Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[John Smith]

On 12 March 2010 17:50, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> If all the code and all the tools we used were to be licensed costly
>> software, who would pay for OSM?
>
> We'd all use Google Map Maker then. Under Safari ;-)

What about Mapzen under IE? *ducks*

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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> If all the code and all the tools we used were to be licensed costly 
> software, who would pay for OSM?

We'd all use Google Map Maker then. Under Safari ;-)

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] JOSM will move to Java6

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

>
> Niklas Cholmkvist wrote:
> > How can potlatch be respectable if it is based on non-free
> > software? (non-free flash, and you can't touch their source
> > code!)
>
> Personally? I don't give a shit about free software. Or respectability.
>

hm.
OSM is composed of free software. It is built on free software.
How would it be possible without it?

I know many of the OSM people fee the same way as you do...
But think about what you are saying for a minute.

If all the code and all the tools we used were to be licensed costly
software, who would pay for OSM?
how would it exist?

It would not.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Al Haraka  wrote:

> > It's completely not the "osm way" *as I interpret it* and isn't going to
> fly *as long as I am around*.
>
>
I think that is going to far, my point here is not to be negative, but to
contribute something.

I can imagine that people dont want to force a global model on everyone, and
I agree.

the current situation of tags being informally defined, partially checked by
various tools and partially supported by many is also not very good.

if we had at least a set of standardized rules that we could easily apply to
any section of the map,
that would be usable from all programs, in libs and other tools, they we
would move in the right direction.

I can imagine that It would not be difficult to get started with this, there
are efforts already to create rdf representations of the OSM data :

http://linkedgeodata.org/About

The current ontology is very simple, and contains nothing more than subclass
rules.
http://linkedgeodata.org/vocabulary/

Lets look at what rules are important :

1. Subclassing, a B
they say: a bar is an amenity.
 <
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf> <
http://linkedgeodata.org/vocabulary#amenity> .

2. SubProperties, a name is a label
 <
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertyOf> <
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> .

3. They have introduced some other things like usagecounts and value counts,
that is what the the tagwatch should provide.

So, interesting things that are missing are domain and range.

Domain : You can say for example that this node is a gas stations and it has
a toilet for wheelchairs.
The property of "wheelchair_access" for example,  would be an attribute of
bathroom which is part of a public place, and a gas station is a public
place.

Or you can use ranges :
Forest is the range of "natural" and a forest has lots of "tree" object.

Other things would be more advanced, like this disaster area uses these tags
for tagging this and that. Or this sat image is a subset of that image. We
at least could define for example that a certain ontology file is used to
validate this region of the map, you could define them individually.

Also there is no one forcing validity of the documents, I am talking about a
simple plugin system that would allow you to start, coupled with a way to
formalize the wiki.

The task of validating, modelling and using this data is still up to your
user decision.

I don't see anything more than a better, more customizable josm-validator
plugin.

In fact, it would be great to see this validator plugin be usable in more
areas, for example as a simple lib that I could plug in to my programs, and
have a command line access to.

How many different non standard syntaxes to we have for representing rules?
Every OSM tool has to re implement the different rules, has its own syntax
and when something changes lags behind.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!

[John F. Eldredge]

So mtb:scale=5 would be a vertical cliff?

-- 
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: "Mike N." 
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:51:00 
To: 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!

> (And similarly, how to distinguish between a bike path and a mountain
> bike track).

   I added mtb:scale to mountain bike tracks.   But around here, even the
steepest, roughest terrain is only 1 or 2 out of a scale of 5.  I think
mtb:scale=3 is something like leaping off 1 meter boulders  (Only
slightly exaggerating).



___
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] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Al Haraka]

Tom,

> Sounding impressive is not a valid reason to consider something a good
> idea... Basically he's suggesting replacing our current freeform tagging
> with some complicated system of rules and ontologies.

But being rude and oversimplifying is valid?  As already mentioned, it
does not have to be hierarchical and rigid, or even what you are
worried about: mandatory.

> It's completely not the "osm way" and isn't going to fly.

I have not been working on OSM long, but I am sick of hearing this
already from people.  What you mean is below.

> It's completely not the "osm way" *as I interpret it* and isn't going to fly 
> *as long as I am around*.

There, fixed it for you.  The beauty of OSM and similar open data
projects, as I interpret it, is that there is wonderfully large
dataset that allows people to do almost whatever they want.  Not to
mention that we are only talking about organizing the documenting of
it, and learn about the inherent ontological structure.  Some people
might find that as valuable, if not more, than the maps.  Does that
mean you should just kick us out right now unless we agree to the
mysteriously vague [my|OSM] way?  Should we all agree to certain OSM
non-principles that we will not enforce or consider as members of the
group?  I am just curious what this sentence is going to mean in the
future, because "isn't going to fly" sounds slightly dictatorial in my
mind.  I could be wrong.

I know this sounds like an opening to a flamewar.  If I have gone too
far, I am sorry.  This is not a personal attack, but I think such talk
is not in the spirit of the OSM way people like to toss around and
defend.  I think a little more consideration than "we have never done
it that way before, so we won't be in the future" is warranted.

Best,
_AJS

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!

[Roy Wallace]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>
> .. I'm still unclear how one is supposed to
> distinguish between a smooth, wide urban footpath and a hiking trail.

For "smooth"ness, use surface=*
For width, use width=*

> (And similarly, how to distinguish between a bike path and a mountain
> bike track).

To indicate access restrictions, see: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access
To indicate "smooth"ness, or width, see above.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!

[Mike N.]

> (And similarly, how to distinguish between a bike path and a mountain
> bike track).

   I added mtb:scale to mountain bike tracks.   But around here, even the 
steepest, roughest terrain is only 1 or 2 out of a scale of 5.  I think 
mtb:scale=3 is something like leaping off 1 meter boulders  (Only 
slightly exaggerating).
 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Mike N.  wrote:
>   (PS  I used the S.O.S (Spawn of Satan) tag 'path' , so I'm not sure how
> many of my trails will work with other stylesheets)

Depends how else you tag them. Afaik, "highway=path foot=designated"
is supposed to be (or is, in mapnik at least) equivalent to
"highway=footway". Though I'm still unclear how one is supposed to
distinguish between a smooth, wide urban footpath and a hiking trail.
(And similarly, how to distinguish between a bike path and a mountain
bike track).

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Freemap - OpenStreetMap for walkers (hikers) - feature ideas?

