Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

Hi,
here is a humble suggestion, instead of giving *everything* unique id,
we might focus on making some form of permalink that is usable upon
request. Like for wikipedia articles etc, that we can link to and be
relatively sure that the link will still be there. Some form of watch
tool that would inform the user that the permalink he created is
broken.
It would be easier to maintain a list of "don't break me" links than
to rework the whole system.
mike

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:19 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 3 June 2010 16:07, Maarten Deen  wrote:
>> Keep the node (not because of the ID, but because of the POI meaning) and
>> add the area as a non-named area with only tags to indicate usage.
>> Optionally add them all in a relation.
>> That way you keep the POI for POI collectors, you can use the POI to
>> position the name on the map and still have the site visible as an area on
>> the map.
>>
>> Other solution: have POI collectors rewrite their code to consider areas
>> too (and use the average location of all points in the area as the POI
>> location).
>>
>> I must say I have not always mapped according to the first rule myself.
>> But IMHO this is a point that needs discussing, for the POI collector's
>> sake.
>
> Even if you did map for the POI collectors they still need to take
> into account POIs added as areas by others, so it seems like poor
> coding not to deal with POIs as areas in any case.
>
> ___
> 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] Giving everything a unique ID

[John Smith]

On 3 June 2010 16:07, Maarten Deen  wrote:
> Keep the node (not because of the ID, but because of the POI meaning) and
> add the area as a non-named area with only tags to indicate usage.
> Optionally add them all in a relation.
> That way you keep the POI for POI collectors, you can use the POI to
> position the name on the map and still have the site visible as an area on
> the map.
>
> Other solution: have POI collectors rewrite their code to consider areas
> too (and use the average location of all points in the area as the POI
> location).
>
> I must say I have not always mapped according to the first rule myself.
> But IMHO this is a point that needs discussing, for the POI collector's
> sake.

Even if you did map for the POI collectors they still need to take
into account POIs added as areas by others, so it seems like poor
coding not to deal with POIs as areas in any case.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[Maarten Deen]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Simon Biber
 wrote:
> Gregory  wrote:
>> If I'm mapping I try and keep nodes intact and edit the tagging
>> to preserve the ID and history, but there are cases where this
>> can't happen.
> 
> Another example where ID and history are lost is when we change items
from
> single nodes to areas, as we get higher resolution photo maps (like
> NearMap) or more accurate GPS / inertial positioning devices. Recently I
> have been deleting nodes and recreating them as areas for playgrounds,
> tennis courts, swimming pools, etc.
> 
> Apart from the loss of ID and history, this also affects clients such as
> Mapzen POI Collector. Once a point of interest is no longer a single
node,
> Mapzen does not consider it as a point of interest or allow it to be
> edited. It even disappears from the map entirely for several weeks,
until
> Mapzen's base layer is re-rendered to show the area.
> 
> Does anyone have a good solution for this?

Keep the node (not because of the ID, but because of the POI meaning) and
add the area as a non-named area with only tags to indicate usage.
Optionally add them all in a relation.
That way you keep the POI for POI collectors, you can use the POI to
position the name on the map and still have the site visible as an area on
the map.

Other solution: have POI collectors rewrite their code to consider areas
too (and use the average location of all points in the area as the POI
location). 

I must say I have not always mapped according to the first rule myself.
But IMHO this is a point that needs discussing, for the POI collector's
sake.

Maarten

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

[OSM-talk] SahanaCamp and Workshop - July 2010 - Delhi, India

[Tim McNamara]

Hi all,

If there are any OSM members in the sub-continent, I recommend this event.
Sahana makes heavy use of Open Street Maps, and GIS systems in general. It's
a great framework for developing applications in the humanitarian & disaster
response domains. I'm sure many of the participants would be interested in
collaborating.

My best,

Tim McNamara

-- Forwarded message --
From: Michael Howden 
Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Subject: [Sahana-user] SahanaCamp and Workshop - July 2010 - Delhi, India
To: sahana-u...@lists.sourceforge.net, Sahana developers' list <
sahana-main...@lists.sourceforge.net>, sahana-e...@googlegroups.com


UPCOMING EVENTS:
-

SahanaCamp
2nd - 5th July 20100
For Programmers and Web Designers who are interested in building Information
Technology Solutions for Disasters and Development

Sahana Workshop "Information Technology Solutions for Disasters and
Development"
3rd July 2010
For people working for NGOs/UN/Government/Other Agencies and others
interested in Information Technology Solutions for Disasters and Development


Location:
Sarai-CSDS
29 Rajpur Road
Civil Lines
Delhi - 110054
India

Cost:
FREE

Applications:
Spaces are limited. Applications close 14th June.

Sahana Workshop:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHkwMEs0QzZmcnQ4YlVHMFR5U1JB
ZXc6MQ
SahanaCamp (includes Sahana Workshop):
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dG9IcHJ6SlNCWG5COTFfbUVaSExW
R1E6MQ


Sahana
---
Sahana is a Free and Open Source Disaster Management System which was
started in Sri Lanka after the 2004 Tsunami. It is a web based collaboration
tool that addresses the common coordination problems during a disaster from
finding missing people, managing aid, managing volunteers, tracking camps
effectively between Government groups, the civil society (NGOs) and the
people affected by disasters.
www.sahanafoundation.org


Details

Sahana Workshop is a one day event which will provide an introduction to how
information technology can be used to assist organisations working in
disasters and development. It will include opportunities to share
experiences and lessons learned with others who have worked in this area.
You'll get hand on experience using the Sahana Eden
(http://eden.sahanafoundation.org/) platform which was deployed in response
to the Earthquake in Haiti and includes SMS and Mapping technologies.
Finally, you'll have the opportunity to share your real world needs for
information technology solutions to provide input for the future development
of Sahana.

SahanaCamp is a four day long intensive event, for programmers and web
designers who are involved or interested in helping organizations working in
Disasters and Development. You will be introduced to programming in Python
on the Sahana Eden Rapid Application Development (RAD) platform. You will be
developing real solutions to meet real needs such as Logistics,
Organisational Management and Mapping or according to your needs. You'll be
working aside members of the core Sahana Eden development team, who will be
there to support and encourage you along. SahanaCamp would be ideal for
programmers and web designers who are developing solution for Disasters and
Development organizations.
Participants are expected to have existing programming or design skills (and
will certainly learn some new ones during the camp!).

Venue
--
Sarai is a programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies,
(CSDS)  one of India's leading research institutes with a commitment to
critical and dissenting thought and a focus on critically expanding the
horizons of the discourse on development, particularly with reference to
South Asia. We are a coalition of researchers and practitioners with a
commitment towards developing a model of research-practice that is public
and creative, in which multiple voices express and render themselves in a
variety of forms.
www.sarai.net

For more information, please contact mich...@sahanafoundation.org or visit
http://wiki.sahanafoundation.org/doku.php/community:sahanacamp.

Could you please share this invitation amongst your networks and with other
who may be interested.

Regards

Michael Howden
mich...@sahanafoundation.org


--

___
Sahana-user mailing list
sahana-u...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sahana-user
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[John Smith]

On 3 June 2010 12:57, Alan Mintz  wrote:
> I have no problem with giving things a permid. But seriously, we can't go
> around slapping stickers on the physical world. It's called vandalism.

I did say "and ask business owners to put them up in their windows" in
my first post...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[Alan Mintz]

I have no problem with giving things a permid. But seriously, we can't go 
around slapping stickers on the physical world. It's called vandalism.

--
Alan Mintz 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Request for comments: Playground Equipment Proposal

[David Murn]

On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 07:06 +1000, Liz wrote:
> > but anyway as voting just finished and it was not
> > anounced on the list and the tag is not wide used, I would say we should
> > set it back to proposed and wait for some response.
> > 
> What reason other your personal ignorance do you have for restarting a 
> process 
> which has been fully completed?

The committee of the Wildlife Foundation would be impressed.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[John Smith]

On 3 June 2010 11:45,   wrote:
> or which door bell to press, or the phone number, or

The phone number can already be added to objects, but at this point in
time there is no ID permanence, which would be useful. As an added
bonus it would be some free advertising for OSM.

> but seriously... there is a limit to the amount of data we should be
> placing into the OSM servers.

What is that limit exactly? and more to the point who determines it?
under what conditions?

> I would think that a small 2D barcode with lat/long might suffice for
> getting someone there, or providing navigation services to that location.
> You are welcome to have alternate ideas.

This isn't supposed to be a navigational aide, it's an ID permanence
aide, something that can't be done at present with OSM and which can
be detrimental for sharing objects from OSM with other 3rd parties,
for example the osmfuel.org site uses OSM IDs for fuel locations, but
these IDs can change at which point the new ID will need to be found
so the information can stay cross referenced.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[simon]

> On 3 June 2010 10:04,   wrote:
>> The 'shortlink' does not describe an object with OSM, it describes a
>> location on the planet (akin to a lat/long).
>
> Yup, exactly, and it doesn't describe a level in the case of a
> multilevel building, both above and below ground.
>

or which door bell to press, or the phone number, or

but seriously... there is a limit to the amount of data we should be
placing into the OSM servers.

I would think that a small 2D barcode with lat/long might suffice for
getting someone there, or providing navigation services to that location.
You are welcome to have alternate ideas.

Simon


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[John Smith]

On 3 June 2010 10:52, Simon Biber  wrote:
> Does anyone have a good solution for this?

That's what this thread is about, printing out stickers that have
their own unique ID, then tagging objects with that ID...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[John Smith]

On 3 June 2010 10:24, Gregory  wrote:
> If you want a QR code, I understand these are usually(always?) just internet
> URLs converted into a 2D barcode. For this you can
> use http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/125847545

QR codes are 2 dimension matrix that store information, which could be
textual information address formats or even URLs. Although we could
use URLs that include the ID number. The all we need is a bunch of
mobile printers to print these things on demand... :)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[Simon Biber]

Gregory  wrote:
> If I'm mapping I try and keep nodes intact and edit the tagging
> to preserve the ID and history, but there are cases where this
> can't happen.

Another example where ID and history are lost is when we change items from 
single nodes to areas, as we get higher resolution photo maps (like NearMap) or 
more accurate GPS / inertial positioning devices. Recently I have been deleting 
nodes and recreating them as areas for playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming 
pools, etc.

Apart from the loss of ID and history, this also affects clients such as Mapzen 
POI Collector. Once a point of interest is no longer a single node, Mapzen does 
not consider it as a point of interest or allow it to be edited. It even 
disappears from the map entirely for several weeks, until Mapzen's base layer 
is re-rendered to show the area.

Does anyone have a good solution for this?

Regards
Simon.



  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[Gregory]

On 3 June 2010 01:04,  wrote:
>
> >
> > The point is people are consistently told OSM IDs shouldn't be
> > considered as unique as the object could be deleted/merged/whatever
> > and so the previous ID is no longer valid even if the object exists
> > with other IDs.
>
> How can you counter-act this? If I'm mapping I try and keep nodes intact
and edit the tagging to preserve the ID and history, but there are cases
where this can't happen. For example I know a map that closed and got
removed from the map (it looked like it would be converted to houses rather
than re opened), but it reopened and I had to add it as a new node.

If you want a QR code, I understand these are usually(always?) just internet
URLs converted into a 2D barcode. For this you can use
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/125847545


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[John Smith]

On 3 June 2010 10:04,   wrote:
> The 'shortlink' does not describe an object with OSM, it describes a
> location on the planet (akin to a lat/long).

Yup, exactly, and it doesn't describe a level in the case of a
multilevel building, both above and below ground.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Giving everything a unique ID

[simon]

> On 3 June 2010 05:22,   wrote:
>> What would be the purpose of (say) a 2D barcode displayed in the window?
>> I
>> mean, you're all ready there
>
> The purpose is to give things a unique ID, the QR code could embed a
> very unique ID and then that ID can be used to identify that location
> in OSM, rather than trying to use OSM object IDs which may change.
>
>> What 'we' could do is provide a auto-magic image/QR-Code/DataMatrix
>> containing a 'short code URL' to a map of the location displayed in
>> OpenStreetMap on the 'data' page for that node.
>
> The point is people are consistently told OSM IDs shouldn't be
> considered as unique as the object could be deleted/merged/whatever
> and so the previous ID is no longer valid even if the object exists
> with other IDs.
>

The 'shortlink' does not describe an object with OSM, it describes a
location on the planet (akin to a lat/long).

ie:
http://osm.org/go/0EEQCvG5-?m

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shortlink

Cheers,
Simon




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Michael Eric Menk]

On 06/02/2010 03:03 PM, Henry Loenwind wrote:

routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment="street layout hard to follow for non-locals"

routing:hints:motorcar:prefer=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment="faster traffic than the parallel primary"

   

Nice.. +1

This would be nice for Norway.. Where some of the parallel roads can be 
very bad...


routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:note="parallel road have a lane in each 
direction, and fits to cars at the same time"


This could help routing away from one-lane road, with a lower quality 
than this road [1], that are 100m shorter than the 2-laner. (one each way).


[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Norway-Rv7-important_single_lane_road.jpg


This is a common problem with GPS in Norway.

If this is the best road trough the aria ( E 16 ) 
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Kvamskleiva,_Vang.jpg , then you do not 
want the second best...


*E 16* is the designation of a main west-east road through Norhern 
Ireland, Scotland, Norway and soon Sweden. 



--

Michael Eric Menk
Linkedin: http://no.linkedin.com/in/mikemenk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Request for comments: Playground Equipment Proposal

[Liz]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, colliar wrote:
> Am 01.06.2010 16:01, schrieb lulu-...@gmx.de:
> > Hi there,
> > 
> > this is not my proposal, but as RfC was forgotten I ask for your comments
> > now.
> > 
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Playground_Equipment
It has been well discussed on mailing list, tagging, where info on tagging now 
goes
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-March/001644.html
Just because it doesn't have RFC in the title doesn't mean it wasn't done

> 
> I think it is not bad,
thanks for your opinion

> but anyway as voting just finished and it was not
> anounced on the list and the tag is not wide used, I would say we should
> set it back to proposed and wait for some response.
> 
What reason other your personal ignorance do you have for restarting a process 
which has been fully completed?

> I do not get why it is too hard to send two emails to some mailing-lists.
The emails were sent.
you might check the wiki, and find that recently someone, not me, changed the 
list for notification to "tagging" from "talk", now that tagging is nearly one 
year old.
You can join here
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

> 
> colliar

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets  wrote:

> When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write
> software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward
> compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't
> want to waste time on finding the legal status of everything.
>

Then don't use tags which indicate the legal status.  Easy peasy, right?

The rest of your post focused on what a "routing engine" should do.  But
this discussion isn't about the routing engine.  Different routing engines
are going to have different rules.  This is about the data, and the data
should be unambiguous.  That means not using the same tag for "illegal" and
"bad for the environment" and "unsafe".
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[SomeoneElse]

Nic Roets wrote:
> Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average
> people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map
> Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc.
>
>   
One advantage that OSM has over the commercial people is that routes get 
mapped proportionately to how real people actually want to use them 
rather than what's commercial available or commercially viable to 
re-map.  If you try and use Google Maps for pedestrian routing in 
England it'll avoid major roads, but it also ignores the plethora of 
footpaths (and more recently cycleways) that are available*.  I don't 
know of anyone else (and in the UK outside of towns that includes the 
Ordnance Survey) who has up-to-date non-road pedestrian paths available.

Other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. Postman Pat) I doubt that 
there's any money in pedestrian routing.

Cheers,
Andy


* Google's "public transport" (essentially bus) routing is excellent 
where it's available though - although it does seem to assume that you'd 
rather wait an hour for another bus rather than walk a couple of miles 
though!


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[SomeoneElse]

Anthony wrote:
>
> Room to get off the road.  That's what I was referring to as a "shoulder".
>
Here in the third world (Derbyshire, England) we call those "hedges".  
If I avoided walking along roads without a shoulder or sidewalk of any 
sort I wouldn't get very far.

I think that we're hitting cultural differences here.  When I've been in 
the US there seems to be more of a general assumption that 
non-residential roads are for cars only and other paths (if provided, if 
you're very lucky) are for cyclists and the tiny number of pedestrians.  
In the UK the assumption has historically been that most roads are for 
everyone, with cars if necessary giving way to horses and pedestrian 
traffic.  Obviously some roads (e.g. motorways, some trunk links) are 
signed exceptions. 

It simply isn't possible to globally say that a road without a sidewalk 
is safe or unsafe (as opposed to legal) based on its attributes, unless 
someone's been there and said "yes, I've been down there and it's safe 
to walk down" - even then it'll vary by time of day / year.  Does anyone 
already use tags to indicate that?  How widely are they in use?  I can 
see lots of suggestions further down the thread but am more interested 
in what people are already using.

Cheers,
Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cloudmade routing issue

[Maarten Deen]

Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> I know this isn't the Cloudmade list, but a recent thread here got
> some results. I used the feedback link but never got a response.

That's strange. I've always gotten a response from Cloudmade.

> If you go to 
> http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=40.257259&lng=-74.289401&zoom=16&directions=40.2545894931206,-74.28884267807007,40.256497279719156,-74.29014086723328,40.25585043964603,-74.29341316223145&travel=car&styleId=1&opened_tab=1
> and remove destination point B, it changes to a much longer route. I
> believe all the turn restrictions are correct (this is a jughandle,
> where you exit right to turn left), but the routing engine doesn't
> like to use it. Can someone make sure they're aware of it?

My guess is that the routing engine dismisses the jughandle because it is a 
longer route to the crossing point, and only discovers at the crossing point 
that it can't turn left, so it routes onward without considering the jughandle 
again.

I'd just fill in another feedback form. I'm sure they must have overlooked your 
first report.

Regards,
Maarten

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

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [CrisisMappers] Karachi

[Jean-Guilhem Cailton]

 Message original 
Sujet:  [CrisisMappers] Karachi
Date :  Wed, 2 Jun 2010 06:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
De :Chris 
Répondre à :crisismapp...@googlegroups.com
Pour :  CrisisMappers 



by most forecasts is about to get slammed with a major cyclone...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"CrisisMappers" group.
To post to this group, send email to crisismapp...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
crisismappers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/crisismappers?hl=en.




Time to complete a recent project of the week ?
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week/2010/May_09)

Jean-Guilhem


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Fw: Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 3 June 2010 00:24, Anthony  wrote:
>> This woman is claiming she wasn't warned the route might be bad, so to
>> ensure that people don't forget they agreed to view the warning only
>> once, everyone will be forced to view it every time regardless.
>
> Really?  Do you have a link for that?

About the woman's claim or about my speculation?

For the former, it was in the original post for this thread:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-May/050766.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Fw: Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:16 AM, John Smith wrote:

> On 3 June 2010 00:15, Anthony  wrote:
> > They could always require people to log in.  Or require people to log in
> if
> > they want to put up with the annoying terms and conditions only once.
>
> This woman is claiming she wasn't warned the route might be bad, so to
> ensure that people don't forget they agreed to view the warning only
> once, everyone will be forced to view it every time regardless.
>

Really?  Do you have a link for that?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Fw: Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 3 June 2010 00:15, Anthony  wrote:
> They could always require people to log in.  Or require people to log in if
> they want to put up with the annoying terms and conditions only once.

This woman is claiming she wasn't warned the route might be bad, so to
ensure that people don't forget they agreed to view the warning only
once, everyone will be forced to view it every time regardless.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Fw: Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Anthony]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:49 AM, John Smith wrote:

> Worst than that, it could lead to even more stupid terms and
> conditions annoying you over and over and over again after every route
> request.


They could always require people to log in.  Or require people to log in if
they want to put up with the annoying terms and conditions only once.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Fw: Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 23:37, Nick Whitelegg  wrote:
> shape or form. Time this sort of ridiculous litigiousness is stopped
> before it completely restricts people's freedom to do anything remotely
> creative.

Worst than that, it could lead to even more stupid terms and
conditions annoying you over and over and over again after every route
request. The situation we're in today isn't one of care and
responsibility, it's all about covering your butt from legal attacks
by making it seem like you are doing something about care and
responsibility (of other peoples stupidity).

Take for example supermarkets, they often have up in large signs about
how kids should ride in trolleys, however 9 times out of 10 no kid is
riding safely on trolleys, or even in trolleys and the supermarkets
are virtually forced to put up big signs to cover themselves from
other people's mistakes and stupidity.

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

[OSM-talk] Fw: Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nick Whitelegg]

Sorry, this was intended for the *list*, not Anthony. Damn mail client...

>She wasn't playing, she was walking to her destination.  I can't tell 
from the pictures whether it was her fault for following the route, her 
fault for >walking on the wrong side of the road, her fault for not 
staying close enough to the side of the road, the government's fault for 
not banning >pedestrians, the government's fault for setting too high of a 
speed limit, or the car driver's fault.  From the aerials it does look as 
though there was >enough room on at least one side of the road to walk (it 
wasn't a paved sidewalk, but whatever).

Well it's either her fault (for not being careful enough) or the driver's 
fault (for not being careful enough). It certainly isn't Google's, in any 
shape or form. Time this sort of ridiculous litigiousness is stopped 
before it completely restricts people's freedom to do anything remotely 
creative.

Nick

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Request for comments: Playground Equipment Proposal

[colliar]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Am 01.06.2010 16:01, schrieb lulu-...@gmx.de:
> Hi there,
> 
> this is not my proposal, but as RfC was forgotten I ask for your comments now.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Playground_Equipment

I think it is not bad, but anyway as voting just finished and it was not
anounced on the list and the tag is not wide used, I would say we should set it
back to proposed and wait for some response.

I do not get why it is too hard to send two emails to some mailing-lists.

colliar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREIAAYFAkwGXaEACgkQalWTFLzqsCu9KgCeO4ziuq9g3Zvi64TTV09miMou
4OwAoKEMYPeOotaXrTtco2YgmZW9JQdV
=xovp
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 23:03, Henry Loenwind  wrote:
> routing:hints:bike:comment="foot traffic avoidance costs time"

Looks good, except I'd use note instead of comment, only because it is
more commonly used already.

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

[OSM-talk] quality insurance tool osmose

[Etienne Chové]

Hello,

Osmose [1], a french quality insurance tool has now some analysers 
analysing data out of France.

* One of the analyser [2] is raising errors on relations 
boundary=adminitrative wich :
   - are not closed
   - have some end nodes more than two times (ie that some way is
 included more tha 2 times).

This backend is runned once a day.

It also analyses recursive relations (relations including other 
relations such as relation 11980).

* Another backend [3] is analysing self-intersecting polygons. It only 
raises errors on Europe and is runned twice a week (because of postgis 
import duration).



This quality insurance tool is multi backend, so people wanting to 
analyse data may report them on the main map. Update procedure is 
(lighly) described on the wiki [4].

Sources of my backends analysing data on france are available on [5].

[1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/map/cgi-bin/index.py
[2] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/map/cgi-bin/index.py?source=3
[3] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/map/cgi-bin/index.py?source=28
[4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmose
[5] http://osm1.crans.org/src/osmose/

-- 
Etienne

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Henry Loenwind]

On 02.06.2010 14:19, John Smith wrote:

> You could extend it a little and explain more specifically:
>
> unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc

routing:hints:foot:avoid=yes
routing:hints:foot:comment="fast traffic"

routing:hints:motorcar:avoid=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment="street layout hard to follow for non-locals"

routing:hints:motorcar:prefer=yes
routing:hints:motorcar:comment="faster traffic than the parallel primary"

routing:hints:bike:delay:1=40s
routing:hints:bike:delay:1:times=mo-sa:0700-1300,mo-fr:1700-1900
routing:hints:bike:delay:2=20s
routing:hints:bike:delay:2:times=su:1400-22:00
routing:hints:bike:comment="foot traffic avoidance costs time"

Just the seed of an idea...

Henry

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John F. Eldredge]

Good suggestion.

--Original Message--
From: John Smith
To: John Eldredge
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Sent: Jun 2, 2010 7:19 AM

On 2 June 2010 22:06, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would 
> say, "yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.". This would be particularly 
> suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others, such 
> as roads with narrow shoulders, risky to walk on after dark.

You could extend it a little and explain more specifically:

unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc


-- 
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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>> As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
>> bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
>> see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles
>> unless the paved area extends all the way to the edge of the
>> right-of-way. The idea that one should not walk on certain roadways
>> where walking is legal, simply because certain drivers can't drive, is
>> ridiculous, and leads to legal restrictions that prohibit reasonable
>
> Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average
> people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map
> Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc.

Then we'll lose them. If they want incorrect tagging, we don't have to
cater to them.
>
> There are many reasons why a routing engine should not follow the
> legal definition of right of way:
> 1. Safety (as discussed here).
> 2. Permissive. Fortunately a tag was defined for it long ago.
> 3. An illegal barrier (gate or fence) has been erected. And you may
> think that this strange, but it happens frequently in South Africa. In
> fact, it has happened that the municipality wanted to remove one of
> them and the residents association obtained an injunction against the
> municipality on the basis that removing it will cause the crime rate
> to return to unacceptable levels. So sometimes it is not even possible
> to determine the legal status of a right of way.
> 4. Driving on some tracks it will cause unnecessary environmental
> damage, like erosion. Sometimes such an opinion is debatable, but
> there are cases where a clear majority of local residents feel the
> same way. Usually the authorities will signpost it (effectively
> removing the right of way), but that may not always be the case.
> 5. Other things that we can't forsee right now.
>
We're not talking about cases where the public may have a theoretical
right to use a way, but it's de facto private. We're talking about the
case of a high-traffic road where pedestrians are allowed, despite the
wishes of bad drivers.

> When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write
> software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward
> compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't
> want to waste time on finding the legal status of everything.
>
Usually legal status, or at least de facto status, is simple: is there
a sign prohibiting pedestrians? Otherwise you're making people who
want to walk somewhere that's only accessible by a "dangerous" road
waste time finding if it's legal to do so.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 22:06, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would 
> say, "yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.". This would be particularly 
> suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others, such 
> as roads with narrow shoulders, risky to walk on after dark.

You could extend it a little and explain more specifically:

unsafe:foot=narrow/fast_traffic/muggers/etc

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John F. Eldredge]

I agree that foot_unsafe=yes would probably be a good compromise, as it would 
say, "yes, you can go this way, but it is risky.". This would be particularly 
suitable for routes that are riskier under some conditions than others, such as 
roads with narrow shoulders, risky to walk on after dark.

--Original Message--
From: John Smith
Sender: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
To: Nathan Edgars II
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
Sent: Jun 2, 2010 4:10 AM

On 2 June 2010 18:49, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a

I was one of them if you check my replies.

> bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
> see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles

Just because they can see you doesn't make it a good idea to walk
along there, as I pointed out before there isn't a single criteria
that deems something safe or unsafe, it's usually a combination of
factors.

Perhaps the best way to think of this is foot_unsafe=yes if it is
likely to be a bad idea...

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Flash to JS+SVG ?

[Richard Fairhurst]

John Smith wrote:
> Smokescreen, a 175KB, 8,000-line JavaScript-based Flash player 
> written by Chris Smoak at RevShock, a mobile ad startup, and to 
> be open-sourced 'in the near future.'

Wow. Just wow.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Flash-to-JS-SVG-tp5129121p5130332.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] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nic Roets]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>>If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
>>provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
>>were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
>>safe.
> Only if you do the same for other vehicles - highway with lots of
> crashes means motor_vehicle=no :)
>
> As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
> bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
> see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles
> unless the paved area extends all the way to the edge of the
> right-of-way. The idea that one should not walk on certain roadways
> where walking is legal, simply because certain drivers can't drive, is
> ridiculous, and leads to legal restrictions that prohibit reasonable


Nathan, the problem is providing good routing instructions to average
people. If we can't provide that we will loose people to Google Map
Maker, Waze, Tom Tom etc.

--

There are many reasons why a routing engine should not follow the
legal definition of right of way:
1. Safety (as discussed here).
2. Permissive. Fortunately a tag was defined for it long ago.
3. An illegal barrier (gate or fence) has been erected. And you may
think that this strange, but it happens frequently in South Africa. In
fact, it has happened that the municipality wanted to remove one of
them and the residents association obtained an injunction against the
municipality on the basis that removing it will cause the crime rate
to return to unacceptable levels. So sometimes it is not even possible
to determine the legal status of a right of way.
4. Driving on some tracks it will cause unnecessary environmental
damage, like erosion. Sometimes such an opinion is debatable, but
there are cases where a clear majority of local residents feel the
same way. Usually the authorities will signpost it (effectively
removing the right of way), but that may not always be the case.
5. Other things that we can't forsee right now.

When I map, I just want to create a useful map. And when I write
software it should be backward compatible with old data and forward
compatible with new data and still give reasonable results. I don't
want to waste time on finding the legal status of everything.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-05-31 13:27, Anthony wrote:
2010/5/31 Ian Dees


I don't think anyone has suggested that we leave out things I'd 
they
aren't signposted.


Nathan, who started this thread, has done exactly that, and he's gone
around removing route relations where the routes were not signed on the
ground.
Based on his personal survey, or what? Do you have a link to those
changesets or their approximate area?
I've spent significant time on finding out the exact roads that are part
of many routes (forest, state, county) in southern California, and am
fairly confident of their correctness once I am done. I would hope that
anyone who sees that someone has added source and source_ref tags to ways
would contact them before doing anything with them. 
In the cases where a route is unsigned (or partially so), it makes more
sense to me to use a signed=no tag than to delete it from the route
relation.

--
Alan Mintz 



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

Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-05-31 10:57, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Anthony wrote:
> > By these definitions, something that is able to be confirmed as true or
> > false in an official online source is actually *more* verifiable than
> > something written on a street sign in a place where Google Street View
> > has not yet visited.  It certainly is verifiable, and it is not
> > necessarily "on the ground".
>
>Something that is available from an official online source but not
>verifiable on the ground should not - in my personal opinion - be
>included in OSM.

When something looks "suspicious", though, and you find out that the sign 
is wrong, I believe it is reasonable to note that for recheck, in case the 
sign gets fixed. I have found such errors and told the relevant 
authorities, all of whom indicate that they will fix the sign. I use name, 
loc_name, official_name, note, and FIXME, to handle the various names and 
notes, usually using name for the signed name (or the "more correct" of 
them, if the signage is inconsistent).


>But OSM is not a "mirror" for official data.

I suppose then, it is a mirror of the mirror of official data (that being 
the signage), which doesn't sound good, does it?


>I don't want data that
>OSMers cannot work with; such data would only be in OSM for ease of
>retrieval, and I don't view OSM as some data dumpster for the world's
>geodata.

Agreed. Most bulk imports to an existing mapped area should be discouraged. 
Even TIGER09, which looked much better than earlier data, still has 
significant problems. I only use it in small areas of new development, and 
even then, it takes a lot of work to connect with existing data.

--
Alan Mintz 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/6/2 John F. Eldredge :
inadvisable and/or illegal, because crossing to the other side means
having to judge the speed of multiple lanes of traffic.  All too
often, people turn out not to be as good at that as they think they
are.  I live near a section of Interstate that has four lanes going
one way, and five lanes going the other way.


+1, I was once urged to cross the motorway here:
http://werbefotos.com/luftbild/albums/a04/BAB_Kreuz_Stuttgart_Gr_enver_nderung.sized.jpg

due to hitchhiking and some strange dude that let me off in the middle
of the Autobahn (A8 Stuttgart-München, which is almost always densely
populated), and I wouldn't advise this to nobody. There are only 3+3
lanes, but drivers approaching at 200km/h and more (quite loud
actually), so even if you see them in the distance, the next second
they already advanced 60 metres.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 18:49, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a

I was one of them if you check my replies.

> bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
> see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles

Just because they can see you doesn't make it a good idea to walk
along there, as I pointed out before there isn't a single criteria
that deems something safe or unsafe, it's usually a combination of
factors.

Perhaps the best way to think of this is foot_unsafe=yes if it is
likely to be a bad idea...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/6/2 John F. Eldredge :
> With many high-speed highways (such as Interstate Highways in the USA, 
> Autobahn in Germany, etc.) you may have wide shoulders, but pedestrian use on 
> the shoulders is inadvisable and/or illegal, because crossing to the other 
> side means having to judge the speed of multiple lanes of traffic.


don't know for US Interstates, but for all the German Autobahns it is
legally forbidden to use it by foot, horse, bicycle, tractors, any
other motorized vehicle that has 50ccm and less and any other vehicle
that has a maxspeed equal or below 60 (or 80km/h, don't remember
clearly).

The same applies to "Kraftfahrstraßen", which are roads signed with
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_331.svg&filetimestamp=20060729145019

This one (which can besides trunks also be primaries or maybe
secondary roads) we tag additionally with motorroad=yes.

These are legal restrictions and I don't expect routers to lead you
there on foot. On all other roads (no matter if inside or outside
closed settlements, and given that there are no other explicit
restrictions) you are legally entitled to walk, ride your bike/horse,
... even though you usually wouldn't (have to) do so on bigger
streets.

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Nathan Edgars II]

John Smith wrote:
>If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
>provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
>were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
>safe.
Only if you do the same for other vehicles - highway with lots of
crashes means motor_vehicle=no :)

As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
see you, and you can easily see and get out of the way of any vehicles
unless the paved area extends all the way to the edge of the
right-of-way. The idea that one should not walk on certain roadways
where walking is legal, simply because certain drivers can't drive, is
ridiculous, and leads to legal restrictions that prohibit reasonable
pedestrian access to large areas. For example, in Pennsylvania, at
many traffic lights, pedestrians are not allowed to cross any
approach. The effect is that a pedestrian will either cross illegally
or walk sufficiently away from the light to cross in a legal but
less-safe place.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI doubt

[Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio]

--- On Wed, 6/2/10, Maarten Deen  wrote:

> From: Maarten Deen 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI doubt
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 9:56 AM
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:39:14 -0700
> (PDT), Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio
> 
> wrote:
> > Dear list,
> > 
> > Anybody knows why the first query works and the second
> doesn't?
> > 
> > wget
> >
> http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/node[bbox=-82.90108,21.82252,-82.88907,21.82971]
> > --output-document=a.txt
> > 
> > wget
> >
> http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/way[bbox=-82.90108,21.82252,-82.88907,21.82971]
> > --output-document=b.txt
> 
> Both work for me, although the last one takes about a half
> a minute
> whereas the first is done in less than a second.
> 
> Maarten
> 

Thanks.
Took 8 minutes for me this time, while ...api/0.6/*[bbox=... is also immediate 
(?)

Regards,
Juan Lucas 


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM XAPI doubt

[Maarten Deen]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio
 wrote:
> Dear list,
> 
> Anybody knows why the first query works and the second doesn't?
> 
> wget
>
http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/node[bbox=-82.90108,21.82252,-82.88907,21.82971]
> --output-document=a.txt
> 
> wget
>
http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/way[bbox=-82.90108,21.82252,-82.88907,21.82971]
> --output-document=b.txt

Both work for me, although the last one takes about a half a minute
whereas the first is done in less than a second.

Maarten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[John Smith]

On 2 June 2010 17:32, Lester Caine  wrote:
> 'Safe' for pedestrians to use is simply undefinable as we have already decided
> when trying to identify URBAN areas where one would not walk on one's own! 
> MAPS

I disagree that this is an undefinable problem, as I pointed out
before you only need to come up with a base line, could an average
human adult walk down this way without getting hit by a car?

Would an average human adult walk through some seedy part of town
without getting mugged?

If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
safe.

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

[OSM-talk] OSM XAPI doubt

[Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio]

Dear list,

Anybody knows why the first query works and the second doesn't?

wget 
http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/node[bbox=-82.90108,21.82252,-82.88907,21.82971]
 --output-document=a.txt

wget 
http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/way[bbox=-82.90108,21.82252,-82.88907,21.82971]
 --output-document=b.txt


Area is:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?box=yes&maxlat=21.82971&maxlon=-82.88907&minlat=21.82252&minlon=-82.90108


Regards,
Juan Lucas


  

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...

[Lester Caine]

Anthony wrote:
> You seem to have missed the rest of my post.  I was arguing that a road
> with no pavement but with a shoulder is *not* unsafe.  OTOH, if the road
> has no shoulder, and traffic traveling at 55 mph, and only 1 car a day,
> I'm not walking down it.

I think the POINT here is that UNLESS there is a legal restriction on walking 
down a road, then CAR DRIVERS should be aware of the fact that there may be 
other people using the road? In the case being discussed, it is not clear if 
the 
woman was following the correct procedures when walking on RURAL roads ... 
wearing something highly visible ... walking facing on-coming traffic. MANY 
busy 
rural roads in the UK are not particularly 'pedestrian friendly', but they may 
well be the ONLY way to get from A to B by foot. I was under the impression 
that 
in the US in many cases there are even fewer footpath routes going the same way 
as the roads?

'Safe' for pedestrians to use is simply undefinable as we have already decided 
when trying to identify URBAN areas where one would not walk on one's own! MAPS 
can't define what is safe. But they should at least show alternatives where 
they 
are available?

-- 
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