Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki "map features"
First of all - I think those edit wars are silly. Please think before you get involved in these things. Put your energy into some useful stuff instead of just fighting an opinion you might not understand right now. > Who knows what you can or can't inline skate on? Inline-Skaters do! > Who knows what makes > a sports car a sports car? What's the difference between a trekking > bike and a city bike? What's the worst terrain a tractor can handle? > I've never even seen a rickshaw and how many people have ridden in a > wheelchair? This is a good point. When inventing a new tag, people should be very specific about objective information, not about subjective possibilities. Instead of tagging "usable_for_trucks=no" do something like "max_height=2.5 meters" and "max_weight=10 tons". This way it is more useful. Just imagine a routing application where you can enter the height and weight of your truck and you get a route that you can drive with YOUR truck. > It's impossible for me to use the tag because it requires quite > intricate knowledge of several different forms of transport of which I > have no experience. Some people have this kind of special knowledge and I encourage those to add special tags to the features they map. If I do not see the benefit of those tags today - who am I to say they are bad or useless? My view is limited! For those people that don't know these peculiar details - don't use the tags! But don't fight them. (That includes me for a lot of tags - I just ignore a lot of tags because I never took the time to read what they are used for) For example, if there are people that map ways in my area riding on horse backs. They use different tags than I do. Are those tags bad then? Don't think so. OSM is so wonderful because of the diversity of its contributors. They do the mapping while jogging, bicycling, riding a horse, riding a motorcycle, driving a car, pushing a baby carriage. And they all have a different view on how OSM will benefit them. And guess what? - They are using different tags. > Is trying to get specialised tags through a majority vote ever going > to work? Would it not have been better just to come up with a tag, > document it on the wiki and start using it? This is how a lot of people do it, without talking about it (much). This approach is one of the beauties of OSM - I think. Invent a new tag, use it widely and show how much sense it makes. This will convince people much more easily than writing a wiki page with lots of "one could", "one would" and "one should" phrases. The one good reason to write a proposed feature page in the wiki (in my eyes) is if you have an idea but you are not sure on how to actually tag that best or how to avoid redundancies with other tags. Then you can use the wiki page to outline your idea and also collect some comments from others. RalfZ Munich,Germany ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetBugs
People typically write posts on the mailing lists when things don't work. I want to tell you that I think OpenStreetBugs works nicely in the area of Munich, Germany. I am writing comments on OSB every now and then and I am checking it pretty regularly. In Munich I would say we have established a nice way of using the tool. I have seen unexperienced users giving hints about features that are wrong or missing on the map. These messages have been answered in a very productive way. I have seen experienced users asking for opinions on unclear information. These entries have sometimes triggered very useful discussions on those items that only locals know. And all of that took place on those little notes you can leave on OSB. In Munich, the OSM data is almost complete. And I think OSB is a valuable help for filling in those small gaps that we have. Thanks a lot for the tool! RalfZ Munich, Germany ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki "map features"
Gustav Foseid wrote: > We need to have a place to document the most used tags and tags that > should be known, and easy to find, for newcomers as well as trained > mappers. That is the Map Features page, and it should be reserved for a > core set of tags, recognised by the most important renders and/or > routing application. Smoothness is _not_ such a tag. As for the tags that are being rendered by Mapnik or [EMAIL PROTECTED], if somebody makes a list of those I would put them on the wiki somewhere close to the renderer. This is because of two reasons: a) If a tag is not rendered on a map that is made for the general public this does not mean that this tag is not important on a specialized map - for example a map made for inline skaters. b) Remember: We are not tagging for the renderers. It is good to have the end-user in mind when you map and tag. But the renderer is not an end-user! And if they were - those would only be two flavours of a huge list of possible uses of the OSM data. > The place for an "approved" tag which is not widely used is Approved > features, not Map Features. I disagree in this point. How do we decide what is a widely used tag? And how can a new tag widely used when it is not on the Map Features wiki page? Therefore I would not try to split up the list. When I visit the Map Features page my expectation is that I see the whole catalog of tags available (or at least get a pointer to a new page which explains that group of tags). The voting process and its imperfectness has been discussed a lot. And this is a different topic really. But I still see the "voting" process being useful. It is a very good way of quickly getting opinions that could leave to one of two decisions: a) The proposed new tag somewhat fits into the world of existing tags. b) There is no better idea out there on how to better tag this new feature. And even though the new tag might not be the perfect solution - if nobody comes up with a better idea during the voting process - this is a good start for calling the tag "approved" and recommend it for everybody elses use. RalfZ Munich, Germany ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=fuel and fuel types
In the Talk page of that wiki entry, there is a proposal for lots of different fuel types, for example fuel_lpg: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dfuel#For_Cars I now added a link from the wiki page of amenity=fuel to the talk page so that this information can be easily found. Ralf Munich, Germany wiseLYNX wrote: > As owner of a LPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_petroleum_gas) > powered car, I just found out that in OSM there's no way of telling > which kind of fuels will be sold at a gas station. > > If there's already something, I suggest to advertise it in the > amenity=fuel page on OSM wiki. > > If not, it would be really great to have the possibility to add this > kind of information, as LPG distributing stations are not common except > on motorways (at least here in Italy). I think of asking my (future) OSM > powered navigator "where's the nearest LPG station?". I also noticed my > commercial TomTom doesn't hold this kind of information. > > Same thing applies also to natural gas or methane stations (that here > are even rarer). > > Any suggestion? > > Enrico Manzini > > ___ > 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] Messed up roads
Florian Steiper wrote: > Hello, > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.0307&lon=9.2286&zoom=12&layers=B00FTF > > This place has some obvious misplaced roads, is there a good way to > correct this, without having been at the place ? This problem has been reported three days ago already on talk-de: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2008-August/018736.html If you look at the osmarender layer of the slippy map you will see that the problem has been fixed already. Always remember that the Mapnik layer of the slippy map has some delay... RalfZ Munich, Germany ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Good example of OSM coverage - Sofija, Bulgaria
I would like to share a good example of OSM coverage with you. It is the city of Sofija in Bulgaria. A friend of mine is travelling there and asked me if OSM has good maps of that area as Google does not show much. I converted OSM maps for him to use on his PDA. Now he is well equipped for his trip. Here is the direct comparison: http://geo.topf.org/comparison/index.html?mt0=googlemap&mt1=mapnik&lon=23.332386&lat=42.6927823&z=12 This makes me smile. This is why I have so much fun mapping the world with OSM. Ralf München ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