[Gregory]

Walking isn't just about long-distance stuff.
Being able to say: x is my starting point and I have [10|30|60mins|...] and
I am [slow as a snail|average|running from mad mappers], please take me on a
circular route that avoids busy roads, goes through nice parks, maybe goes
to places people marked as good viewpoints, and accounts for me being slow
uphill. That would be really cool like cyclestreets, and worth showing my
mum (who always says she should go walking).

Oh, and of course don't forget to throw landowner=angry, shortgun=yes into
the circular routing algorithm. amenity=pub should be an option if me/my dad
are joining, where as amenity=toilet and amenity=bench will do otherwise.

-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!

[Mike N.]

> I'm very much in favour of improving both the quality of hiking data,
> and its representation (particularly outside Europe). But do make an
> effort to consolidate the existing material rather than just adding
> another layer of paint over the top.

  Exactly - I'm just at the point where I need a high quality hiking / 
biking map in a relatively small region in the US.

  http://topo.geofabrik.de/ has exactly the features and type of rendering I 
had in mind, but it doesn't cover the US and I haven't had time to dig about 
to see if any of it is open source.  I'm beginning to check into a custom 
version of a Mapnik stylesheet and rendering.

   (PS  I used the S.O.S (Spawn of Satan) tag 'path' , so I'm not sure how 
many of my trails will work with other stylesheets)
 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

I think the semantic mediawiki extension would be a great start,
another would be integration of the tagwatch into the wiki,
definition of data collection from the data set into the wiki (deduction)
and
validation and generation of new tags (induction)

mikw

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Karl Guggisberg  wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>
> > 4. conversion of the wiki into OWL, so that the rules and relations of
> the OSM are documented formally.
> see also
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Machine-readable_Map_Feature_list/OWL_Semantic_Wiki_and_more
>   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Machine-readable_Map_Feature_list
> an attempt to maintain and harvest a machine-readable list of map features
> on and from the OSM wiki using
> OWL, RDF, SemanticMediaWiki.
>
> Note that this is more than a year old, and no progress has been made.
> JOSMs tageditor plugin now adopted
> a more pragmatic approach. I manually maintain a list of machine-readable
> map features (yet another list, in
> addition to JOSM presets, and other lists).
>
>
> > 4. conversion of the wiki into OWL, so that the rules and relations of
> the OSM are documented formally.
> That's the key issue. And the most difficult part. SemanticMediaWiki could
> help here, because people working
> with the wiki and its templates today would still work with the very same
> wiki and the more or less same
> templates. We had a prototype up and running a year ago. Emphasis on
> "prototype", though. Unfortunately, it never
> made into the production wiki (lack of hardware ressources at the time,
> also lack of interest in general).
>
> "so that the rules and relations of the OSM are documented formally"
> describes the major obstacle here: a significant
> share (if not the majority) of OSM contributors doesn't see value in
> raising the level of formality
>
> Regards
> Karl
>
> Am 11.03.2010 23:39, schrieb jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com:
>
> Description :
>
> Integration of the java swoop ontology editor into JOSM. A JOSM ontology
> plugin.
>
> Work :
>
> 1. create a live mapping from OSM into RDF , so that the swoop can access
> the data in OSM without conversion.
> 2. be able to have the changes in the rdf be reflected back into the OSM.
> 4. conversion of the wiki into OWL, so that the rules and relations of the
> OSM are documented formally.
> 5. running of the pellet inference engine and all the other reasoning tools
> from swoop to infer new facts and validate the data.
> 6. encoding of the rules of the JOSM validator into OWL rules, maybe we
> will have to include new derived geometric things like if two ways intersect
> and also ways to only process data in a certain radius.
>
> mike
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Graham Jones <
> grahamjones...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I agree that improving documentation would be  a really useful
>> contribution to OSM, but Google are quite explicit that this is outside of
>> the scope of GSoC (
>> http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2010/faqs#doc_proposals
>> ).
>>
>> A project along the lines of 'context sensitive help in OSM editors' could
>> be a possibility though.  I have never worked on one of the main editors, so
>> I have no idea how hard this would be from that point of view.  The
>> Artifical Intelligence aspects are quite difficult in themselves though - it
>> would have to try to guess what you would like to do from what you have just
>> done - quite a challenge, but please add it to the list if you can manage to
>> describe it!
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Graham.
>>
>>
>> On 11 March 2010 10:59, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
>> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> lets put it in a different perspective :
>>>
>>> Make the documentation as part of the program!
>>>
>>> I would like to see for example a help system that is integrated to the
>>> wiki,
>>> Click on a tag, have it pull up the wiki entry, be able to add new
>>> unknown tags or rename them.
>>> We could even have an OWL Ontology created with a reasoning engine to
>>> specify rules for tagging.
>>>
>>> Really, the software should be so good that you dont need docs or videos.
>>>
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>>>
 > GSoc
 > student pool is a very talented one - it would be good to use them for
 more
 > critical things. Of course, OSM unlike other projects is basically a
 > collection of tools maintained by various people, so difficult to
 achieve a
 > consensus.
 >>

  Having one place of knowhow of mapping is quite critical for project
 like OSM. And believe me, creating good documentation requires quite a
 skill and isn't easiest job in IT world as we would like to see.

 Cheers,
 Peter.

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

>>>
>>>
>>> _

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

I know it sounds shocking but you can make you ontology as simple as you
want,
and you can have as many as you want.
There does not need to be only one set of rules,
I can defined them for my own little bit of the map and others can use them.

the point is that you can define your terms formally and check them.
mike

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 11/03/10 22:50, Graham Jones wrote:
>
>  I have not the faintest idea what that means, but it sounds impressive!
>> Please add it to the list, but it would be nice to define some of the
>> terms and abbreviations to help the ignorant like me!
>>
>
> Sounding impressive is not a valid reason to consider something a good
> idea... Basically he's suggesting replacing our current freeform tagging
> with some complicated system of rules and ontologies.
>
> It's completely not the "osm way" and isn't going to fly.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Tom Hughes]

On 11/03/10 22:50, Graham Jones wrote:

> I have not the faintest idea what that means, but it sounds impressive!
> Please add it to the list, but it would be nice to define some of the
> terms and abbreviations to help the ignorant like me!

Sounding impressive is not a valid reason to consider something a good 
idea... Basically he's suggesting replacing our current freeform tagging 
with some complicated system of rules and ontologies.

It's completely not the "osm way" and isn't going to fly.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Nick Whitelegg
 wrote:
> So I'd like to collect together a number of initial idea. I've started a
> template wiki page:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_for_walkers

There is already quite a lot of information in the wiki about hiking
maps etc, at the very least you should link to all those pages. But
better to rearrange them in a more comprehensive form.

You must have seen:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking_Map
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HikingBikingMaps

Plus the external renderers:
http://osm.lonvia.de/world_hiking.html
etc

I'm very much in favour of improving both the quality of hiking data,
and its representation (particularly outside Europe). But do make an
effort to consolidate the existing material rather than just adding
another layer of paint over the top.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Karl Guggisberg]

Hi,

> 4. conversion of the wiki into OWL, so that the rules and relations 
of the OSM are documented formally.

see also
  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Machine-readable_Map_Feature_list/OWL_Semantic_Wiki_and_more

  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Machine-readable_Map_Feature_list
an attempt to maintain and harvest a machine-readable list of map 
features on and from the OSM wiki using

OWL, RDF, SemanticMediaWiki.

Note that this is more than a year old, and no progress has been made. 
JOSMs tageditor plugin now adopted
a more pragmatic approach. I manually maintain a list of 
machine-readable map features (yet another list, in

addition to JOSM presets, and other lists).

> 4. conversion of the wiki into OWL, so that the rules and relations 
of the OSM are documented formally.
That's the key issue. And the most difficult part. SemanticMediaWiki 
could help here, because people working
with the wiki and its templates today would still work with the very 
same wiki and the more or less same
templates. We had a prototype up and running a year ago. Emphasis on 
"prototype", though. Unfortunately, it never
made into the production wiki (lack of hardware ressources at the time, 
also lack of interest in general).


"so that the rules and relations of the OSM are documented formally" 
describes the major obstacle here: a significant
share (if not the majority) of OSM contributors doesn't see value in 
raising the level of formality


Regards
Karl

Am 11.03.2010 23:39, schrieb jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com:

Description :

Integration of the java swoop ontology editor into JOSM. A JOSM 
ontology plugin.


Work :

1. create a live mapping from OSM into RDF , so that the swoop can 
access the data in OSM without conversion.

2. be able to have the changes in the rdf be reflected back into the OSM.
4. conversion of the wiki into OWL, so that the rules and relations of 
the OSM are documented formally.
5. running of the pellet inference engine and all the other reasoning 
tools from swoop to infer new facts and validate the data.
6. encoding of the rules of the JOSM validator into OWL rules, maybe 
we will have to include new derived geometric things like if two ways 
intersect and also ways to only process data in a certain radius.


mike

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Graham Jones 
mailto:grahamjones...@googlemail.com>> 
wrote:


Hi,
I agree that improving documentation would be  a really useful
contribution to OSM, but Google are quite explicit that this is
outside of the scope of GSoC

(http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2010/faqs#doc_proposals).

A project along the lines of 'context sensitive help in OSM
editors' could be a possibility though.  I have never worked on
one of the main editors, so I have no idea how hard this would be
from that point of view.  The Artifical Intelligence aspects are
quite difficult in themselves though - it would have to try to
guess what you would like to do from what you have just done -
quite a challenge, but please add it to the list if you can manage
to describe it!

Regards


Graham.


On 11 March 2010 10:59, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com

mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com>> wrote:

lets put it in a different perspective :

Make the documentation as part of the program!

I would like to see for example a help system that is
integrated to the wiki,
Click on a tag, have it pull up the wiki entry, be able to add
new unknown tags or rename them.
We could even have an OWL Ontology created with a reasoning
engine to specify rules for tagging.

Really, the software should be so good that you dont need docs
or videos.

mike


On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Peteris Krisjanis
mailto:pec...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> GSoc
> student pool is a very talented one - it would be good
to use them for more
> critical things. Of course, OSM unlike other projects is
basically a
> collection of tools maintained by various people, so
difficult to achieve a
> consensus.
>>

Having one place of knowhow of mapping is quite critical
for project
like OSM. And believe me, creating good documentation
requires quite a
skill and isn't easiest job in IT world as we would like
to see.

Cheers,
Peter.

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



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org 

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

Will to tomorrow,
chk out swoop
http://www.mindswap.org/2004/SWOOP/

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Graham Jones <
grahamjones...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> I have not the faintest idea what that means, but it sounds impressive!
> Please add it to the list, but it would be nice to define some of the terms
> and abbreviations to help the ignorant like me!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graham.
>
>
> On 11 March 2010 22:39, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Description :
>>
>> Integration of the java swoop ontology editor into JOSM. A JOSM ontology
>> plugin.
>>
>> Work :
>>
>> 1. create a live mapping from OSM into RDF , so that the swoop can access
>> the data in OSM without conversion.
>> 2. be able to have the changes in the rdf be reflected back into the OSM.
>> 4. conversion of the wiki into OWL, so that the rules and relations of the
>> OSM are documented formally.
>> 5. running of the pellet inference engine and all the other reasoning
>> tools from swoop to infer new facts and validate the data.
>> 6. encoding of the rules of the JOSM validator into OWL rules, maybe we
>> will have to include new derived geometric things like if two ways intersect
>> and also ways to only process data in a certain radius.
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Graham Jones <
>> grahamjones...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I agree that improving documentation would be  a really useful
>>> contribution to OSM, but Google are quite explicit that this is outside of
>>> the scope of GSoC (
>>> http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2010/faqs#doc_proposals
>>> ).
>>>
>>> A project along the lines of 'context sensitive help in OSM editors'
>>> could be a possibility though.  I have never worked on one of the main
>>> editors, so I have no idea how hard this would be from that point of view.
>>> The Artifical Intelligence aspects are quite difficult in themselves though
>>> - it would have to try to guess what you would like to do from what you have
>>> just done - quite a challenge, but please add it to the list if you can
>>> manage to describe it!
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> Graham.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 March 2010 10:59, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
>>> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
 lets put it in a different perspective :

 Make the documentation as part of the program!

 I would like to see for example a help system that is integrated to the
 wiki,
 Click on a tag, have it pull up the wiki entry, be able to add new
 unknown tags or rename them.
 We could even have an OWL Ontology created with a reasoning engine to
 specify rules for tagging.

 Really, the software should be so good that you dont need docs or
 videos.

 mike


 On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Peteris Krisjanis 
 wrote:

> > GSoc
> > student pool is a very talented one - it would be good to use them
> for more
> > critical things. Of course, OSM unlike other projects is basically a
> > collection of tools maintained by various people, so difficult to
> achieve a
> > consensus.
> >>
>
> Having one place of knowhow of mapping is quite critical for project
> like OSM. And believe me, creating good documentation requires quite a
> skill and isn't easiest job in IT world as we would like to see.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>


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


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Graham Jones
>>> Hartlepool, UK
>>> email: grahamjones...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Graham Jones
> Hartlepool, UK
> email: grahamjones...@gmail.com
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Graham Jones]

Mike,
I have not the faintest idea what that means, but it sounds impressive!
Please add it to the list, but it would be nice to define some of the terms
and abbreviations to help the ignorant like me!

Thanks

Graham.

On 11 March 2010 22:39, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Description :
>
> Integration of the java swoop ontology editor into JOSM. A JOSM ontology
> plugin.
>
> Work :
>
> 1. create a live mapping from OSM into RDF , so that the swoop can access
> the data in OSM without conversion.
> 2. be able to have the changes in the rdf be reflected back into the OSM.
> 4. conversion of the wiki into OWL, so that the rules and relations of the
> OSM are documented formally.
> 5. running of the pellet inference engine and all the other reasoning tools
> from swoop to infer new facts and validate the data.
> 6. encoding of the rules of the JOSM validator into OWL rules, maybe we
> will have to include new derived geometric things like if two ways intersect
> and also ways to only process data in a certain radius.
>
> mike
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Graham Jones <
> grahamjones...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I agree that improving documentation would be  a really useful
>> contribution to OSM, but Google are quite explicit that this is outside of
>> the scope of GSoC (
>> http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2010/faqs#doc_proposals
>> ).
>>
>> A project along the lines of 'context sensitive help in OSM editors' could
>> be a possibility though.  I have never worked on one of the main editors, so
>> I have no idea how hard this would be from that point of view.  The
>> Artifical Intelligence aspects are quite difficult in themselves though - it
>> would have to try to guess what you would like to do from what you have just
>> done - quite a challenge, but please add it to the list if you can manage to
>> describe it!
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Graham.
>>
>>
>> On 11 March 2010 10:59, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
>> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> lets put it in a different perspective :
>>>
>>> Make the documentation as part of the program!
>>>
>>> I would like to see for example a help system that is integrated to the
>>> wiki,
>>> Click on a tag, have it pull up the wiki entry, be able to add new
>>> unknown tags or rename them.
>>> We could even have an OWL Ontology created with a reasoning engine to
>>> specify rules for tagging.
>>>
>>> Really, the software should be so good that you dont need docs or videos.
>>>
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>>>
 > GSoc
 > student pool is a very talented one - it would be good to use them for
 more
 > critical things. Of course, OSM unlike other projects is basically a
 > collection of tools maintained by various people, so difficult to
 achieve a
 > consensus.
 >>

 Having one place of knowhow of mapping is quite critical for project
 like OSM. And believe me, creating good documentation requires quite a
 skill and isn't easiest job in IT world as we would like to see.

 Cheers,
 Peter.

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

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Graham Jones
>> Hartlepool, UK
>> email: grahamjones...@gmail.com
>>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK
email: grahamjones...@gmail.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

Description :

Integration of the java swoop ontology editor into JOSM. A JOSM ontology
plugin.

Work :

1. create a live mapping from OSM into RDF , so that the swoop can access
the data in OSM without conversion.
2. be able to have the changes in the rdf be reflected back into the OSM.
4. conversion of the wiki into OWL, so that the rules and relations of the
OSM are documented formally.
5. running of the pellet inference engine and all the other reasoning tools
from swoop to infer new facts and validate the data.
6. encoding of the rules of the JOSM validator into OWL rules, maybe we will
have to include new derived geometric things like if two ways intersect and
also ways to only process data in a certain radius.

mike

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Graham Jones <
grahamjones...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I agree that improving documentation would be  a really useful contribution
> to OSM, but Google are quite explicit that this is outside of the scope of
> GSoC (
> http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2010/faqs#doc_proposals
> ).
>
> A project along the lines of 'context sensitive help in OSM editors' could
> be a possibility though.  I have never worked on one of the main editors, so
> I have no idea how hard this would be from that point of view.  The
> Artifical Intelligence aspects are quite difficult in themselves though - it
> would have to try to guess what you would like to do from what you have just
> done - quite a challenge, but please add it to the list if you can manage to
> describe it!
>
> Regards
>
>
> Graham.
>
>
> On 11 March 2010 10:59, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> lets put it in a different perspective :
>>
>> Make the documentation as part of the program!
>>
>> I would like to see for example a help system that is integrated to the
>> wiki,
>> Click on a tag, have it pull up the wiki entry, be able to add new unknown
>> tags or rename them.
>> We could even have an OWL Ontology created with a reasoning engine to
>> specify rules for tagging.
>>
>> Really, the software should be so good that you dont need docs or videos.
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>>
>>> > GSoc
>>> > student pool is a very talented one - it would be good to use them for
>>> more
>>> > critical things. Of course, OSM unlike other projects is basically a
>>> > collection of tools maintained by various people, so difficult to
>>> achieve a
>>> > consensus.
>>> >>
>>>
>>> Having one place of knowhow of mapping is quite critical for project
>>> like OSM. And believe me, creating good documentation requires quite a
>>> skill and isn't easiest job in IT world as we would like to see.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Graham Jones
> Hartlepool, UK
> email: grahamjones...@gmail.com
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Graham Jones]

Hi,
I agree that improving documentation would be  a really useful contribution
to OSM, but Google are quite explicit that this is outside of the scope of
GSoC (
http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2010/faqs#doc_proposals
).

A project along the lines of 'context sensitive help in OSM editors' could
be a possibility though.  I have never worked on one of the main editors, so
I have no idea how hard this would be from that point of view.  The
Artifical Intelligence aspects are quite difficult in themselves though - it
would have to try to guess what you would like to do from what you have just
done - quite a challenge, but please add it to the list if you can manage to
describe it!

Regards


Graham.

On 11 March 2010 10:59, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> lets put it in a different perspective :
>
> Make the documentation as part of the program!
>
> I would like to see for example a help system that is integrated to the
> wiki,
> Click on a tag, have it pull up the wiki entry, be able to add new unknown
> tags or rename them.
> We could even have an OWL Ontology created with a reasoning engine to
> specify rules for tagging.
>
> Really, the software should be so good that you dont need docs or videos.
>
> mike
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>
>> > GSoc
>> > student pool is a very talented one - it would be good to use them for
>> more
>> > critical things. Of course, OSM unlike other projects is basically a
>> > collection of tools maintained by various people, so difficult to
>> achieve a
>> > consensus.
>> >>
>>
>> Having one place of knowhow of mapping is quite critical for project
>> like OSM. And believe me, creating good documentation requires quite a
>> skill and isn't easiest job in IT world as we would like to see.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter.
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>


-- 
Dr. Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK
email: grahamjones...@gmail.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Richard Fairhurst]

Niklas Cholmkvist wrote:
> How can potlatch be respectable if it is based on non-free 
> software? (non-free flash, and you can't touch their source 
> code!)

Personally? I don't give a shit about free software. Or respectability.

cheers
Richard
writing on OS X and Safari :)
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://n2.nabble.com/JOSM-will-move-to-Java6-tp4714947p4719020.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] JOSM will move to Java6

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Niklas Cholmkvist wrote:
> How can potlatch be respectable if it is based on non-free software?
> (non-free flash, and you can't touch their source code!) You can run
> JOSM using only libre and/or open source software. Not only JOSM,
> there's much more software that can be run on fully free systems.

Even worse, it has come to my attention that some even use OSM on 
non-free operating systems and on non-free processor designs! How can 
OSM ever be respectable if it tolerates this!!!eleven!!!

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] JOSM will move to Java6

[Łukasz Jernaś]

2010/3/11 Iván Sánchez Ortega :
> El día Thursday 11 March 2010 11:40:56, Frederik Ramm dijo:
>> I'm not sure; my guess is that the world is silently waiting for
>> Potlatch 2 to be released and will *then* complain about everything that
>> *still* doesn't work.
>
> The world is trying to *preemptively* ban potlatch 2 :-P

I'm actually using both JOSM and PL1 depending on my mood, so I'd like
to see both projects progressing well...

Regards,
-- 
Łukasz [DeeJay1] Jernaś

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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Niklas Cholmkvist]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> ...JOSM in anticipation of imminent Potlatch 2 wondrousness.

How can potlatch be respectable if it is based on non-free software?
(non-free flash, and you can't touch their source code!) You can run
JOSM using only libre and/or open source software. Not only JOSM,
there's much more software that can be run on fully free systems.

Regards,

Niklas
-- 



signature.asc
Description: Αυτό	 το σημείο	 του	 μηνύματος	 είναι	 ψηφιακά	 υπογεγραμμ	ένο
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Seventy 7]

 :D

Any clues or teasers as to what this might contain?


> - Original Message -
> From: "Richard Fairhurst" 
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:23:00 -0800 (PST)
> 
> 
> 
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > If you are in the unfortunate situation of having willfully 
> > chained yourself to one Hardware/OS supplier and that supplier is 
> > unwilling to release Java6 for your platform, it may be time to 
> > finally ditch
> 
> ...JOSM in anticipation of imminent Potlatch 2 wondrousness.
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://n2.nabble.com/JOSM-will-move-to-Java6-tp4714947p4715170.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

>


-- 
___
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze

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

[OSM-talk] FOSSGIS: Devserver - Aktuelle Projekte/Zuk ünftige Entwicklung

[Lars Francke]

Halloechen!

Das ganze hier gehoert noch zu den FOSSGIS-Nachwehen und ist für
Leute, die nicht dabei waren vielleicht nicht so interessant bzw.
verständlich.

Ich habe eben mal kurz die Seite der Strato-Server im Wiki[1]
erweitert um zu sehen welche Projekte welche Resourcen nutzen. Ich bin
mir sicher, dass die Liste der Projekte dort nicht aktuell ist aber
ich habe keine Moeglichkeit das zu überprüfen. Koennte irgendwer, der
eine Übersicht hat dort mal ein bißchen aufräumen? Das würde die
zukünftige Planung vielleicht etwas einfacher machen.

Momentan sieht das so aus als wäre die Architektur, die ich auf der
FOSSGIS vorstellte ein bißchen Overkill. Kaum Projekte, kaum gleicher
Datenbestand, viel 'alter' Code bei dem ich nicht vermute, dass da
irgendwas dran geändert wird. Auf der anderen Seite kann man so eine
Messaging-Architektur trotzdem aufsetzen auch wenn das noch niemand
nutzt. Das parsen und runterladen der diffs verbraucht minimale
Resourcen und solange niemand die gesendeten Nachrichten liest werden
die vom Server direkt wieder verworfen. Auf den ersten Blick also
unnoetig aber wenn das erstmal steht ist es einfach zu benutzen und
das schoene ist, dass es unabhängig ist von allem anderen.

Was ich hiermit probiere zu erreichen ist eigentlich zu erfahren
worein ich Arbeit investieren soll. Gibt es Interesse an einer
"groeßeren" Messaging-basierten Loesung oder nicht? Wenn nicht brauche
ich auch keine Arbeit drauf verwenden und ich kann an OSMdoc basteln
wie ich will. Wenn es Interesse gibt kann ich im ersten Schritt
zumindest mal eine genauere Beschreibung (auch für Leute, die nicht
auf der FOSSGIS waren) und ein paar Ideen aufschreiben, die wir dann
vielleicht ausarbeiten koennen.

Was mich auch interessiert: Sind die Wikimedia-Toolserver Leute (Hallo
Kolossos, hallo MaZderMind) hier auf der Liste? Ich habe keine Lust
das ganze momentan auf der englischen -dev-Liste zu diskutieren daher
erstmal hier der Versuch ob irgendwer mitliest.

Ich freue mich über jeden Hinweis, Vorschlag oder Idee.

Gruß,
Lars

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FOSSGIS/Server/Projects

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

Re: [OSM-talk] First drop in planet size ?

[Grant Slater]

On 11 March 2010 16:03, Lars Francke  wrote:
>
> planet-091007.osm.bz2                     09-Oct-2009 03:37  7.4G
> planet-091014.osm.bz2                     14-Oct-2009 20:35  7.2G
>

I tweaked the bz2 compression block size around then, which would
account for that size change.

/ Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] First drop in planet size ?

[Nic Roets]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Lars Francke  wrote:
> What exactly were you trying to tell us? :)
>
I was just making sure we did not have a bug or unauthorized
deletions. Thanks Grant & Steve for reminding me about dup nodes.

> What do you mean by "got rid of the segments"?
OSM-XML 0.4 was less efficient than OSM-XML 0.5 & 0.6 at storing data.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] First drop in planet size ?

[Lars Francke]

No.

> From 8.2 GB to 8.1 GB:
> http://planet.openstreetmap.org/

planet-091007.osm.bz2 09-Oct-2009 03:37  7.4G
planet-091014.osm.bz2 14-Oct-2009 20:35  7.2G

And I'm sure it has happened before.

What exactly were you trying to tell us? :)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] First drop in planet size ?

[SteveC]

lots of dupe node removal?

On Mar 11, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Nic Roets wrote:

> (since we got rid of the segments)
> 
> From 8.2 GB to 8.1 GB:
> http://planet.openstreetmap.org/
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Yours &c.

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] First drop in planet size ?

[Grant Slater]

On 11 March 2010 15:50, Nic Roets  wrote:
> (since we got rid of the segments)
>
> From 8.2 GB to 8.1 GB:
> http://planet.openstreetmap.org/
>

Interesting...

There has been a change to the dumping script since the previous week:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20396

But more likely; we have dropped about a million duplicate nodes:
http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/dupe_nodes/about.html

/ Grant

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

[OSM-talk] First drop in planet size ?

[Nic Roets]

(since we got rid of the segments)

>From 8.2 GB to 8.1 GB:
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El día Thursday 11 March 2010 11:40:56, Frederik Ramm dijo:
> I'm not sure; my guess is that the world is silently waiting for
> Potlatch 2 to be released and will *then* complain about everything that
> *still* doesn't work.

The world is trying to *preemptively* ban potlatch 2 :-P

-- 
Iván Sánchez Ortega 

Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta 
compleja.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Student Project Ideas?

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Lars Francke wrote:

> > I suggest that API 0.8 would specify that any values in the database be
> > stored in some appropriate canonical form, with a flag to say if it is
> > naturally imperial or naturally metric. So heights and widths would be
> > stored (say) in integer millimetres or integer inches with a one-bit
> > flag to say which it is, and speed limits would be stored in integer
> > km/h or integer mph with a one-bit flag to say which it is. The API call
> > to obtain these values would have a parameter to say whether the user
> > wants metric, imperial or "how-it-was-specified".
>
> I am willing to bet any amount that this is not going to happen as was
> discussed on this and other mailing lists literally hundreds of time.
>
> Tags are free-form and you just have to take care to interpret the
> data properly. Yes it can be ambiguous but then you can just fix the
> data or ignore it.
> In your special case we should tag what's "on the sign" whatever unit
> that's in.
>


Well, I want to point out that introducing some of the semweb technologies
would allow for people to mark up their tags and create schemas for them.

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Student Project Ideas?

[Lars Francke]

> I suggest that API 0.8 would specify that any values in the database be
> stored in some appropriate canonical form, with a flag to say if it is
> naturally imperial or naturally metric. So heights and widths would be
> stored (say) in integer millimetres or integer inches with a one-bit
> flag to say which it is, and speed limits would be stored in integer
> km/h or integer mph with a one-bit flag to say which it is. The API call
> to obtain these values would have a parameter to say whether the user
> wants metric, imperial or "how-it-was-specified".

I am willing to bet any amount that this is not going to happen as was
discussed on this and other mailing lists literally hundreds of time.

Tags are free-form and you just have to take care to interpret the
data properly. Yes it can be ambiguous but then you can just fix the
data or ignore it.
In your special case we should tag what's "on the sign" whatever unit that's in.

Cheers,
Lars

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributing to PL2 (was: Re: Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward and back)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Is it worse or better than the PL1 codebase ?:)

Do you want a serious answer to that? :)

The codebase is a lot more "proper": there's packages and  
private/protected variables and all of that. You could probably write  
unit tests for it if you like that sort of thing. Basically, AS3 is a  
much more rigorously structured language and P2 is a much more  
rigorously structured codebase.

P2 also has the advantage that there is no live mode. It's difficult  
to overestimate how much this simplifies the code.

P2 itself is a Flex app (the Adobe UI framework) so you can just throw  
in dialogues, menus and all of that, whereas in AS1 there's no  
framework so all of P1's UI code is custom-written.

I think the main disadvantage of AS3 over AS1 is its verbosity: some  
things that take one line to do in AS1 take three or four in AS3.  
Loaders and event listeners are the main examples. AS3's display list  
is IMO harder to work with: I always liked the way that you could just  
traverse the movieclip hierarchy in AS1. Oh, and Flex is nowhere near  
as fast as Ming!

cheers
Richard


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributing to PL2 (was: Re: Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward and back)

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:38, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> Sweet. How hard can ActionScript be, really? (I've done plenty of C,
>> Delphi, Java etc in the distant past, usually the difficulty is not
>> the language, it's learning the codebase.)
>
> Exactly. If you know Java then you shouldn't find AS3 much of a
> stretch at all - think of something halfway between Java and
> JavaScript. The library is huge but the docs are, fortunately, pretty
> good. I found event listeners a bit bizarre at first, and the whole
> URLLoader/Loader mess still alternately confuses and annoys me. But
> generally it's very understandable.

Is it worse or better than the PL1 codebase ?:)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:30, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Java6 has been around for more than three years now (and other OSM
> software, e.g. Osmosis, already depends on it) so if you are still using
> an older version it might be time to upgrade. (If you are in the
> unfortunate situation of having willfully chained yourself to one
> Hardware/OS supplier and that supplier is unwilling to release Java6 for
> your platform, it may be time to finally ditch that supplier.)

Now JOSM is compiled with Java 6 in Java 5 compatibility mode and
users like me run it with Java 6. Aside from the developers being able
to use neat Java 6 features will the existing Java 6 users notice any
speedup differences as a result of this? I.e. does java6-as-5 generate
dumbed-down bytecode that java5 that might be replaced by fancier and
faster java6-as-6 instructions?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributing to PL2 (was: Re: Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward and back)

[Andy Allan]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> How hard can ActionScript be, really?

If I can do it, anyone can.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Student Project Ideas?

[Kai Krueger]

On 01/-10/-28163 08:59 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> ...
> I think a more useful criticism would include some specific ideas...

Well, if we are throwing around random ideas, I might as well chime in 
too...

To state it upfront, I am not involved in any of the parts suggested, so 
I can neither fully judge the scope nor offer mentoring, but in case 
some one else finds the suggestions reasonable, they might make them 
into proper proposals.

1) Integrate a continuous integration framework into JOSM and write the 
appropriate unit and integration tests.

JOSM seems to have a fair number of people contributing to its code 
base, which is great, but also potentially increases the likelihood of 
bugs, if people with less experience of the full code base contribute. 
So a good set of automatic tests, could help ensure JOSM doesn't break 
too often and hopefully attract even more developers, if, thanks to 
tests, one doesn't always have to fear breaking some remote part due to 
dependencies one didn't know about. The scope "write unit tests..." is 
fairly flexible and thus should be possible to make it appropriate for a 
3 month student project. Also it probably can be considered sufficiently 
as "coding" to still qualify. It might not be the most exiting project 
ever, but I could imagine it being very useful to OSM and given the 
student is paid for it through Google, it might still attract someone. 
But people involved in writing JOSM would have to see if it is actually 
useful or just a stupid idea.


2) Optimize one of the existing routing engines to be a good quality 
assurance tool of suitability of OSM data for routing.

Again, I am not entirely sure what exists already, but I don't think any 
of the routers (YOURS/gosmore, OpenRouteService, Cloudmade, 
pgrouting,...) work off of the minutely diffs yet. For quality 
assurance, a short turn around between trying to fix a bug and verifying 
that it has indeed been fixed is quite important. So getting down the 
update frequencies to ideally minutely diffs but perhaps at least hourly 
or daily would be very useful. If at the same time it is scalable enough 
to offer it to a large number of editors as a webservice (by e.g. using 
a better algorithm than the standard A* search), it could be a useful 
tool to help getting OSMs routability up to par.
I can't really judge the scope of such a project, but again it feels 
like it probably should be possible to adjust the requirements to make 
it a feasible 3 month project.


As said, it is just throwing in some ideas. But given that GSoC is 
probably the closest to "if only code would magically appear" we will 
get, I hope those suggestions don't harm anyone ;-)

Kai


>...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

lets put it in a different perspective :

Make the documentation as part of the program!

I would like to see for example a help system that is integrated to the
wiki,
Click on a tag, have it pull up the wiki entry, be able to add new unknown
tags or rename them.
We could even have an OWL Ontology created with a reasoning engine to
specify rules for tagging.

Really, the software should be so good that you dont need docs or videos.

mike

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

> > GSoc
> > student pool is a very talented one - it would be good to use them for
> more
> > critical things. Of course, OSM unlike other projects is basically a
> > collection of tools maintained by various people, so difficult to achieve
> a
> > consensus.
> >>
>
> Having one place of knowhow of mapping is quite critical for project
> like OSM. And believe me, creating good documentation requires quite a
> skill and isn't easiest job in IT world as we would like to see.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] OSM for walkers / hikers - getting it going!

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for the responses on this. What I would like to do this year is 
really try to bring together everyone on the list who is interested in 
developing OSM software (both web and mobile) for walkers (hikers) so that 
we can make a good go of exchanging ideas and developing software. To this 
end, I propose to add the new version of Freemap (0.5) to the main OSM SVN 
repository when it's ready so that there's a place where people can hack 
on stuff they're interested in. I think that in certain areas now 
(southern England and various parts of Germany) there's enough data to 
make OSM really useful for walkers so I think the time is right for a push 
on this.

So I'd like to collect together a number of initial idea. I've started a 
template wiki page:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_for_walkers

and feel free to send me suggestions via the Freemap blog or email, see

http://www.free-map.org.uk/wordpress/?p=103

It would be really good to try and get together a development community 
and exchange of ideas for a "walkers' OSM" so I'm wondering - would it be 
worthwhile creating a dedicated mailing list? osm-outdoors or osm-hikers 
or something similar?

Thanks,
Nick


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Peteris Krisjanis]

> GSoc
> student pool is a very talented one - it would be good to use them for more
> critical things. Of course, OSM unlike other projects is basically a
> collection of tools maintained by various people, so difficult to achieve a
> consensus.
>>

Having one place of knowhow of mapping is quite critical for project
like OSM. And believe me, creating good documentation requires quite a
skill and isn't easiest job in IT world as we would like to see.

Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Thursday 11 Mar 2010 4:02:22 pm you wrote:
> > actually Gsoc is meant for developing the application as such (as in
> > writing code), not working on end user documentation and tools.
> 
> Not only, I know several projects where user manuals and documentation
> where created during GSoC. There was one localization effort too. Not
> fully sure, but I think this could fly.

I myself am only an enduser of OSM - at the most I have contributed a few 
icons, but as a long term lurker on the GSoC list, I *have* noticed that some 
projects set their goals a bit low - and others set them very high. GSoc 
student pool is a very talented one - it would be good to use them for more 
critical things. Of course, OSM unlike other projects is basically a 
collection of tools maintained by various people, so difficult to achieve a 
consensus.
> 
> So more or less I think it is excellent idea for OSM GSoC, because it
> is doable for student, project will benefit greatly and result can be
> extensible beyond one summer and one student's efforts.
> 

from the quality of students that I have seen - 'doable' has quite a high 
standard. That said, I will go back to the lurking mode.

-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://certificate.nrcfoss.au-kbc.org.in

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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:

> I'm not sure; my guess is that the world is silently waiting for
> Potlatch 2 to be released and will *then* complain about everything
> that *still* doesn't work.
>
> (My info comes from several mentions on, you guessed it, talk-de.)

Oh, I'd guessed that much. No-one outside .de actually _uses_ relation  
ordering. ;)

Seriously, though - as ever - if someone can provide a helpful trac  
ticket with "this is what it currently does, this is what it should  
do, here are the steps to reproduce" then I can at least look into it.  
And Potlatch 2 does indeed have wondrous relation handling (courtesy  
of Andy) with ordering and everything.

cheers
Richard


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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Dave Stubbs]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>> The world doesn't require Potlatch 2 wondrousness. The world would
>>> already sigh with relief if Potlatch could be made to not break
>>> relation ordering when a way is split ;-)
>>
>> Has the world lodged a trac ticket?
>
> I'm not sure; my guess is that the world is silently waiting for
> Potlatch 2 to be released and will *then* complain about everything that
> *still* doesn't work.
>
> (My info comes from several mentions on, you guessed it, talk-de.)
>


I hereby present figure 1: Drag and drop relation reordering in Potlatch 2.

http://random.dev.openstreetmap.org/relation%20edit.png

:-)

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributing to PL2 (was: Re: Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward and back)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Steve Bennett wrote:

> Sweet. How hard can ActionScript be, really? (I've done plenty of C,
> Delphi, Java etc in the distant past, usually the difficulty is not
> the language, it's learning the codebase.)

Exactly. If you know Java then you shouldn't find AS3 much of a  
stretch at all - think of something halfway between Java and  
JavaScript. The library is huge but the docs are, fortunately, pretty  
good. I found event listeners a bit bizarre at first, and the whole  
URLLoader/Loader mess still alternately confuses and annoys me. But  
generally it's very understandable.

cheers
Richard


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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> The world doesn't require Potlatch 2 wondrousness. The world would
>> already sigh with relief if Potlatch could be made to not break
>> relation ordering when a way is split ;-)
> 
> Has the world lodged a trac ticket?

I'm not sure; my guess is that the world is silently waiting for 
Potlatch 2 to be released and will *then* complain about everything that 
*still* doesn't work.

(My info comes from several mentions on, you guessed it, talk-de.)

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:

> The world doesn't require Potlatch 2 wondrousness. The world would
> already sigh with relief if Potlatch could be made to not break
> relation ordering when a way is split ;-)

Has the world lodged a trac ticket?

cheers
Richard


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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> If you are in the unfortunate situation of having willfully 
>> chained yourself to one Hardware/OS supplier and that 
>> supplier is unwilling to release Java6 for your platform, 
>> it may be time to finally ditch
> 
> ...JOSM in anticipation of imminent Potlatch 2 wondrousness.

The world doesn't require Potlatch 2 wondrousness. The world would 
already sigh with relief if Potlatch could be made to not break relation 
ordering when a way is split ;-)

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Thursday 11 Mar 2010 3:42:47 pm jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> That is a great idea.
> What about making video as well, on how to use OSM/JOSM/Potlatch how to get
> started. Video Screencasts?
> 

actually Gsoc is meant for developing the application as such (as in writing 
code), not working on end user documentation and tools.
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://certificate.nrcfoss.au-kbc.org.in

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

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If you are in the unfortunate situation of having willfully 
> chained yourself to one Hardware/OS supplier and that 
> supplier is unwilling to release Java6 for your platform, 
> it may be time to finally ditch

...JOSM in anticipation of imminent Potlatch 2 wondrousness.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://n2.nabble.com/JOSM-will-move-to-Java6-tp4714947p4715170.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] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

That is a great idea.
What about making video as well, on how to use OSM/JOSM/Potlatch how to get
started. Video Screencasts?
mike

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

> For one of OSM GSoC'10 projects I would like to suggest "unofficial
> guide" for mapping. We all know that there is a little haos in tagging
> (some says it's good, some says it bad), but so far biggest confusion
> comes from not how to tag things, but how to tag complex situations or
> how to even map complex situations (and that's without even taking
> micro mapping into account).
>
> What we need is nice guide where is said - basic roads are maped like
> this, crossroads created this way, this must be connected with that,
> etc. It would also create a nice little base for futher experiments
> and ideas. There's nothing wrong with seeking out alternative tags or
> ways of mapping, but this at least should be documented somewhere.
>
> More or less everyone who would take this task would have to go trough
> all archives, look for discusions and conlusions (and even if there is
> no conlusion, writing down all sane opinions would help greatly) and
> write it down in casual user manual style.
>
> Just a idea, but I think worth to explore,
> cheers,
> Peter.
>
> 2010/3/11 Graham Jones :
> > Mike.
> > Thank you for your suggestion.
> > I do not know where the apache licence ref comes from.  This year's
> > application says GPL with a note saying some is PD.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> > On Mar 11, 2010 7:36 AM, "jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com"
> >  wrote:
> >
> > My GSOC  suggestion :
> >
> > Get the potlatch running without any Adobe software, use gnash.
> >
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GSoC_Project_Ideas_2010#Porting_of_Potlatch_to_use_FLOSS_tools_and_viewer
> >
> > Also why does google list OSM as being apache licensed?
> > http://code.google.com/soc/2008/streetmap/about.html
> > Preferred license: Apache License, 2.0
> > Since when?
> >
> > I am putting all my new code under the affero GPL 3.0.
> >
> > mike
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Rajan Vaish 
> wrote:
> >> > Thanks Graham, > >...
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> mortigi tempo
> Pēteris Krišjānis
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Peteris Krisjanis]

For one of OSM GSoC'10 projects I would like to suggest "unofficial
guide" for mapping. We all know that there is a little haos in tagging
(some says it's good, some says it bad), but so far biggest confusion
comes from not how to tag things, but how to tag complex situations or
how to even map complex situations (and that's without even taking
micro mapping into account).

What we need is nice guide where is said - basic roads are maped like
this, crossroads created this way, this must be connected with that,
etc. It would also create a nice little base for futher experiments
and ideas. There's nothing wrong with seeking out alternative tags or
ways of mapping, but this at least should be documented somewhere.

More or less everyone who would take this task would have to go trough
all archives, look for discusions and conlusions (and even if there is
no conlusion, writing down all sane opinions would help greatly) and
write it down in casual user manual style.

Just a idea, but I think worth to explore,
cheers,
Peter.

2010/3/11 Graham Jones :
> Mike.
> Thank you for your suggestion.
> I do not know where the apache licence ref comes from.  This year's
> application says GPL with a note saying some is PD.
>
> Graham
>
> On Mar 11, 2010 7:36 AM, "jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com"
>  wrote:
>
> My GSOC  suggestion :
>
> Get the potlatch running without any Adobe software, use gnash.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GSoC_Project_Ideas_2010#Porting_of_Potlatch_to_use_FLOSS_tools_and_viewer
>
> Also why does google list OSM as being apache licensed?
> http://code.google.com/soc/2008/streetmap/about.html
> Preferred license: Apache License, 2.0
> Since when?
>
> I am putting all my new code under the affero GPL 3.0.
>
> mike
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Rajan Vaish  wrote:
>> > Thanks Graham, > >...
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>



-- 
mortigi tempo
Pēteris Krišjānis

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

[OSM-talk] JOSM will move to Java6

[Frederik Ramm]

All,

Dirk (the current JOSM maintainer) has just announced on josm-dev 
that JOSM will move to Java6 around the end of this month. This means 
that anyone who does not have Java6 may continue to work with the 
current JOSM release but will not be able to use the new builds from 
April on.

Backports will be possible but will likely imply a loss of 
functionality, and the core JOSM team is not going to provide backports.

Java6 has been around for more than three years now (and other OSM 
software, e.g. Osmosis, already depends on it) so if you are still using 
an older version it might be time to upgrade. (If you are in the 
unfortunate situation of having willfully chained yourself to one 
Hardware/OS supplier and that supplier is unwilling to release Java6 for 
your platform, it may be time to finally ditch that supplier.)

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] GSoC'10

[Graham Jones]

Mike.
Thank you for your suggestion.
I do not know where the apache licence ref comes from.  This year's
application says GPL with a note saying some is PD.

Graham

On Mar 11, 2010 7:36 AM, "jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com" <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:

My GSOC  suggestion :

Get the potlatch running without any Adobe software, use gnash.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GSoC_Project_Ideas_2010#Porting_of_Potlatch_to_use_FLOSS_tools_and_viewer

Also why does google list OSM as being apache licensed?
http://code.google.com/soc/2008/streetmap/about.html
*Preferred license: Apache License, 2.0
Since when?

I am putting all my new code under the affero GPL 3.0.
*
mike

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Rajan Vaish  wrote:
> > Thanks Graham, > >...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk