Re: [OSM-talk] Two different ways with the same nodes?
Hi, ed...@billiau.net wrote: > For example where an admin boundary follows the coast > one way for the coast > one way for the admin boundary This is a somewhat special case; normally, an admin boundary will be backed by a multipolygon relation, and at least hereabouts (.de) we tend to simply stuff the coastline into the admin multipolygon. So you will have *no* extra "boundary=adminisdtrative" way along the coast - just one single way tagged as coastline, which also happens to be a member of the boundary relation. (People tend to create one "landmass" relation that goes only up to the coast, and one for the national boundary which includes a 12 mile zone or so, but that's another matter.) In our neck of the woods, a typical example for two ways sharing the same nodes would be a road with a tram line on/in it. We do not create one way that has both highway=residential and railway=tram (because then, if the way also had a ref=, name=, or oneway=, would that refer to the tram or the street?) - instead we have two ways using the same nodes. And to the OP: Das haetten Dir die Leute auf talk-de auch erklaert ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Two different ways with the same nodes?
I think that areas that share nodes with other areas and especially with ordinary roads, create a lot of extra work when something has to be edited. I think that every object should stand on it's own, and if there is a relation between the two, well, eh , use a relation. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens ed...@billiau.net Verzonden: Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:32 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Two different ways with the same nodes? > Hello, > > Is it allowed (or intended) that two different ways share the same > edges? For example: > there are nodes a, b, c and two ways A, B with: > A = (a, b, c) > B = (c, b, a) > > While loading some osm data in a database i realized that there are some > ways with this "problem", so > is this a correct feauture or a mapping error? > absolutely correct For example where an admin boundary follows the coast one way for the coast one way for the admin boundary if we have joined ways we are getting renderer problems so the au mob have decided to maintain duplicate ways in those circumstances. ___ 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] Two different ways with the same nodes?
> Hello, > > Is it allowed (or intended) that two different ways share the same > edges? For example: > there are nodes a, b, c and two ways A, B with: > A = (a, b, c) > B = (c, b, a) > > While loading some osm data in a database i realized that there are some > ways with this "problem", so > is this a correct feauture or a mapping error? > absolutely correct For example where an admin boundary follows the coast one way for the coast one way for the admin boundary if we have joined ways we are getting renderer problems so the au mob have decided to maintain duplicate ways in those circumstances. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Two different ways with the same nodes?
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Stefan Pflumm wrote: > While loading some osm data in a database i realized that there are some > ways with this "problem", so > is this a correct feauture or a mapping error? Anything is allowed, anything that does something useful will materialise the individual ways anyway. Now you can wonder if the data representation is efficient from editability and storage perspective. The first I doubt, though the second might pass. Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Two different ways with the same nodes?
Hello, Is it allowed (or intended) that two different ways share the same edges? For example: there are nodes a, b, c and two ways A, B with: A = (a, b, c) B = (c, b, a) While loading some osm data in a database i realized that there are some ways with this "problem", so is this a correct feauture or a mapping error? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Hi, Mike Collinson wrote: > If any one is interested in what the changes are and why, I'll be writing to > the legal-talk list shortly. *waits patiently* ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On 09/02/10 17:06, Mike Collinson wrote: > At the moment, we are trying to address some concerns raised by OSM > and OSMF members about the new Contributor Terms. These have been > slightly modified and the latest version can be seen here > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms . These modifications are certainly an improvement. Thank you :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] More about OSM and SpatiaLite
Hi, I just noticed that SpatiaLite actually supports OSM format in the version 1.4 release candidate. It can read osm xml format and even do routing. There is a tutorial online at http://www.gaia-gis.it/spatialite-2.4.0/Using-Routing.pdf ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Stefan de Konink wrote: > Is goes 'edited the project' then as far as 'wrote a > wikipage', 'submitted a bug', 'edited the source'. > > Or is exclusively to geo-data? We're only talking about the licensing of geodata here. There's no reasoning for a coder to have a say over data which they haven't edited. If you've edited (say) the source of JOSM, then that contribution is under GPL. If you've edited the source of Potlatch, it's public domain. If you want to encourage the respective project maintainers to change their software licensing, that's fine, but it's a different matter to CC-BY-SA->ODbL. Similarly, AIUI the wiki will stay licensed as CC-BY-SA because it's a creative work. Sometimes a _very_ creative work... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/New-OSM-GeoData-License-Status-tp4544199p4548227.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> This is much better. Really pleased to see this.
I especially like the
you ("You")
bit. It sounds so ... legal.
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Hi, Stefan de Konink wrote: > Does this mean that an active contributor is such without an OSMF > membership? Of course. There are many in OSMF who would actually like to implement this the other way round - anyone who is an active contributor is automatically an OSMF member. But this is not possible, legally, because being an OSMF member also carries an (albeit small) amount of responsibilities which we cannot shift onto someone just because they make a few edits. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Op 10-02-10 15:19, Grant Slater schreef: > On 10 February 2010 14:09, Stefan de Konink wrote: > >> a contributor (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has >> edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 6 months (i.e. >> there is a demonstrated interest over time); and >> has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and >> responds within 3 weeks. >> >> >> Does this mean that an active contributor is such without an OSMF >> membership? >> > > Yes. Is goes 'edited the project' then as far as 'wrote a wikipage', 'submitted a bug', 'edited the source'. Or is exclusively to geo-data? Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On 10 February 2010 14:09, Stefan de Konink wrote: > a contributor (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has > edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 6 months (i.e. > there is a demonstrated interest over time); and > has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and > responds within 3 weeks. > > > Does this mean that an active contributor is such without an OSMF > membership? > Yes. / Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fun with duplicate nodes
Dave F. wrote: > What's the 'flashing' nodes for? It appears to be for new nodes only. > Is it just to highlight that they're new or is there something else? It's for dupe nodes. But there was a bit of a cockup on my part earlier where newly saved ones were getting it too - ooops. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fun with duplicate nodes
Richard Fairhurst wrote: > == Other stuff == > > I've also added a feature to "unjoin" junctions. (I think JOSM users > call this "unglue"). This is, logically enough, shift-J. > > And this really is the last major improvement to Potlatch 1.x before > 2.0, except for one more thing that's coded but not announced yet. :) What's the 'flashing' nodes for? It appears to be for new nodes only. Is it just to highlight that they're new or is there something else? Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Op 10-02-10 14:57, Richard Fairhurst schreef: > > Michael Collinson wrote: >> At the moment, we are trying to address some concerns raised by OSM and >> OSMF members about the new Contributor Terms. These have been slightly >> modified and the latest version can be seen here >> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms > > This is much better. Really pleased to see this. a contributor (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 6 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. Does this mean that an active contributor is such without an OSMF membership? Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Michael Collinson wrote: > At the moment, we are trying to address some concerns raised by OSM and > OSMF members about the new Contributor Terms. These have been slightly > modified and the latest version can be seen here > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms This is much better. Really pleased to see this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/New-OSM-GeoData-License-Status-tp4544199p4547998.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On 10 February 2010 23:45, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Truth is, you can legally be an asshole. I wasn't comment on the ethics of doing so, merely if it could be done legally, the sticking point here is people that won't respond and what to do about their past contributions, not about people that object. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
Hi, John Smith wrote: > If the reason for changing licenses is because cc-by isn't applicable > for geodata doesn't that mean that essentially the current data can > just be converted to ODBL without needing "written" permission to > change it? This has been said about 150 times, by various people who all seem to have a world view in which there is either right or wrong and nothing in between. Truth is, you can legally be an asshole. OSMF tries not to be one, that's all. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fun with duplicate nodes
Has someone done a bot edit to fix the duplicate nodes in Massachusetts resulting from the MassGIS import being segmented at town boundaries. There are a lot of dups still, but they look like neighboring open space polygons mostly. pgpN6F1HDSmmJ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On 10 February 2010 23:17, Pieren wrote: > But now, the OSMF should speed-up the transition ! We are many contributors > that are reluctant to modify or improve existing data because of the threat > that many old or minor contributions will disappear - not because people > will reject the new license but more because they will not reply to the Odbl > change request (especially those who didn't edit anything since month or > years, e.g. the coastlines). If the reason for changing licenses is because cc-by isn't applicable for geodata doesn't that mean that essentially the current data can just be converted to ODBL without needing "written" permission to change it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fun with duplicate nodes
Works great (once I actually read the whole mail figured out I had to press "j" not "J")! One question though - would it be possible, where the duplicate nodes form part of a duplicate way (with exactly the same tags) to delete the duplicate way as well? These changesets show an example of this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3839996 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3840027 I suspect (it was a long time ago when I added it) that way 32151525 had been added first, and I think later joined to way 32151530, but for whatever reason the joinee hadn't been deleted properly leading to duplication. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Mike Collinson wrote: > The next step is introduce "dual licensing" for *new* OpenStreetMap > contributors as soon as possible. When they register, they will be asked to > license their contributions under both CC-BY-SA and ODbL until and when the > ODbL is finally in place. This is an important step as it has always been > the most urgent step step in the process ... the longer we leave it, the > more contributors we have to be contacted. > > Seeing the huge amount of reactions on this post here or on the legal-talk list, my guess is that everyone is tired about the license change process. Based on the OSMF and the doodle polls, it seems that the license change is moving forward, thanks the LWG. But now, the OSMF should speed-up the transition ! We are many contributors that are reluctant to modify or improve existing data because of the threat that many old or minor contributions will disappear - not because people will reject the new license but more because they will not reply to the Odbl change request (especially those who didn't edit anything since month or years, e.g. the coastlines). So, what I would like to know is: - the new time schedule for the licence change - is there any plan or coordination to translate the Odbl before you ask the dual-licence to newcomers ? Is it possible to translate the license without the support of legal-vocabulary experts ? Pieren Result of the crappy poll, the 10th Feb: 439 participants (10 entries removed for double or empty votes). 31% "yes, I will accept the new license Odbl" 44% "yes and consider all my data Public domain (no restrictions)" 3% "no, I will not accept the new license Odbl but I will if the license is reworked" 10% "no, I will not accept the new license Odbl and wants to continue with the CC-BY-SA2.0 license" 12% "I don't know yet because I don't understand the new license or the possible consequences" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Colombian Mission in Haiti
Eleven days working in Haiti with 128 rescuemens from six Colombian institutions and relief agencies was a difficult experience and unforgettable. Georeferencing is a tool to move quickly in a country destroyed and also unknown. I was able to use OSM maps on my GPS. Thanks to everyone who has helped to upgrade the Port a Prince platform and its environs. After several days of intense work, three (3) lives rescued under the buildings and more than 5,000 patients that Colombian doctors and nurses have treated are another reason to thank all the support silent and anonymous people around the world have provided our humanitarian teams. >From Colombia to Haiti, surf 2900 tons with humanitarian aid, more than 5,000 people have received attention from our Colombian teams. Charlie Barrera Colombian Mission in Haiti Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more! ___ Talk-co mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co -- http://GaleNUx.com es el sistema de información para la salud --///-- Teléfono USA: (347) 688-4473 (Google voice) skype: llamarafredyrivera ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fun with duplicate nodes
Mike N. wrote: >> A very good idea to see what the duplicates are first. >> some are multiple different nodes occupying the same place. > > +1 - please don't merge duplicate nodes which join 'roads' to admin > boundaries it's difficult enough to drag roads out from under admin > ways to correct them as it is. Seconded - there are very good reasons for NOT using the same node in different data sets. SO please indicate first why you want to remove data that has a definite use? ( and because height still has to become important in the data set, nodes may well be on different 'layers'! ) -- 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] Fun with duplicate nodes
> A very good idea to see what the duplicates are first. > some are multiple different nodes occupying the same place. +1 - please don't merge duplicate nodes which join 'roads' to admin boundaries it's difficult enough to drag roads out from under admin ways to correct them as it is. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fun with duplicate nodes
On 10 February 2010 21:13, Stefan de Konink wrote: > For example antenna's in the same tower at different heights. Does Matt's code evaluate node tags at all, or only the lat/lon? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fun with duplicate nodes
Op 10-02-10 11:31, Liz schreef: > A very good idea to see what the duplicates are first. > some are multiple different nodes occupying the same place. For example antenna's in the same tower at different heights. Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fun with duplicate nodes
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I've just added a bunch of dupe-fixing features to Potlatch. So when > you've used Matt's map to identify some dupes, click 'Edit in > Potlatch' and sign in as per usual. > some dupes are legitimate (eg Wallaga Lake in NSW, Australia) > To see what the dupes are, you can use the Inspector (in the Advanced > menu, or press I). > A very good idea to see what the duplicates are first. some are multiple different nodes occupying the same place. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fun with duplicate nodes
We have a bit of a push on at the moment to eliminate duplicate nodes - i.e. where there's erroneously two nodes in the exact same place, which should be a single node so they're joined. == Identifying duplicate nodes == Some of you will have seen Matt's map, which shows "dupes" and is updated almost instantly: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/dupe_nodes/ I've just added a bunch of dupe-fixing features to Potlatch. So when you've used Matt's map to identify some dupes, click 'Edit in Potlatch' and sign in as per usual. Now click the way with the dupes in. It should be pretty obvious which ones they are. :) == Fixing duplicate nodes == To fix an individual node, select it and press J (for "join"). This will delete the duplicate nodes and replace them with this one. To fix all the dupes in the current way, select the way and press J. To see what the dupes are, you can use the Inspector (in the Advanced menu, or press I). == Other stuff == I've also added a feature to "unjoin" junctions. (I think JOSM users call this "unglue"). This is, logically enough, shift-J. And this really is the last major improvement to Potlatch 1.x before 2.0, except for one more thing that's coded but not announced yet. :) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] new mapgen.pl version 0.06
hi, there is a new mapgen version 0.06 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapgen.pl -help option -font families and real font sizes, offset from line can be given -grid color can be set -multipolygone with holes supported -style file adapted (new format!) cheers gerhard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
