source=* tags to everything
I change). I am always a little perplexed at some people's aversion to
extra tags - we have autocomplete, presets, DB compression, ... I
don't think it is ever worth compromising consistency to save
keystrokes.

2) They may think everyone knows the rules in Noppia, but this is
unlikely to be true. e.g. what if I visit Noppia on holiday or
business? What if my routing software uses the defaults for oneway=*
as described in the wiki?

3) You say the citizens refuse to follow the wiki's recommendations.
If they do realise that this is a problem, I cannot imagine that they
would refuse to change their practices - after all, usually OSM
contributors do want to contribute to a consistent i.e. useful OSM
database. If they can't see that ignoring the wiki can be dangerous,
then I would probably leave the room in frustration.

But Steve, the point is that surely the Noppians also want to come up
with a solution that gives us the best possible OSM database. Right? I
would ask them: what do they think is the best way to achieve that?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Richard Mann

I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
the default.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann 
 richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:

  The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways)
 unless you say foot=no
 The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
 cycleways and bridleways

 And we have no way of resolving this :(


 I think you just did resolve it.

 I guess the other alternative is to have some new concept of German
 bikepath and German bridleway, which all renderers will render the same,
 but which routers will distinguish.

 Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Jonathan Bennett

Steve Bennett wrote:

 [...] I tend to
 believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a
 sign saying otherwise. 

That's fine for your personal decision making. However, for OSM we need
to provide people with as much information as possible so they can make
their own, possibly different, decisions.

Record legal access rights using access=* and bicycle=* tags, and record
physical characteristics using width=* and surface=* tags, and include
any barrier=* on the path. Routers can choose whether only to use legal
routes that way, or add to path cost where there's a bike-unfriendly
barrier in the way.

If you don't *know* the legal situation this gets tricky, but that's
something we can clear up within each country eventually.

-- 
Jonathan (Jonobennett)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Liz

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
 I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
 other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
 the default.
not at all
we can have a cycleway 
und einen Fahrradweg



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

1) I told them that *the wiki recommends* that they do need to use
cycleway=opposite where appropriate.

1a) This is different to *me* telling them what to do - the wiki
carries more weight as it is the outcome of discussion (see the
discussion page, for example). It's also where newbies go to learn how

Ok, to recap, I said

IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.

And you said:
+1

(It's ok if you don't agree with the position, but you're having it both
ways - saying you don't want to piss off Noppia, but then complaining when
the Noppians get pissed off.

to map, and where others (me, at least) go for reference. Using a
common set of guidelines like this is key to maintaining consistency.

Across all countries? Why?

Also, importantly, if the Noppians think something is suboptimal in
the wiki, and want to re-open the discussion, propose something else,
etc., there are mechanisms available for that.

But they're only one country. As long as there is an assumption that
everyone has to follow the same rules, then there are going to be losers.

1b) Is it really so hard to add cycleway=opposite where applicable?

Yep. Like I said, I refuse to add direction=clockwise to mini_roundabouts.
One extra tag is a lot of extra effort, when the total number of tags you're
adding is usually 2-3.

Really? Maybe I'm missing something (but then again, I'm one of those
strange people who have no problem adding source=* tags to everything
I change). I am always a little perplexed at some people's aversion to
extra tags - we have autocomplete, presets, DB compression, ... I
don't think it is ever worth compromising consistency to save
keystrokes.

What if you had to type bicycle=yes on every single road? It would suck.
How about car=yes? How about
bicycle=yes;car=yes;bus=yes;surface=paved;smoothness=5;colour=black;lines=white;parking=parallel;lanes=2;
on every road?

2) They may think everyone knows the rules in Noppia, but this is
unlikely to be true. e.g. what if I visit Noppia on holiday or
business?

What if my routing software uses the defaults for oneway=*
as described in the wiki?

Then your routing software needs to be Noppia-compatible. And since,
theoretically, we have published an RFC explaining all the international
variations in an XML file, what the rules are, that's easy.

3) You say the citizens refuse to follow the wiki's recommendations.
If they do realise that this is a problem, I cannot imagine that they

They don't have a problem. Their maps render fine, and they know exactly how
oneway streets.

would refuse to change their practices - after all, usually OSM
contributors do want to contribute to a consistent i.e. useful OSM

Locally consistent.

But Steve, the point is that surely the Noppians also want to come up
with a solution that gives us the best possible OSM database. Right? I
would ask them: what do they think is the best way to achieve that?

That's one goal. I suspect most people's goals are more pragmatic and
localised. Do I really care what the Bulgarian OSM data looks like? Not
unless I'm going there. Do I care what the Melbourne data looks like? Yes.
Do I care what the Melbourne bike path data looks like? Yes, a lot.

Am I out of line here? Of course I want to see a globally consistent, useful
database. But ultimately, I want to see the most number of users happy with
their local data. And if that means tags mean something slightly different
in Cambodia than they do in Ireland, then...what was the problem again?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wish we could codify these general assumptions. Because they won't be
 universal, which means there is bad map data being generated.

I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Bennett 
openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:

 Steve Bennett wrote:

  [...] I tend to
  believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a
  sign saying otherwise.

 That's fine for your personal decision making. However, for OSM we need
 to provide people with as much information as possible so they can make
 their own, possibly different, decisions.


In case it wasn't clear, I was using the above statement to explain my
difficult in judging accurately where bikes are actually allowed to go.
There aren't many signs. Real observation-based tagging (surface,
smoothness, width etc...) seems like less shakey ground.


 If you don't *know* the legal situation this gets tricky, but that's
 something we can clear up within each country eventually.


Ok.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:

 I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
 other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
 the default.

Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
foot=yes/no??

I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
 foot=yes/no??

 I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.


From a purely pragmatic perspective, the more repetitive tasks you assign to
people, the less likely it is that those tasks will be performed
consistently. I'm not convinced that telling people how to perform a task,
and getting them to do it 10,000 times will lead to 10,000 correctly
performed tasks.

(At about this stage, maybe someone should introduce some statistics into
the discussion, like number of cycleways/footways/paths tagged in various
combinations in various countries.)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/11/29 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com

 On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 
  When is there a path and when is there not a path?  I walk through an
  area of grass every time I go to the park near my house.  Isn't that a
  path which is part of reality?

 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).


-1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
you don't find them in other maps.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Am I out of line here? Of course I want to see a globally consistent, useful
 database. But ultimately, I want to see the most number of users happy with
 their local data. And if that means tags mean something slightly different
 in Cambodia than they do in Ireland, then...what was the problem again?

Ok, let me summarise my position, before this thread derails.

I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday soon)
2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software
if I visit Noppia (etc.)
3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just
comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap)

Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am
quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary.
Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL
roundabouts? I know you have a different position, which is fine. I'm
surprised that you feel one extra tag is a lot of extra effort -
have you tried various editor presets, auto-complete, selecting
multiple entities before applying a tag, etc.?

For me, your example of a road tagged with:

bicycle=yes;car=yes;bus=yes;surface=paved;smoothness=5;colour=black;lines=white;parking=parallel;lanes=2

just looks like a very well-mapped road. Good job, I would say to
the mapper, as they were obviously very thorough. Seriously.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/11/30 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com

 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nick Whitelegg 
 nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:

 This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
 that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.

 The crux of the matter is that this is not what the wiki says, and not
 what at least some in Germany would like:

 The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
 you say foot=no
 The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
 cycleways and bridleways

 And we have no way of resolving this :(


there is some ways to resolve this:
- use a polygon (border) to determine whether the path is in Germany or in
the UK
- explicitly tag foot=yes in the UK or foot=no in Germany on those ways (or
both for best consistency).
- use path like described in the wiki and tag according to the right of ways
and tags proposed


cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
 foot=yes/no??

 I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.

 From a purely pragmatic perspective, the more repetitive tasks you assign to
 people, the less likely it is that those tasks will be performed
 consistently. I'm not convinced that telling people how to perform a task,
 and getting them to do it 10,000 times will lead to 10,000 correctly
 performed tasks.

Good point, but I think it's ok to first work out how we *should* be
tagging, before we assume that people will stuff it up.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

 -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
 or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
 latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
 you don't find them in other maps.

A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
there is a path.

If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
criss-crossing invisible-paths. :P

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
 Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
 things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.



Yep. Even if some of us don't agree that long term the usecase vs country
matrix is appropriate, it would be a very useful discussion point if we
could map out *current practice* this way. Oh, the French do that???

Liz wrote:
we can have a cycleway
und einen Fahrradweg

Yep. And cycleway ~= Fahrradweg.


Steve

[originally sent to Roy only by mistake - still not used to mailing lists
that don't have reply-to list.]
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Peter Childs

2009/11/30 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

 -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
 or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
 latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
 you don't find them in other maps.

 A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
 http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

 But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
 there is a path.

 If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
 on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
 area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
 criss-crossing invisible-paths. :P


Perhaps what we need here is a tag that says you can walk anyway you
like within this area, Like a large town squares, playing field, etc I
know that places like Scotland there is a Right to Roam but for most
of us, we need to keep to paths but sometimes areas are less
strict Walking routing software could see this area and take the
shortest route across the area.

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
 1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
 soon)
 2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software
 if I visit Noppia (etc.)


Consider it internationally aware software. Routing software that is aware
of the local laws of each country seems obvious. We'll limit the variations
as much as possible, of course.


 3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just
 comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap)


I think verbosity is expensive. My experience is with Wikipedia, where
everyone always thinks the labour is free. It may be free, but it's finite.
And the more you get people to waste their time doing tedious busywork, the
less time they spend doing useful things.



 Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am
 quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary.
 Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL
 roundabouts?


Sure, by all means, have that tag applied. But forcing someone to manually
add it when the roundabout in question is in a left-drive country is
insulting. Maybe the client could add it automatically. I don't know.


 I know you have a different position, which is fine. I'm
 surprised that you feel one extra tag is a lot of extra effort -
 have you tried various editor presets, auto-complete, selecting
 multiple entities before applying a tag, etc.?


Auto-complete, yes, and I still think plus-s-o-enter-n-enter is too many
keystrokes to add source=nearmap. (It's even worse in josm:
alt+b-s-o-tab-n-enter).

Maybe I need to use josm to do something like search for everything I've
touched that has no source and bulk-update. But that could make mistakes.

Will investigate editor presets.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Emilie Laffray

2009/11/30 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com

  On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
 Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
 things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.



 Yep. Even if some of us don't agree that long term the usecase vs country
 matrix is appropriate, it would be a very useful discussion point if we
 could map out *current practice* this way. Oh, the French do that???


+1

Emilie Laffray
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Richard Mann

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

  Liz wrote:
 we can have a cycleway
 und einen Fahrradweg

 Yep. And cycleway ~= Fahrradweg.


 Steve


There are umpteen ways of resolving it. The problem is that we don't have a
process for agreeing which. I wouldn't go for a different highway value
personally.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009/11/30 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com

 A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
 http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

 But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
 there is a path.


+1, I completely agree with you. Only visible paths (where visibility
indicates frequent use, if it is not in use, there won't be a visible
trail). I guess I misunderstood you before.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
 1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
 soon)
 2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software
 if I visit Noppia (etc.)

 Consider it internationally aware software. Routing software that is aware 
 of the local laws of each country seems obvious.

Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
mapping what's on the ground.

 3) I think it's not that hard to be globally consistent - it just
 comes at the cost of verbosity (which is cheap)

 I think verbosity is expensive. My experience is with Wikipedia, where
 everyone always thinks the labour is free. It may be free, but it's finite.
 And the more you get people to waste their time doing tedious busywork, the
 less time they spend doing useful things.

I agree that tedious busywork is not good. But we have computers -
surely we're able to use presets etc. so that more
verbosity/explicitness requires negligible amounts of additional
labour. Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways. Look at
the big picture - we're making a map of the entire world. We're trying
to find the best and easiest way to do it. Remember that additional
labour adding foot=yes/no can *avoid* future labour spent sorting out
messes like this one. And it can give us a better quality result.

 Adding tags that help clarify what I mean does not piss me off. I am
 quite happy to add direction=clockwise to roundabouts if necessary.
 Ultimately, why not aim to have direction=* applied to ALL
 roundabouts?

 Sure, by all means, have that tag applied. But forcing someone to manually
 add it when the roundabout in question is in a left-drive country is
 insulting. Maybe the client could add it automatically. I don't know.

Well, I don't find it insulting. And yes, the client (editor) could
certainly add it automatically. Remember that we are also not limited
to current versions of current editors - editors can be improved.

Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow. I
think we shouldn't tag for the editor (if you know what I mean) :P

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:

 Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries?


What do you think? Work with me, here.


 In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
 mapping what's on the ground.



 I agree that tedious busywork is not good. But we have computers -
 surely we're able to use presets etc. so that more
 verbosity/explicitness requires negligible amounts of additional
 labour.


Yes...macros and scripts are always a first step in improving usability.
Smarter data structures and algorithms, and better analysis of needs and
solutions is the next.


 Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
 going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways.


You: It's easy to add foot=yes.
Me: It's hard to get everyone to consistently add foot=yes.

Just so we're clear on that. Can we move on?


 Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow.

 If by get the tagging right you mean analyse the problem, work out what
people are doing, and come up with the most efficient set of tags for people
to use, then yes. But I don't think you mean that.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2

2009-11-30 Thread Marjan Vrban

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:55:18 +, Richard Mann wrote:

 Dare I ask whether Halcyon can do offset lines (so we can start to do
 one-way, bike lanes  bus lanes with different casings)?
 
 Richard
 

Great news for Potlatch users, i would suggest that you implement icons for
POI-s (At least for most used). So that we could recoginze those green dots
what they represent without clicking them.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag properties

2009-11-30 Thread Ed Avis

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com writes:

1) After tagging a building, I want to define the property boundary
that the building sits in. In some cases, there's a landuse tag
(landuse=commercial, residential), but how to tag a non-profit bowling
club, a school, ...? Do you simply tag it amenity=school?

I think so, and then tag the buildings within that area.  The school includes
the playground, it is not just the building.

2) Sometimes there is one occupied block in the middle of large areas
of nothingness. I want to tag the block to show that there is
something there - ie, it's not unmapped.

I don't quite understand what you mean; if there is 'something' then why not
just map that something?

2b) Sometimes I don't even know whether it's residential, industrial,
a farm, etc. But again, I want to mark *something* to fill in that
vast expanse of white...

Perhaps just tag with area=yes?

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag properties

2009/11/30 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com

 2) Sometimes there is one occupied block in the middle of large areas
 of nothingness. I want to tag the block to show that there is
 something there - ie, it's not unmapped.

 I don't quite understand what you mean; if there is 'something' then why
 not
 just map that something?


+1, I find barrier=fence/wall/gate/entrance quite usefull in this context,
parking and footways, trees, ... as well. You might also look on site
relations for this. Don't know if we already have a tag for determined
pieces of land (parcels), but I think we should have (some kind of
boundary), even if in most cases that data won't be available at the moment
(sometimes it is though).

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009-11-30 Thread Martin Fossdal Guttesen

how do i tag/draw a connection between 2 islands, it is not a bridge as i 
understand a bridge

take a look at the pictures on this page if you dont know what i mean 
http://landsverk.fo/default.asp?sida=718bolkaid=6projectid=299

/LiFo___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009/11/30 Martin Fossdal Guttesen mgutte...@hotmail.com

  how do i tag/draw a connection between 2 islands, it is not a bridge as i
 understand a bridge

 take a look at the pictures on this page if you dont know what i mean
 http://landsverk.fo/default.asp?sida=718bolkaid=6projectid=299



yes, it's not a bridge, As far as I can guess from the pictures it could be
an embankment (embankment=yes).

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag properties

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:

 Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com writes:

 1) After tagging a building, I want to define the property boundary
 that the building sits in. In some cases, there's a landuse tag
 (landuse=commercial, residential), but how to tag a non-profit bowling
 club, a school, ...? Do you simply tag it amenity=school?

 I think so, and then tag the buildings within that area.  The school
 includes
 the playground, it is not just the building.


Ah yep, I eventually came to this conclusion myself.



 2) Sometimes there is one occupied block in the middle of large areas
 of nothingness. I want to tag the block to show that there is
 something there - ie, it's not unmapped.

 I don't quite understand what you mean; if there is 'something' then why
 not
 just map that something?


Heh, because I don't know what it is! It's often hard to tell the difference
between a large rural property, a farm, or even some kind of light industry.
Maybe I can see buildings and sheds, but that's all I know. Your area=yes
suggestion is interesting.

Slightly related note, is it ok to use tags like landuse=residential at
vastly different levels of granularity. Ie, it could be a house, a block, or
what I've been doing at the moment, whole suburbs. I'm trying to sketch out
the western edges of the urban sprawl of Melbourne. At the very least, it
gives a guide as to which suburbs are remaining to be mapped - looking at
the map gives a false impression as to the level of completeness, because
unmapped shows the same as unoccupied.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag properties

Incidentally, what's the best way to map nothing. Big, empty blocks on the
fringes of the city. Again, I want to distinguish between unmapped and
unoccupied. Some of them may be farms/agistment, some may be greenfield,
some might be crown land, some might be owned but unoccupied.

(Or maybe I worry too much about white space...)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009-11-30 Thread Martin Fossdal Guttesen

Ok thanks

i will use embankment

there are only 2 of them in Faroe Islands so no biggie to change

but then is the question what/how to tag 

right now i just have a way going from one island to the other
should i draw an area that is a little wider than the road and tag the area as 
an embankment
or should i just put an embankment on the way




From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 2:39 PM
To: Martin Fossdal Guttesen 
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org ; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands





2009/11/30 Martin Fossdal Guttesen mgutte...@hotmail.com

   if you look at the description of embankment on the map features page 

  An embankment is an artificial bank raised above the immediately-surrounding 
land to redirect or prevent flooding by a river, lake or sea

  then i don't think it is an embankment

well, depends which part of the wiki you look at ;-)

there is 2 definitions on the main page for embankment:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:embankment

If you look at Description (main column), there's the text you cited plus: See 
wikipedia:Embankment (see below)

If you look at Description (same page, but in the green column on the right), 
there is this:

A raised bank to carry a road, railway, or canal across a low-lying or wet 
area.

please note the low-lying, as there is no water at all required in this case.

Wikipedia knows several usages of embankment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embankment

  a.. A levee or dike, an artificial bank raised above the 
immediately-surrounding land to redirect or prevent flooding by a river, lake 
or sea 
  b.. Embankment (transportation), in transportation, a raised bank to carry a 
road, railway, or canal across a low-lying or wet area 
  c.. Embankment dam, a dam made of mounded earth and rock 
  d.. Land reclamation along river banks, usually marked by roads and walkways 
running along it, parallel to the river, as in:... 
cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal RFC leisure=dog_park

This is a RFC for leisure=dog_park, where the initial proposal is from
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/pjwebster/ who didn't contribute since
March 2008 and who doesn't respond to Emails (that's why I make this call,
on request from User:Giardia).

Please see the proposal here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_off-leash_area

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] RFC: Disability Description

2009-11-30 Thread Lulu-Ann

Hi,

please have a look at my new proposal DisabilityDescription:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisabilityDescription

It allows you to provide information of special interest to disabled persons.

Thanks

Lulu-Ann
-- 
Sarah Kreuz, die DSDS-Siegerin der Herzen, mit ihrem eindrucksvollen   
Debütalbum One Moment in Time. http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/musik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009/11/30 Martin Fossdal Guttesen mgutte...@hotmail.com

  Ok thanks

 i will use embankment

 there are only 2 of them in Faroe Islands so no biggie to change

 but then is the question what/how to tag

 right now i just have a way going from one island to the other
 should i draw an area that is a little wider than the road and tag the area
 as an embankment
 or should i just put an embankment on the way



I would do both: draw the land and add tag the street with embankment=yes.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009-11-30 Thread Peter Körner


 right now i just have a way going from one island to the other
 should i draw an area that is a little wider than the road and tag the 
 area as an embankment
 or should i just put an embankment on the way
  

What ever you like better. Remember

usage (leads to) convenience (leads to) definition

(or so), so usage comes first!

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal RFC leisure=dog_park

2009-11-30 Thread Jonathan Bennett

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 Please see the proposal here:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_off-leash_area

This tag already seems to be well in use:

http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/leisure/dog_park

and there are no violent objections on the talk page, so it seems like
it's fine to me. Just start using it.


-- 
Jonathan (Jonobennett)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2

2009-11-30 Thread Sam Vekemans

Awesome,
i like how there will be (is) someway to view data thats available,
but not yet imported :)
i mention that at our CanVec import meeting saturday. So we'll find
the best way to make it work.
Sam

On 11/30/09, Marjan Vrban mvr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:55:18 +, Richard Mann wrote:

 Dare I ask whether Halcyon can do offset lines (so we can start to do
 one-way, bike lanes  bus lanes with different casings)?

 Richard


 Great news for Potlatch users, i would suggest that you implement icons for
 POI-s (At least for most used). So that we could recoginze those green dots
 what they represent without clicking them.


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



-- 
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
Skype: samvekemans
OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
@Acrosscanadatrails

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

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - photo studio

2009-11-30 Thread assetburned

Hi,

I don't know if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I read the Proposal 
creation guidelines and I hope it is.
I needed some pictures for a new passport, so I thought why not tagging that 
store?

There are several similar stores I would like to tag in my town. So I thought I 
search the wiki for it first, but there was no tag for it. I tried to find the 
right tag for a photographer or even better for a photo studio. At least no tag 
I could find.

So I guess it would be a good idea to add this kind of stores with a new shop 
tag for which I propose photo studio.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Photo_studio

The idea is to have a single tag for stores where you can either hire a 
photographer or make photos (such as passport photos, erotic, family or any 
other kind of photos).

This shouldn't be a tag for stores where you bring your films to let somebody 
develop the film and it shouldn't be a tag for shops that are specialised in 
selling photo equipment.
By the way does someone know the right tags for that?

cu assetburned___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal RFC leisure=dog_park

2009/11/30 Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk

  Please see the proposal here:
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_off-leash_area

 This tag already seems to be well in use:

 http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/leisure/dog_park

 and there are no violent objections on the talk page, so it seems like
 it's fine to me. Just start using it.


yes, that's what I told Giardia as well, but he hopes that with a formal
approval the chance might be better to get it rendered in mapnik and
osmarender (He's relatively new to the project ;-) ). He also drew an icon
for this feature. It would also be better to have it in the feature-list
instead of eternal proposed status.

In my personal opinion (I'm not a dog-owner) I don't care very much about
this feature though think it is generally nice to have (and also to render)
as it helps structuring the parks (in Rome almost all (bigger) parks have a
fenced area for unleashing dogs). If you don't have a dog, you better stay
out due to landmine-density.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Anthony

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).

 -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
 or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
 latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
 you don't find them in other maps.

 A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
 http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

 But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
 there is a path.

 If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
 on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
 area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
 criss-crossing invisible-paths. :P

What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
pedestrian mall.

On the right is a road.  On the left is a lake.  In the middle, is a
path, made out of grass.  It's probably not much wider than the road.
And only about half of it is within the right of way.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC: Disability Description

2009-11-30 Thread S.Higashi

Thanks Lulu-Ann for your articles.
My daughter is a wheelchair rider, a good rider  ;-)
and I'm translating some of your articles into Japanese.
Hoping I could help your work someday.

Thanks
Shu Higashi (Higa4)

 Hi,

 please have a look at my new proposal DisabilityDescription:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisabilityDescription

 It allows you to provide information of special interest to disabled persons.

 Thanks

 Lulu-Ann
 --
 Sarah Kreuz, die DSDS-Siegerin der Herzen, mit ihrem eindrucksvollen
 Debütalbum One Moment in Time. http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/musik

 ___
 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] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
 way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
 infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
 pedestrian mall.


I'm kind of hoping future routers will assume people can walk anywhere
within parks, if it saves time. For most of the parks I've been dealing
with, it would make far more sense to map the occasional barrier rather than
all the open space.

(I confess I've been dreaming of a super-router that plots a path, then
quickly walks you through it, checking that you're happy with its
decisions...)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Anthony

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
 way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
 infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
 pedestrian mall.

 I'm kind of hoping future routers will assume people can walk anywhere
 within parks, if it saves time. For most of the parks I've been dealing
 with, it would make far more sense to map the occasional barrier rather than
 all the open space.

Maybe, but this isn't in the park.  This is on the way to the park.
The way.  Ha.  No pun intended.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag properties

2009-11-30 Thread Ed Avis

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com writes:

I don't quite understand what you mean; if there is 'something' then why not
just map that something?
 
Heh, because I don't know what it is! It's often hard to tell the difference
between a large rural property, a farm, or even some kind of light industry.
Maybe I can see buildings and sheds, but that's all I know.

I would say map whatever you can see, that is, the buildings and sheds.
Sometimes one can see areas on the ground which aren't a building, but it
isn't clear whether they are fields or something else.  I would say in those
cases just leave them unmapped, since they will require a survey anyway.
But if you feel the need to mark the boundary somehow, area=yes might do it.

Slightly related note, is it ok to use tags like landuse=residential at
vastly different levels of granularity. Ie, it could be a house, a block, or
what I've been doing at the moment, whole suburbs.

A house would be building=yes or perhaps building=house.  But for a block or a
larger area, yes, tagging the landuse is fine.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - photo studio

2009/11/30 assetburned openstreet...@assetburned.de

 Hi,

 I don't know if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I read the
 Proposal creation guidelines and I hope it is.
 I needed some pictures for a new passport, so I thought why not tagging
 that store?

 There are several similar stores I would like to tag in my town. So I
 thought I search the wiki for it first, but there was no tag for it. I tried
 to find the right tag for a photographer or even better for a photo
 studio. At least no tag I could find.

 So I guess it would be a good idea to add this kind of stores with a new
 shop tag for which I propose photo studio.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Photo_studio

 The idea is to have a single tag for stores where you can either hire a
 photographer or make photos (such as passport photos, erotic, family or any
 other kind of photos).

 This shouldn't be a tag for stores where you bring your films to let
 somebody develop the film and it shouldn't be a tag for shops that are
 specialised in selling photo equipment.
 By the way does someone know the right tags for that?


IMHO this causes some problem, as most/many shops that I know of, that are
photo studios also sell photo equipment and develop film. The problem is
that almost no application or editor supports multiple values like
shop=photo_studio;photo_equipment.
If you define photo_studios to explicitly exclude photo_equipment-stores,
how would you propose to tag combinations?

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Lester Caine

Anthony wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
 that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
 usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
 -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
 or it creates itself by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
 latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
 you don't find them in other maps.
 A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
 http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg

 But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
 there is a path.

 If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
 on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
 area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
 criss-crossing invisible-paths. :P

 What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
 way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
 infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
 pedestrian mall.
 
 On the right is a road.  On the left is a lake.  In the middle, is a
 path, made out of grass.  It's probably not much wider than the road.
 And only about half of it is within the right of way.

I think that is probably covers some of the 'paths' that I need to describe. 
They are really large areas of grass which can be walked across to get to other 
points, rather than a 'tag' on the side of a near by road  using the road 
to 
do the 'pedestrian' routing is simply wrong but so also is drawing an imaginary 
additional set of ways except where they are specifically marked.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag properties

2009/11/30 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


 A house would be building=yes or perhaps building=house.  But for a block
 or a
 larger area, yes, tagging the landuse is fine.


I'd suggest to tag detached house differently from terraced houses and other
typologies, e.g. building=detached (currently 1425 uses according to
http://osmdoc.com/de/tag/building/#values

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2

2009-11-30 Thread Michal Migurski

On Nov 30, 2009, at 2:03 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

 Hi all,

 I’d like to tell you about Potlatch 2, the all-new version of the
 OpenStreetMap online editor.

 Potlatch 2 is a complete rewrite still with the same principle in  
 mind:
 an editor which hits the right balance between speed, ease-of-use, and
 flexibility. It’s under very active development at the moment and I’ll
 include a link at the end of this mail where you can have a look.

Super exciting!

The Halcyon rendering looks great. Do you have a preferred avenue for  
bug reports? Is the code in a place where it can be easily picked at?

Thanks for your hard work,
-mike.



michal migurski- m...@stamen.com
  415.558.1610




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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009-11-30 Thread John F. Eldredge

I would class that as a causeway, rather than an embankment.  I think wet 
area in the Wikipedia definition would refer to boggy ground, or an 
intermittently-flooded low-lying area, rather than to lake-bottom or sea-bottom 
that is underwater all of the time.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria

-Original Message-
From: Martin Fossdal Guttesen mgutte...@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:48:20 
To: m...@koppenhoefer.com
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

___
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] How to tag properties

On Monday 30 November 2009 15:24:02 Steve Bennett wrote:
 Incidentally, what's the best way to map nothing. Big, empty blocks on
 the fringes of the city. Again, I want to distinguish between unmapped and
 unoccupied. Some of them may be farms/agistment, some may be greenfield,
 some might be crown land, some might be owned but unoccupied.

 (Or maybe I worry too much about white space...)

 Steve

Map what you can verify:
* Often these are expanses of grass with the occasional bush - landuse=grass
* They can be expanses of shrubland - natural=shrub

Of course if you know it is greenfield/farmland there are landuse tags for 
that.

If you really don't know what it is and can't describe it, then don't tag it.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:03 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote:

 I would class that as a causeway, rather than an embankment.  I think wet
 area in the Wikipedia definition would refer to boggy ground, or an
 intermittently-flooded low-lying area, rather than to lake-bottom or
 sea-bottom that is underwater all of the time.


I thought you were supposed to use natural=coastline for any solid object in
the ocean? (As opposed to piers etc...)

Then again, I tried it here: http://osm.org/go/uG4GPBKTh--

And it didn't work. Anyone know why?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag properties

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 Map what you can verify:
 * Often these are expanses of grass with the occasional bush -
 landuse=grass


Not to be a pain, but that doesn't exist (or isn't documented).
landuse=meadow I guess. That would actually satisfy a lot of my needs.


 * They can be expanses of shrubland - natural=shrub


natural=scrub?


 Of course if you know it is greenfield/farmland there are landuse tags for
 that.


Yeah. I guess the term greenfield is more common in the US? It seems a bit
hard to verify that building is scheduled. Does a big sold sign count?


 If you really don't know what it is and can't describe it, then don't tag
 it.


Yeah, I think you're right. Still just coming to terms with the different
tagging options (and the whole unregulated folksonomy concept...)

I think I might write up some cross-cutting wiki pages like vegetation,
pointing people in the right directions for the subtle distinctions between
natural= and landuse= etc.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009-11-30 Thread John F. Eldredge

If you look at the photos on the web page, the feature in question is 
definitely man made, not natural.  It is a raised walkway between two islands, 
made by piling up rocks.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria

-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 04:12:44 
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

___
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] connection between 2 islands

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:33 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote:

 If you look at the photos on the web page, the feature in question is
 definitely man made, not natural.  It is a raised walkway between two
 islands, made by piling up rocks.


Yep. Same with my example. I'm just going on the guidance here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Harbour#Outlines of the harbour

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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

On Monday 30 November 2009 18:33:42 John F. Eldredge wrote:
 If you look at the photos on the web page, the feature in question is
 definitely man made, not natural.

Despite its tag name, natural=coastline is used for all coastlines, whether 
they are natural or man made.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - photo studio

2009-11-30 Thread assetburned

Hi

That it is the same problem as with shoe_repair and locksmith. I've never seen 
a shop that act only as one of it. But I have seen different shops that also 
act as locksmith and something else, but not as a shoe_repair shop. By the way 
locksmith is another tag I really would like to see.

Here in my home town we have several stores that are specialised in developing 
films (and they also sell picture frames and very cheap cameras and they taking 
photos for passports) and we have also shops who are specialised in selling 
photo equipment (sometimes are also taking passport photos).

So what I would do is to create another two tags for them or at least one where 
these two shops are combined. After thinking of it just one additional tag is 
better.

The reason is simple in a photo studio is a professional photographer, but in 
these other stores are salesperson who are also focused on taking photos.

As criteria to differentiate both types (my proposal and the other shops) you 
could use:
1) type of people who works in that store (salespersonal or photographer)
2) do they also offer to take photos in house only?

both should lead you to the same result which tag would be the right one.

cu AssetBurned

On 30.11.2009, at 17:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 
 
 2009/11/30 assetburned openstreet...@assetburned.de
 Hi,
 
 I don't know if this is exactly the right way to do it, but I read the 
 Proposal creation guidelines and I hope it is.
 I needed some pictures for a new passport, so I thought why not tagging that 
 store?
 
 There are several similar stores I would like to tag in my town. So I thought 
 I search the wiki for it first, but there was no tag for it. I tried to find 
 the right tag for a photographer or even better for a photo studio. At least 
 no tag I could find.
 
 So I guess it would be a good idea to add this kind of stores with a new shop 
 tag for which I propose photo studio.
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Photo_studio
 
 The idea is to have a single tag for stores where you can either hire a 
 photographer or make photos (such as passport photos, erotic, family or any 
 other kind of photos).
 
 This shouldn't be a tag for stores where you bring your films to let somebody 
 develop the film and it shouldn't be a tag for shops that are specialised in 
 selling photo equipment.
 By the way does someone know the right tags for that?
 
 IMHO this causes some problem, as most/many shops that I know of, that are 
 photo studios also sell photo equipment and develop film. The problem is that 
 almost no application or editor supports multiple values like 
 shop=photo_studio;photo_equipment. 
 If you define photo_studios to explicitly exclude photo_equipment-stores, how 
 would you propose to tag combinations?
 
 cheers,
 Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag properties

On Monday 30 November 2009 18:23:33 Steve Bennett wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
  Map what you can verify:
  * Often these are expanses of grass with the occasional bush -
  landuse=grass

 Not to be a pain, but that doesn't exist (or isn't documented).
 landuse=meadow I guess. That would actually satisfy a lot of my needs.

Before you say something doesn't exist, it is always a good idea to check 
tagwatch or osmdoc: http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/landuse/grass
11393 occurrences of landuse grass in the database when they updated their 
data a few months ago.

I don't know about documentation, but it is in the list of presets in JOSM.

IMHO landuse=meadow has a narrower definition then landuse grass. It would be 
either agricultural land or naturally occurring grassland. I would actually 
prefer natural=meadow for the last, but since the preset in JOSM doesn't show 
what key is used for meadow, both natural and agricultural meadows are tagged 
with the same tag by a lot of people.

landuse=grass is for any grass covered surface where you don't have a more 
specific tag.

  * They can be expanses of shrubland - natural=shrub

 natural=scrub?
Yes sorry, English is not my native language.

  Of course if you know it is greenfield/farmland there are landuse tags
  for that.

 Yeah. I guess the term greenfield is more common in the US? It seems a
 bit hard to verify that building is scheduled. Does a big sold sign
 count?

Of course.

I don't think how common the use of the terms greenfield and brownfield is 
has anything to do with Australia vs. wherever, but more with common people 
vs. professional city planners.


-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2

2009-11-30 Thread Dane Springmeyer


On Nov 30, 2009, at 2:55 AM, Richard Mann wrote:

 Dare I ask whether Halcyon can do offset lines (so we can start to  
 do one-way, bike lanes  bus lanes with different casings)?

 Richard



We're close on this with Mapnik, feedback welcome:

http://trac.mapnik.org/ticket/180

Dane


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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag properties

2009/11/30 Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl

 I would actually
 prefer natural=meadow for the last, but since the preset in JOSM doesn't
 show
 what key is used for meadow, both natural and agricultural meadows are
 tagged
 with the same tag by a lot of people.


Of course it is shown in JOSM: just have a look at the tags that are entered
in properties...

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009/11/30 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com

 I would class that as a causeway, rather than an embankment.  I think wet
 area in the Wikipedia definition would refer to boggy ground, or an
 intermittently-flooded low-lying area, rather than to lake-bottom or
 sea-bottom that is underwater all of the time.


by your name I guess you're an English native speaker, so I guess you're
right, still the definition in WIkipedia states:
In modern usage, a *causeway* is a road or railway elevated on a
sandbankhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbank,
usually across a broad body of
waterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_of_wateror
wetland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland.

While in the pictures given by the OP it didn't seem to be a sandbank where
the road was constructed on.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Planning a trekking holiday online

2009-11-30 Thread Peter Dörrie

Hi everybody,

I would like to plan my next trekking holiday with online tools. What I have
in mind is the following: A map (preferably osm) to mark tours and routes
and some form of note taking tool to pull together information on
accommodation, supplies, flights and so forth.

Does anybody know such a service in the www?

Thanks,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2

2009-11-30 Thread Philip Stubbs

2009/11/30 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
 Hi all,

 I’d like to tell you about Potlatch 2, the all-new version of the
 OpenStreetMap online editor.

Potlatch 1 is fantastic. You have set yourself up a tough target to
better it. I am looking forward to the initial release to find out :-)

Well done. Congratulations on all that you have achieved. And most
importantly, thank you very much for making it so easy to contribute
to openstreetmap.

-- 
Philip Stubbs

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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009-11-30 Thread Chris Hill



 by your name I guess you're an English native speaker, so I guess 
 you're right, still the definition in WIkipedia states:
 In modern usage, a *causeway* is a road or railway elevated on a 
 sandbank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbank, usually across a 
 broad body of water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_of_water or 
 wetland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland.

 While in the pictures given by the OP it didn't seem to be a sandbank 
 where the road was constructed on.
You should use multiple sources on T'Interweb :-) . A causeway is a 
raised way across wet ground or water - sand is not a requirement.

I might be tempted to draw the coastline around the islands and either 
side of the causeway, unless the causeway is flooded by the tide, as 
some are, so it would look something like a dumbbell.

Cheers, Chris

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
 way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
 infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
 pedestrian mall.

Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a path as opposed to just
an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or something +
foot=yes)? Is there a difference?

I tend to think paths should be limited to elongated areas, designed
for or used typically for travel (other than for large vehicles like
cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's
probably a better definition though.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries?

 What do you think? Work with me, here.

I think that would be a nightmare, and would not work. If anything, it
would introduce MORE inconsistency due to 1) difficulty maintaining
the lawbook and 2) a more complicated set of guidelines and more
complicated wiki, making it even LESS likely that people will follow
it consistently.

As I've said, I'd prefer to stick to *mapping what's on the ground*,
*according to the guidelines in the wiki*. This is the only way to get
global consistency, which I think is important for the reasons I've
already described.

 Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
 going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways.

 You: It's easy to add foot=yes.
 Me: It's hard to get everyone to consistently add foot=yes.

 Just so we're clear on that. Can we move on?

Me: It *will be* easy to get everyone to consistently add foot=yes when:
1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
global consistency, and that that's important;
2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
3) this mess is sorted out, and the guidelines for
path/footway/cycleway are consolidated and improved (made clear)

Re: 3), I often hear people say it's such a mess, I gave up asking on
the email list and now I just use cycleway when [ insert custom
definition ].

 Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow.

 If by get the tagging right you mean analyse the problem, work out what
 people are doing, and come up with the most efficient set of tags for people
 to use, then yes. But I don't think you mean that.

I do mean that! Assuming that, by most efficient, you mean most
likely to result in a complete and consistent map of the Earth. And
before you say but that's not necessarily efficient, part of being
likely to result in a good outcome is that mappers remain motivated
to contribute - so this does take into account that the tags have to
be satisfying to use.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

On Monday 30 November 2009 22:09:10 Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:
 I would agree that it is more like a Causeway jugding from the wikipedia
 article and images, but i cant find any tag for that, and i dont think it
 would render on the map

There are only twelve occurrences of man_made=causeway in the database. AFAIK 
there is no documentation for it and the tag isn't recognised by anything. 
This however are not really compelling reasons against using the tag.

I think it is more important that a causeway and an embankment are constructed 
in the same way and serve the same purpose, they only differ in their 
environment. If we'd be using another language than English for tagging, 
there would be a fair chance they are called by the same name.

So I would use embankment=yes.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
 global consistency, and that that's important;
 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
 keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;

I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every 
motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.

There is a reason they stopped doing that.

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Tobias Knerr

Roy Wallace wrote:

 Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems 
 obvious.
 
 Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
 mapping what's on the ground.

If we map what's on the ground, then we create a map database containing
here is an oneway sign, over there is a cycleway sign. That's
nice, but if I want to do routing with this, I need information such as
can I use way w in direction d with vehicle v? - and in order to know
this, I need another database that tells me what a sign means in that
part of the world (for example: are pedestrians allowed to walk on ways
with a cycleway sign?).

If we don't want a traffic law database, then we need to tag the
required information directly. But then mappers don't just map physical
reality. They interpret the signs (and other information) using their -
hopefully correct - knowledge of the laws.

Both can work, but /someone/ has to do the transfer from reality to road
network attributes - either software (using a traffic laws DB) or humans
(mapping more than just what's on the ground).

Tobias Knerr

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

[OSM-talk] Mapzen Public Beta is Live

2009-11-30 Thread Nick Black

Hi Guys,

After a few weeks testing and trials, Mapzen public beta was released
this evening.  You can start using it straight away:

http://mapzen.cloudmade.com

You can find more info here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapzen

Happy mapping,

---
Nick Black
twitter.com/nick_b

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
 global consistency, and that that's important;
 2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
 keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;

 I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every
 motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.

 There is a reason they stopped doing that.

The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Liz

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
  On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
  1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
  global consistency, and that that's important;
  2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
  keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
 
  I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every
  motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
 
  There is a reason they stopped doing that.

 The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.


not exactly correct.
We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009-11-30 Thread Liz

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:
 how do i tag/draw a connection between 2 islands, it is not a bridge as i
 understand a bridge

 take a look at the pictures on this page if you dont know what i mean
 http://landsverk.fo/default.asp?sida=718bolkaid=6projectid=299

 /LiFo
In English that is a causeway.
However, causeway in English has another meaning as well, and the other 
meaning is equivalent to ford.
So a roadsign in Australia which says 'Causeway' means that the road dips into 
a creek crossing and there is a concrete slab in the creek for you to drive 
over.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 Roy Wallace wrote:

 Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems 
 obvious.

 Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
 successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
 countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
 mapping what's on the ground.

 If we map what's on the ground, then we create a map database containing
 here is an oneway sign, over there is a cycleway sign. That's
 nice, but if I want to do routing with this, I need information such as
 can I use way w in direction d with vehicle v? - and in order to know
 this, I need another database that tells me what a sign means in that
 part of the world (for example: are pedestrians allowed to walk on ways
 with a cycleway sign?).

 If we don't want a traffic law database, then we need to tag the
 required information directly. But then mappers don't just map physical
 reality. They interpret the signs (and other information) using their -
 hopefully correct - knowledge of the laws.

 Both can work, but /someone/ has to do the transfer from reality to road
 network attributes - either software (using a traffic laws DB) or humans
 (mapping more than just what's on the ground).

Good points. You did find a flaw in my argument - that I was sort of
advocating exhaustive tagging as well as only mapping what's on the
ground. Funnily enough, I actually find both of these extremes
acceptable. But that's not the point...

The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
*require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what
highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
consistent for the whole world. For example, this path is marked with
a sign with a bicycle symbol on it. If people also want to put in
exhaustive information inferred from a law book, I'd prefer they go
ahead and use foot=no + source:foot=lawbook. If people prefer to
leave out the inferred information, and instead write routers with
country-specific defaults, that's cool, too.

But highway=cycleway tags in the OSM database should all mean the same thing.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
  On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
  1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
  global consistency, and that that's important;
  2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
  keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
 
  I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that every
  motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
 
  There is a reason they stopped doing that.

 The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.


 not exactly correct.
 We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.

Ok, rephrased: the reason they stopped is because it wasn't necessary.
Obviously, we have a problem here. I'm suggesting some solutions.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

2009-11-30 Thread Elizabeth Dodd

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
  On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
  On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
   On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
   1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
   global consistency, and that that's important;
   2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
   keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
  
   I've been told that when OSM started (I wasn't involved then) that
   every motorway had to be tagged horse=no+foot=no+bicycle=no.
  
   There is a reason they stopped doing that.
 
  The reason is that that's *globally* redundant.
 
  not exactly correct.
  We do have highway marked motorway in Au where bicycles are allowed.

 Ok, rephrased: the reason they stopped is because it wasn't necessary.
 Obviously, we have a problem here. I'm suggesting some solutions.


I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway, but 
got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2

2009-11-30 Thread Richard Fairhurst


Thanks everyone for the kind comments! Really appreciated (and I should
reiterate that loads of the clever stuff is Dave's work rather than mine).


Marjan Vrban wrote:
 Great news for Potlatch users, i would suggest that you implement icons 
 for POI-s (At least for most used). So that we could recoginze those 
 green dots what they represent without clicking them. 

Yep, definitely. Adding icons is just a matter of one line in the stylesheet
and adding a .png, and I hope we'll have a comprehensive stylesheet for the
first release.


Richard Mann wrote:
 Dare I ask whether Halcyon can do offset lines (so we can start to 
 do one-way, bike lanes  bus lanes with different casings)?

It can't - yet... but there's no reason why it couldn't be added (and in
fact it ties in quite well with a change I'm looking at currently). Will
take a look.


Michal Migurski wrote:
 The Halcyon rendering looks great. Do you have a preferred avenue 
 for bug reports? Is the code in a place where it can be easily picked at?

Bug reports are best via trac.openstreetmap.org, lodged as 'potlatch (flash
editor)' with [potlatch2] or somesuch in the subject.

Code is all at
   http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/editors/potlatch2/ 
and, in particular, the Halcyon rendering code is 
  
http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/editors/potlatch2/net/systemeD/halcyon/

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Potlatch-2-tp26572048p26583666.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands