Re: [OSM-talk] Contour lines
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Gregory wrote: What makes you think the Yahoo! imagery and/or the contour lines shown on the Cycle Map(these contours are from SRTM data, not OSM) are more up to date or more accurate/precise than the existing water body drawn in OSM? Indeed. Also, ISTR the cycle map fakes up realistic looking contours for void-filling doesn't it? I don't think the SRTM contours are accurate enough to use for tracing bodies of water - you need to walk the perimeter with a GPS or use aeriel photos. SRTM data _may_ be useful for guestimating flowing water courses that can't be otherwise surveyed, but for this I think you'd really want to be computing stuff off the raw DEM rather than manually adding features using the (already quite heavilly processed) contour lines. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Contour lines
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Gregory wrote: I've always wanted to fix up a pole about 6-10ft with a secure GPS mount on one end, and possibly a harness or neck strap to carry the other end on me. Then walk along the side of a river/lake at a safe distance with my GPS hovered above the line where the water meets the bank. You could just walk 3m from the water all the time and then when you trace the track just offset the trace by 3m. :) -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Contour lines
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Andrew Errington wrote: My GPS accuracy (reported by the device itself) is at best 4m, but in mountainous regions or in cities it is 5m or 6m at best, often worse. How accurate is my mouse when I click on a pixel? Visually I am interpolating the (inaccurate) GPS trace to get a smooth, pleasing curve or shape. Although we strive for accuracy you have to remember we are not surveying, we are making a map; there is a difference. Well yes, but the SRTM DEM has 90 metre pixels. If you're using the data that has been processed into contour lines then that is going to be a whole lot worse even before you start taking into account stuff like void filling and contour smoothing. Like it or not, tracing SRTM contours is probably going to leave you a couple of orders of magnitude away from GPS accuracy. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Important information for OpenPisteMap users
Some OpenPisteMap bits are changing and this may affect third party software. 1. The tiles have moved to http://tiles.openpistemap.org. They are currently being served from the old location as well, but this will be discontinued in the following phases: i) After a few weeks, tiles served from the old location will get a please update your software watermark applied to them. ii) A few weeks later, the old location will start returning 404 Not Found If you are operating a web site that embeds OpenPisteMap using the map.js and opm.js scripts served directly from the OPM server then you *probably* don't need to do anything. Other software will need updating. 2. Owing to abuse by a small number of users (no, using a robot to pull down a third of a million tiles a week is not acceptable behaviour), OpenPisteMap will start banning people who download more than 20,000 tiles in a day or 40,000 in a week. As a point of comparison, the whole 3 Vallies resort at all zoom levels covers around 9,000 tiles, so there shouldn't really be much need to exceed these limits. If you have a specific reason why you need to then please discuss it with me - bandwidth isn't free and a small number of users are disproportionately using a lot of it. Also, a polite request to robot writers: it is generally considered good practice for robots to identify themselves in the UA string of their requests. This is desiarable so that the authors of buggy/misbehaving robots can be contacted and therefore fixed, and also so that website operators can properly estimate the cost associated with various clients. The vast majority of robot traffic that hits OpenPisteMap spoofs a real browser UA string (most commonly Opera, but most of the common browsers are represented too). If you're responsible for writing one of these robots, please consider fixing your software and presenting a suitable UA string. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] OS 1:25K tracing
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Jason Cunningham wrote: We can't trace over google/bing satelite imagery because contract/terms of use, but it is tempting use the google satellite images to check what can be traced from the 1:25K (still the chance google is out-of-date!). This doesn't appear to go against google's terms of use. Yes, I don't see a problem with this, but it would be nice to hear some legal direction from those in the know. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Yann Coupin wrote: I once started a proposition to do just that but it didn't get much traction, feel free to discuss it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Droute_instruction I've not read the discussion page yet, but some initial thoughts: Your first examples aren't topologically identical - the first is a 2 lane road with a short 3 lane section followed by a right hand turn whilst the second is a 3 lane road with a right hand turn immediately followed by dropping down to 2 lanes. Of course, this doesn't give you enough detail to know what lane you've got to be in (although you could make some educated guesses). I also don't see the need for phonetics to be tagged (in fact, it seems harmful because it breaks multi-language support). We don't know what kind of display device is going to be used (whether it be on-screen instructions, text to speech, etc.) and it should be up to the software to decide how to present it to the user rather than being explicitly tagged like that. Overall, the proposal seems a bit too complex - I had envisaged a simpler system whereby you could set a relation similar to a turn restriction, such as: TAGs: type: lane_restriction lanes: 1,2 Members: from: way the user is driving along to: way the user wants to turn onto via: junction node Whereby that marks a restriction that lanes 1 and 2 (the left two lanes, in the case of the UK) cannot be used in a route using the from, to and via members. It would actually be nicer to be able to tag which lanes are allowed rather than which are disallowed, but that would be inconsistent with the existing turn restrictions (maybe that isn't a problem? comments?) -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote: What's left to be clarified is how lanes are numbered. I'd suggest to be the inner one to be 1, ascending the more you're going to the border The police tend to number them with lane 1 being closest to the footway (i.e. the left lane in the UK, the right lane over much of the rest of the world). Although there could be something to be said for making it region-agnostic so that satnavs don't have to know what side of the road you drive in a specific region. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Lane turn restrictions
I looked on the wiki but couldn't see anything... Is there any suggested way of marking up turn restrictions for individual lanes of a road to enable sat navs to provide lane guidance (e.g. keep right, move into the left lane, etc)? -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crazy routing in OpenRouteService
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Pascal Neis wrote: please, could you try it again? For me it works, http://bit.ly/HDgbO The coordinates you've gone to there are different from the ones I gave in my original report - you've gone to -4.1307375,53.1501034 whereas I used -4.119322,53.145316. I have just retested and now get an error that there isn't a street within 300 metres, which is rather more sensible than the route I was given before. It seems, that it was a OSM data problem, thx! I'm not sure how this can be put down to an OSM data problem - the destination point should have been projected onto the nearest road (i.e. something that wasn't highway=road, since OpenRoutingService doesn't treat these as roads). This isn't what happened - instead it sent me on some crazy route via Europe and hundreds of miles into the middle of the North Sea. This has now been fixed by disallowing destinations over 300 metres from a road. The underlying problem is still there though - for example, this route projects the destination point (just North of Swansea, Wales) onto a shipping lane in the middle of the Irish sea instead of a nearby highway=tertiary: http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/openrouteservice/index.php?start=-3.9440128,51.680206end=-3.946695,51.6843037pref=Fastestlang=denoMotorways=falsenoTollways=false So there is something rather wrong with the algorithm that finds the nearest road to project the destination point onto. the highway=road tag is a a temporary tag, or? A road of unknown classification. This is intended as a temporary tag to mark a road until it has been properly surveyed. Once it has been surveyed, the classification should be updated to the appropriate value. [1] Yes, it is a temporary tag to allow roads to be added without being properly surveyed (e.g. I know I drove down here, I have a GPS track but I didn't spend the time to note down what the road was like so I can't give it a classification). It is used quite a lot by people who collect tracks as they drive around, even when they can't spend the time to properly survey an area. It was added to prevent unknown classifications being added as highway=unclassified (which is what was happenning a lot previously). There might be some sense in trying to avoid routing people via highway=road since we don't know what they are like (could be anything from a tiny single track road to a big dual carriageway). However, where the only possible way to reach a destination is via a highway=road or highway=track, the routing algorithm probably needs to allow this. i.e. if you are trying to get to a farm that is connected to the road network by a dirt track (highway=track), you want the route to take you down that track - this isn't an error in the data that should be fixed. The only other alternatives are: 1. Tell the user that their destination is unreachable - this is wrong. 2. Project the destination onto the nearest road that isn't a highway=track - this could lead the user onto completely the wrong road, rather than the road that has the track connected to it. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Odd rendering at 0,0
I noticed that there seems to be something odd with the rendering at lat=0, lon=0: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0lon=0zoom=14layers=B000FTF At zoom 14 it tells me that it is the North Pole... Zoom in a bit mnore and you get a bunch of parking spaces. Both Mapnik and Osmarender seem to be affected - I had assumed that some editor software had got a bug and actually uploaded objects at 0,0 but the API seems to think there's nothing there... -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Crazy routing in OpenRouteService
A recent purchase of an Android phone has lead me to play with AndNav2 and OpenRouteService. However, in some cases I get some unexpectedly crazy routes. OpenRouteService doesn't seem to understand the highway=road tag. So presumably if your destination is on a highway=road, it should be projected onto another nearest road. However, plotting a route from Swansea to -4.119322,53.145316 (North Wales) ends up routing via Calais, Rotterdam, way out into the North Sea and then directly to the destination. Moving the destination slightly closer to another road causes sanity to be resumed. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Greg Stark wrote: Fwiw even (1) isn't necessarily true. The Magic Roundabout famously has a counter-clockwise loop in the centre. And there are other such roundabouts where the central loop isn't even one-way. I wouldn't really consider the magic roundabout to be a roundabout (although others may disagree I guess... I certainly wouldn't expect a satnav to say take the 4th exit at the roundabout when approaching the magic roundabout :). It is really a collection of interlinked miniroundabouts. I do think (5) is kind of important. Critically there are special laws dictating right-of-way and rules for navigating roundabouts which aren't necessarily the same as for a simple loop of one-way roads. Not really - the right of way laws for a roundabout are the same as any other one way system that consists of a major road with side-roads joining it (i.e. you give way to the traffic already on the major road). I guess things get fuzzier as the roundabouts become smaller and the give way to the right rule starts talking about traffic that is still on the side road to the right instead of actually on the roundabout. I have to say I find it awfully annoying to edit ways in an area where every path is broken up into ten million single segment paths because there are bridges, tunnels, surface changes, hazards, etc. It would be awfully nice to have one reasonably big way and then shorter ways marking the exceptions. IMHO this could be better done with relations and improvements to the editors. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Nicholas Barnes wrote: Should, for example, the component ways making up the roundabout be grouped in their own I'm a roundabout relationship? Do we need to be able to tell which ways are part of a roundabout anyway? I mean, on the ground a roundabout is just a one-way circular road with some other roads coming off it - there isn't really anything special about it that makes it a roundabout. The only use of an explicit I'm a roundabout tag/relation that I can immediately think of is to make driving directions more human-readable (i.e. At roundabout, take the 3rd exit). In this case it may be better for the data user to use some heuristic, much as we do ourselves when we look at a piece of road. e.g. If there is a closed (clockwise in the UK) one-way loop with a diameter of less than X metres then consider it a roundabout when generating human-readable driving directions. Using this kind of heuristic would also have the advantage of setting an application-specific upper bound to the size of a roundabout - when roundabouts get beyond a certain size then it is probably better for sat-navs to go back to the usual take the next left driving directions instead of take the 7th exit. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Donald Allwright wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF How about this one: http://osm.org/go/0EFYMXaIH-- which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut' across one side. In this case, each 'junction' on the roundabout is controlled by traffic lights and has between 2 and 5 lanes. I have to navigate it frequently and I can't say it's one of my favourite ones! These aren't too dissimilar. Although I'm curious how your example works - it looks like the short cut is only of use for people who have come off the southbound carrigeway of the motorway and want to get back on the southbound carriageway - why wouldn't they just go along the motorway instead of taking the junction? (I presume I'm missing something important about who can use the shortcut lane :) - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] printing from website
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Jack Stringer wrote: Something that tells you that trick. I'm not sure that clicking on your browser's print button in order to print the thing you're currently looking at in the browser qualifies as a trick does it? Seems like SOP for anyone using a computer to me? - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenGolfMap? - was OpenPisteMap
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Peter Miller wrote: Any chance of opengolfmap? I am needing a map to show the interaction between an existing golf course and a proposed cycle route. I can add the data to the map but I am not aware of anything that will render it. I'm not a golfer, so don't have a lot of interest in adding golf maps to the (already rather overloaded) OpenPisteMap server I'm afraid. However, all the source is available from my Subversion, so you could set up your own. For a one-off map you might be better off using one of the easy map renderers though. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap Down?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Tom Hughes wrote: You need to use OL 2.8 - either that or use an older copy of OpenStreetMap.js. Basically mixing our hosted file with your own OL is a bad idea - either pull both from us or host both yourself. That way you won't get a mismatch. It was the other way around - I was mixing my own OpenStreetMap.js with the OSM hosted OpenLayers. Originally they both came from the OSM servers, but I later modified the OpenStreetMap.js for some reason I forget. Anyway, yes - it turned out to be a really stupid idea, and mainly down to my lazyness. :) I've now fixed it so all the scripts come from the OpenPisteMap server instead, so this shouldn't happen again. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Amenity Editing
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, WessexMario wrote: A lowest level postcode (SN13_2PQ) is not unique for a node, as multiple dwellings will have the same postcode, so this leads to having multiple tags for what is essentially a single data item, a postcoded area of land. It should be unique to a way (or part of a way) though. Marking postcodes on a way could be problematic, as there can be different postcodes on opposite sides of a road. Really? I've not come across that - if a street has more than one post code, doesn't it just get split along its length? If you really do get different post codes on opposite sides, you could have a postcode:left and postcode:right type pair of tags though. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amenity Editing
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Jack Stringer wrote: Going by that theory how do you post code 2 farms that are 1mile appart but have the same postcode and are on different roads? Tag both roads with the same postcode? that set out to remove the extra data (scripted) and put in the ways but for now we just need the postcodes. Good luck with that - *every* time I have suggested trying to migrate existing data from depricated tags to their replacements (either by scripting or manually), I've been shot down in flames. I could take you arround a local town that has some very interesting ways to number houses. House numbers are not at issue here - clearly they must belong to the building itself. The point I was raising was that your address tags contained a lot of data that was shared amoungst many buildings. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap Down?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Hurricane McEwen wrote: I just went to visit openpistemap.org and I get a blank map. Anyone run in to the same issue? Errm.. yes, damn. :( I am using the OpenLayers code hosted on the OSM servers - looks like this has changed and it is now breaking. I'll try and have a go at fixing it tomorrow. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap Down?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Lars Ahlzen wrote: It appears that the OpenLayers.Layer.OSM class now expects a full URL template for the tiles, rather than just the directory... i.e. something like: Nope, that didn't fix it. :( Looks like I'll need to do a bit more debugging. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Tank=yes?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Bruce Cowan wrote: Also, on the A816 between Lochgilphead and Oban, there is a duck warning sign [2]. Surely this would be ducks=yes (or indeed hazard=ducks). Surely ducks=yes should be interpretted like hgv=yes - i.e. ducks are allowed to use the road (I'm not aware of any legislation that makes it illegal for ducks to walk down roads :) - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Open*Map.* ?
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Russ Nelson wrote: Is there a comprehensive listing of all Open*Map.* sites anywhere? Not comprehensive, but there is a list on the Wikipedia page. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Speed Limit - Trains Was: Re: maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Peter Miller wrote: I am certainly not proposing separate ways for separate lines. I think there should either be one way for a bunch of parallel tracks or alternatively one way per track if people are getting nerdy (surely not!). Tracing individual tracks might make sense if people are tracing from photos. Especially true for sidings, etc. I don't really see it as much different to having separate ways for the two sides of a dual carriageway. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sat Navs to stop working?
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Chris Jones wrote: And with any luck Galileo should be up and running in a few years... They are still claiming they will have 30 sats up by the end of 2013... assuming that includes the 2 test sats they have in orbit already, they are going to have to launch 28 satellites in 4.5 years. Averaging a new satellite every 2 months doesn't seem very likley in the current economic climate, sadly. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: It's interesting to see that there is a moderator stating there have been quite a few comments on here about the availability of administrative boundaries. I wonder if they will get enough people saying the same thing to change their plans. The comment As the section above on An extended OS OpenSpace service indicates, official boundaries information will form part of this extended service. indicates to me that they either don't understand the copyright concerns being raised (and think that making available data (through OpenSpace), rather than making it copyright-free is what people are asking for) or they don't care. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Delay before the data is visible?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Brett Henderson wrote: I've just checked now and unless I'm confused by timezones it seems to be running 5 minutes behind as per normal. Oops, slaps himself You're right - it looks fine, I was being an idiot with respect to daylight savings. :) - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Delay before the data is visible?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote: It could be that you get no warning when the upload fails under certain circumstances. Hasn't happened to me on the latest SVN build, though. I noticed the exact opposite to this on Tuesday - JOSM thought the upload had failed, the OSM servers thought it succeeded. The result was that the next attempt the upload successfully re-uploaded the same data. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Delay before the data is visible?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: The renderers are delayed until the minutely diff are working again. There are some bugs there that need to be resolved first. Then there will be a delay of a few hours/days once the diffs come back up. Some curiosities/observations: 1. Is OSM now using the tile expiry code I implemented in osm2pgsql to work out what to re-render, or is it using something different? 2. I noticed the minutely deltas are now delayed by an hour (used to be about 5 minutes). Is this down to server load? If so, why are the servers suddenly so much busier than before the API change (there don't seem to be that many uploads happenning and I wouldn't have thought there would be a big increase in downloads since the API change). 3. The deltas are much smaller than they used to be and there are long periods where they are completely empty. A look at the recent changes page seems to show that there really are long periods when no one is committing any data. Is this down to people actually not trying to upload anything or is the API undergoing periods of breakage so that people can't upload anything? - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We're back
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote: ...with API 0.6, Postgres and the new server. But everyone's uploading at once, so don't expect to do much serious editing for the time being. :) The deltas in http://planet.openstreetmap.org/minute aren't being updated at the moment - what's the plan for these (I notice that the test06 directory has more up to date deltas, but these have stopped now too)? I assume the deltas for the new API are different (so will need a osm2pgsql upgrade) - are they going to be served from the same URI, or is the API version number going to be included in the URI so that people don't end up with 0.6 deltas when they were expecting 0.5? The new changeset stuff is really superb. Have a browse: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changesets The changeset stuff looks really good, and I note the welcome addition of a comment field. Is there any way of getting an RSS feed (or similar) of recent changesets and their comments within a specific bounding box? That'd be really good to get an at-a-glance idea of what the latest changes in your area are all about. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] OSM mentioned in the Peak BMC newsletter
Thought this might be of interest - looks like OSM (and the cycle map and piste map) got a brief mention in the spring British Mountaineering Council Peak area newsletter: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmcNews/media/u_content/File/your_bmc/newsletters/Peak%20Area%20Newsletter%20February%202009.pdf (page 3 - probably shouldn't read too much into that :). - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Wincanton streets in the news
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Tim Waters (chippy) wrote: Ankh-Morpork (If any one is going to map that I'm not sure where we put the data :) You'd need a different projection since the disc is flat. :) - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Yahoo coverage map
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009, Steve Chilton wrote: Because I wanted to know, and as an exercise in OpenOverLayerIng, I have produced a map combining the extent of Yahoo aerial imagery coverage in GB with an overlay of the significant places calculated to be in most need of mapwork (from UK_Map_Priorities). Interesting stuff - it really shows just how limited the aerial coverage is though. :( Do you know if Yahoo are actively expanding their coverage? It's quite surprising to see some large cities like Birmingham not included. still waiting for some decent aerial coverage of Swansea - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using highway=path for country footpaths
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote: In highway engineering terms in the UK a footway is always alongside a road, and we don't tend to mark those separately anyway. This is a slightly separate issue, but not marking them is a bit of a problem in some cases because we end up with things like foot bridges which are unconnected at both ends because there is no separate footway marked along the side of the road. I'm not really going to comment on what the best practice is for this case at the moment, just pointing out that it can be a problem. I just don't see the distinction between a muddy metre wide path that happens to run between houses from one that doesn't. And if it is surfaced, we have a means to say so already. I've got to agree with this. I missed the discussion when the highway=path tag was agreed, but I have never really seen the need for it. If it is something I can walk along then it's a footway - I don't much care whether it is in an urban area or on the top of a cliff in the middle of nowhere, none of that changes what I can do on the way (i.e. walk). Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is signed as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway, which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default). Also, there's a legal distinction between cycleways and footways to think about - it is illegal to cycle on a footway, and similarly if you were walking on a designated cycleway I suspect the courts might not look at you favourably if you were hit by a bike (especially if there's a perfectly good footway following a similar route). So marking up a way as a cycleway just because it _looks_ suitable for bikes is not a sensible move. In some cases a track is both a footway and a cycleway (often with a line down the middle to separate the cyclists and pedestrians). I'm not sure of the best way to tag this - do we tag it as a footway with cyclists allowed, a cycleway with pedestrians allowed, mark up 2 independent ways next to eachother, or something completely different? (it is a good argument for not using the single highway tag to describe the legal properties of a way, such as footway or cycleway, where it may actually be both). And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are wider than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway. And indeed, people can already use the width tag to signify how wide the cycleway is - what it was historically used for is not important for most renderings of the map. There may be merrit in marking up the historical use through other tags, e.g. something like highway=cycleway, historically:railway=rail or similar for a disused railway line that is now a designated cycleway, but that is another discussion - I don't believe what an object used to be should have any real bearing on the mainstream tags. Unless someone can explain to me a really good reason for using path instead of footway, I really don't much feel like having to resurvey all the footways around here... - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using highway=path for country footpaths
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Ed Loach wrote: I'm beginning personally to think that highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway were all a mistake and that highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better starting point I think even that is a bit too high level. You don't really need to specify whether it is a path, road, etc - all we should really care about is what sort of traffic can use it (i.e. motorcar=yes|no|designated, etc.) From this you can easilly work out what *sort* of way it is (i.e. if it allows pedestrians and no one else, clearly it is a footway; if it allows cars then it is a road, etc). Any extra attributes are a bonus - width, surface, classification (e.g. for roads this might be motorway, primary, secondary, etc.). Similarly, things like whether the road is in a residential area should be an extra attribute, not a fundamental classification of the way. However, mistake or not, we have what we have and making fundamental changes doesn't seem especially likely (I have in the past made suggestions regarding the fundamental data structure and have been met with nothing but sarcastic replies and put-downs - I find it quite depressing that no one seems interested in even thinking about any revolutionary changes instead of just continuing down a potentially dead-end route. See my brain-dump on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Steve_Hill) - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using highway=path for country footpaths
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote: FWIW, I agree largely with the specific points on your wiki page, but I don't think it will happen because of the effort involved. The wiki page wasn't really supposed to be a this is how it needs to be solution - the hope was to get people talking about how stuff can be improved without immediately dismissing anything that wasn't on the path of least resistance. I can understand people being indifferent, but to be met with sarcastic replies and put-downs instead of intelligent conversation was pretty offputting. Personally, I don't think the current tagging scheme is really maintainable in the long run and that eventually there will need to be a revolution, rather than evolution, in the way the data is represented, and I worry about the future of project if people with new ideas are turned away like this. There is also a camp which actively wants a node to be able to have more than one type in your terminology: we have (non-accidental) examples of place=town and building=town_hall for example, and (worse) place=town and amenity=post_box on the same node. I think that's ludicrous myself, and I'm sure you do too, but there are those who don't see it that way. I agree that this sounds pretty crazy (although I'm rather of the opinion that using a node instead of an area to identify a town for anything other than a temporary measure is wrong). There are a lot of cases where tagging objects as multiple things makes sense though - one example was given on the wiki page with roads that become pistes in the winter, but there are other such examples. There may even be merit in having a single node tagged as both a posting box and a bus stop if it happens to be a pole with both a posting box and a bus stop mounted on it. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Free National Grid Vector Layers for gas and electricity?
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Donald Allwright wrote: It would seem that being used as a basis for just about everything means that no-one else can ever use those data without paying the OS a fee. Must be a nice little earner for them. Of course OpenStreetMap imposes similar restrictions, except that paying a fee is replaced with the far less onerous requirement for derived works to be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Ignoring the issues to do with why we need to change the licence for now). Whether or not the CC-BY-SA requirement is less onerous rather depends on what you're doing with the data. I haven't looked at any OS licence conditions, but I imagine that if you derive your data from OS maps, then you can probably combine your data with another commercial map so long as you continue paying OS a licence fee. On the other hand, data derived from OSM must be CC-BY-SA and combining it with any commercial map would create a derived work which would need to be CC-BY-SA - it's unlikely that the commercial map supplier is going to allow this. Also, I suspect that selling maps is a nice little earner for people such as the land registry, so licensing them all as CC-BY-SA isn't in their interest (as much as it may be in the tax payer's interest). - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping the sea
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Andy Deakin wrote: * Navigation whilst at sea (naval charts) I've added a (very small) number of buoys to OSM over the past couple of years. ISTR someone added a load of public domain data for Irish lighthouses too. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap: Cross Country Ski Trails.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Simon Wood wrote: I have tagged the trails a 'highway=footway' and 'piste:type=nordic' as these trails are multi-use; cycling and walking in the summer and groomed cross country trails in the winter. At present OPM does not render these as ski-trails. Is this the correct way to tag this situation, or can someone suggest a better method? At the moment, OPM only renders alpine (downhill) pistes. Other types of piste are on the (ever lengthening :) todo list. I think the rendering styles need a fairly major overhaul before I go much further with adding more features though. Also there is no mention of the following on the OpenPisteMap wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Piste_Maps): 1) Direction of Way: I assume that 'forward' is meant as 'generally downhill' as the 'piste:type=downhill' implies one-way. Certainly for alpine pistes the way should go down hill and we assume they are one-way so the direction arrow rendered on the map points down hill. For most alpine pistes this is going to be the normal state of affairs, although there are a few notable exceptions, such as some flat sections where it should probably be explicitly set to oneway=no. For nordic routes, I guess things aren't quite so clear cut. I don't really have any experience with nordic routes so I'm going to avoid commenting too much on this. :) 2) Steep Sections: Is there a method of marking a steep section? The maps posted on site (http://www.crowsnestguide.com/allisonwonderlands/allisonmap.html) draw a little '|---' line next to the trail at the appropriate places. This could be marked with a short way marked 'piste:steep=yes'. Where this is against the general direction of the way should we reverse the way or use a 'up/down' or 'forward/backward' tagging (ie. 'piste:steep=backward')? Whether a piste is steep is pretty subjective and more or less covered by the piste:difficulty tag. Ok, so the difficulty covers other stuff like narrowness, moguls, etc. but I still don't think we want a subjective steep boolean attribute. A non-subjective incline=30% type tag would be better, and matches up with what is often used on highways: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Incline I would like to add a 'ele=xxx' tag to the markers tag at the junction of the trails to give some indication of height gain/loss between markers. This would enable a person unfamiliar with the trail to gain a sense of the workout they are about to get I think using gps elevation data for this purpose would be a very bad idea due to the inaccuracy. GPS elevation data can easilly be over 100 metres out, and that kind of inaccuracy would produce very different inclinations of the tracks. The _differences_ in heights between 2 points might be reasonably accurate if they are taken by the same GPS receiver at a similar time, but once you start combining elevation data from many different receivers over a period of months or years I think the data will be worse than useless. Even though the SRTM3 data is reasonably low-res, I think it would be better to use that rather than GPS elevation data. The problem with SRTM3 is that it doesn't cover high latitudes. I'm certainly opposed to adding an ele= tag containing data that is known to be extremely inaccurate anyway. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Openstreetbugs source code
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Matthias Julius wrote: Yes it's useful, but I don't see how this addresses the problems of OSB being closed. Is this not a third party implementation of the OSB JS interface which is not running on the main OSB site, and is the OSB bug DB not still closed with no dumps available? But now, since the code is available, someone could set it up as bugs.openstreetmap.org or so and integrate it with the OSM main site. I find OSB very useful (especially with the JOSM plugin), but I'd be really interested to know what the rationale is behind having a separate database rather than storing the bugs as nodes in OSM itself? - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenHikingMap - OpenCycleMap
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote: For the contours we haven't figured out how to prevent those irritating joins on the srtm tile boundary yet. They're not that noticable. If you figure it out do let me andy know :-) This shouldn't be too hard - possibly even as a post-processing step once the contour lines are in a PostGIS table: - For each tile boundary, select all the contours that intersect it. - Iterate through all the contour lines which extend away from one side of the boundary line and match them up with the lines that extend away from the other side by looking at their heights (and probably also the heights of the surrounding contours). - Trim off the ends and glue the matched up lines together. - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Efficient processing of map data for rendering (BOINC).
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Chris Andrew wrote: I notice that people often mention the delay in map edits being applied and made _live_. On a related note... For OpenPisteMap, I apply the diffs to the PostGIS DB every minute, so it only lags behind the live data by a few minutes. However, it doesn't currently automatically expire any tiles from the cache, so it won't re-render a tile after the data has been changed. I'm currently working on modifying osm2pgsql to create a list of tiles that have been changed as it applies the diffs so that they can be removed from the cache (and thus re-rendered on the fly when someone requests them). My initial, very simplistic attempt was rather unsuccessful though - I made osm2pgsql calculate bounding boxes around every object being deleted or created. However, for some objects the bounding box can be extremely large (especially relations) so it expires a very large number of tiles. I think my next attempt will involve calculating which tiles a LINESTRING intersects. However, I'm not sure what to do about POLYGONs - technically, every tile within the polygon should be expired, but that could be a potentially huge area. Maybe the answer is simply to put in some sanity checks that ignore polygons that cover massive areas. With the OSM community growing by the day, this problem can only get bigger. Does anyone know whether anyone has consider using a distributed client [1] such as BOINC [2] to do the _number crunching_? From my experience, the number crunching doesn't really seem to be the limiting factor - database I/O is the biggest overhead for OpenPisteMap (although that may be partly down to the massive amount of SRTM contours data it has to handle while rendering each tile). - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping the unloved and unwashed
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Peter Miller wrote: google are saying is that if one places a layer of OS data on top of google data then google don't claim ownership of that data Is this actually different to the OS's rules? My take on the OS's complaint was that the councils' data was actually derived from the OS data, not just overlaid. i.e. if they want to plot the location of a public toilet, they would know that the toilet is on the corner of roads A and B, so would use the OS layer to find roads A and B and place their marker on the corner. Thus the toilets marker is derived from the OS data because they used the OS's data about the roads to geolocate it. I had assumed that if the council actually had lat/lon coordinates for the toilets then there would be no licensing problem since they would never need to use the OS data to geolocate the marker (even though they may be displaying the marker on an OS map for the end-user). Or have I misinterpretted the OS's complaint? - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping the unloved and unwashed
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Peter Miller wrote: I have been working on adding wiki pages for every County and Unitary Authority in the UK (there are 140 in total) so that we have a consistent place to add this sort of information. There were articles for some and there are about 19 added so far. Could people add county pages for their areas and and use this for a hit-list section of wanted places?: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:County_in_England Just a thought, but UK != England - might it be an idea to rename this page, or is the plan to create separate pages for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland...? Do remember that the local councils might be interested themselves. There is growing official awareness that OSM exists and might be useful to them. That is one reason why I am building the local authority pages. I'm not sure why the councils would use OSM - as far as I know the councils' internal systems (e.g. highways department, etc) are heavilly based on OS maps with the council's own layers overlaid. This means (as I interpret it): 1. The council's own layers are derived from OS maps so could never be integrated with OSM 2. Since the councils have to publish their maps they presumably already have a licence from OS to do so, so using OSM *as well* won't save them money. 3. Like it or not, OS maps are usually more detailed than OSM - most (all?) areas in OSM don't map detail like where the running lanes of a road end and the walkway begins and few areas have individual buildings mapped. For example, zoom into some of the residential streets on: http://maps.swansea.gov.uk/localview/OnTheMap.aspx I'd be pretty interested to hear another side to the argument though. :) - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cameras?
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Ed Loach wrote: I'd like a cheap digital camera to use when I'm out noting things for mapping purposes; our existing camera eats batteries. I have an old Canon IXUS 400 that I picked up off ebay, which I find is pretty reasonable as a simple and small point shoot for when I don't want to lug around my SLR. I do tend to find that the battery life of the camera is the limiting factor when I'm mapping on foot (camera turned on the whole time), but the batteries are quite small so carrying a spare wouldn't be a problem. Pretty robust, optical viewfinder, takes compact flash, rechargable lithium ion battery, a bit of optical zoom, 4 megapixels and the lens seems good enough to make use of the resolution. I think the newer IXUS models have removed the optical viewfinder though, which is a shame. Can anyone suggest either a camera or a good comparison website. http://www.dpreview.com/ is pretty good for comparing cameras. Alternatively if anyone can recommend some good quality, reasonably priced, high capacity rechargeable AA batteries that work well in their digital camera then that may work out a cheaper option. I used to use 4 AA size NiMh cells in my old HP Photosmart 850, which seemed to last well enough and you can now get some fairly high capacity (2800mAh or more) cells. NiMh cells do suffer from a short shelf-life though, so it is very much a charge just before you need them option, whereas lithium ion batteries will hold their charge for ages when not in use so your camera can always be ready for use. But you won't get AA size lithium ion cells, so NiMh is about your best option. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Very accurate GPS devices
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Tom Hughes wrote: He was referring to a combine using a DGPS system which has a base station at a fixed point on the farm whose location is well known. It then compares that known location to one calculated from the satellites in the normal and broadcasts the difference to the mobile received on the tractor/combine which uses the difference to correct it's own calculated position. A DGPS station actually works out how big an error each received satellite signal has and transmits that data to the (mobile) GPS receiver, which then applies the correction _before_ calculating the location. (i.e. the DGPS signal contains the timing errors for each satellite rather than the errors in the coordinates, since the errors in the calculated coordinates would depend on which satellites the GPS is using, which is something the DGPS transmitter doesn't know). I suspect that a system that accurate is probably not just using DGPS though - it probably has a set of ground-based transmitters at known locations that it uses for ranging as well. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] NPE waterways
I noticed that a lot of waterways have recently been added with source=NPE. Were these traced, or was this an automated import? It seems that some of the existing (surveyed) work has been either ignored or broken in the process. i.e.: An existing section of stream with a bridge over it has been ignored rather than the newly added waterway being connected to it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.685369lon=-3.9486zoom=18layers=B00FTF And a stream has been moved so it is nolonger under the associated bridge: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.4982lon=-3.52711zoom=16layers=0B0FTF Also, a number of streams are now marked which have been culverted since the NPE maps were produced. Maybe these should be tagged as needing a review? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Steve Chilton wrote: As Andy notes it is not always easy to see small sections of data at z14 in Potlatch (which you have to use for NPE work). No problem - I just thought I'd mention that some on-the-ground review is needed for these waterways at some point (although it is better to have something there rather than nothing - many of the streams would be very difficult to survey unless someone feels like wading the length of them :). Something that would be very useful in Potlatch would be the ability to have the background zoom beyond it's highest resolution and just get interpolated to fit - the yahoo images are virtually unusable in Wales and over-zooming them might make them a bit more useful. Could you please use your local knowledge to rectify that particular error/alignment? I'll prod Steve Hosgood (who's sitting opposite me at the moment) since he surveyed the area originally. :) Unfortunately I'm not especially familiar with that area (although if necessary I can make a diversion that way one evening on my way home from work). Because of the problem noted above I actually skipped the main urban area of Swansea - as the NPE was too difficult to interpret and the OSM data so thick on the ground to make it difficult to work there. I can imagine. Also, in city centres, the NPE data is more likley to be out of date and doing on-the-ground surveying will be easier so it probably isn't as worthwhile anyway. Incidentally they are the only two significantly densely urban mapping encountered on a virtual trip round the whole coastline of Wales so far. I believe Cardiff has some reasonable Yahoo photos and people have been tracing them, so most of the roads are mapped, but I'm not sure how good the detail is. There are a couple of people working the Bridgend/Pencoed area (one of whome works as a courier I think, so is doing a lot of on-the-job surveying) and they seem to be doing a pretty good job. It's good to see 9 people in Swansea within a 12Km range of me now - when I started mapping I think there were about 3. Chris Jones (rollercow) can be blamed for many of them I think - he's been doing a good job of introducing members of the uni's computer society into the mapping effort. :) Finally, it is my view that source=NPE is implicitly tagging for review. It is now possible to use the OSMmapper tool from ITOworld to check where the tag has been used in your area and consider reviewing data there. Ok, fair enough. Is the expectation that the source=NPE tag will be removed after someone has reviewed the way, even if they didn't need to alter it? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: * you suspect that the criticism you have is not shared by everyone so you want to give them a chance to voice their opinion; * you think that whatever you're unhappy with is not only done by one mapper, but general practice (or might become general practice) * you're not comfortable enough with history access to find out exactly who did the bit you're unhappy with (and who perhaps only changed something else later) * the changes cover a reasonably large area and thus a large number of editors are affected and may wish to contribute to the discussion. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NPE waterways
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: * though with NPE the reasonably large area is pretty clearly going to be talk-gb, not talk :p Ok, good point :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Gervase Markham wrote: Well, there was a note on Map Features saying not to do it, but until recently it didn't say what you _should_ do. Until recently there was no approved tag to do it. A lot of people promoted the idea of just never adding roads without knowing their classification, which to many of us wasn't really acceptable (as far as I'm concerned, it is better to have a road on the map than not, even if you don't have all the information). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: And that's fine: you seem to place more of an emphasis on the Gospel According To Map Features than I do If you don't go by the definitions in Map Features, what definitions do you go by? As far as you are concerned, what is the difference between an unclassified and a tertiary? If we don't have some agreed definition, the tags become meaningless since the meaning will vary widely depending on who surveyed the road. For example, if someone is writing a route planner for HGVs, it is wise to have it try and avoid unclassified roads as they are defined by the wiki. But it is not sensible to avoid a high quality dual carriageway (which seems to match some other people's definitions of an unclassified road). What _isn't_ fine is going round removing others' work because you disagree with it. Ok, so maybe I shouldn't have changed the classification of some of these roads until I had resurveyed them. I certainly don't consider it to be removing someone's work though - the way is still on the map. All I'm trying to do is standardise the tags a bit so they match the _only_ documented definition. As for C, that's pretty much immaterial: I've spoken at a public inquiry to get a landowner to remove an obstruction on a C road. I say road, actually it was a foot-wide path from one village to another three miles away. That was exactly my point - no one cares whether a road has a C number or not, map users just care what the road is _like_ - I don't see how you can say that a relatively narrow road with no centre line is like a big dual carriageway. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: I don't want to be annoying, but what about the ordinary roads, which don't fit in the above classification. With houses on both side but limited to 50km/h for example. Well, this is why I don't like the highway=residential tag. Inside housing estates sounds like living_street me. Maybe the word 'estate' means something else in the UK than I think. The definition of living_street is a bit vague in the wiki. A relevant bit seems to be: Simply tagging them with something like highway=residential, max_speed=7, motorcar=yes, motorcycle=yes, bicycle=yes Which implies to me that the living_street tag almost never applies in the UK - The vast majority of our residential roads have a speed limit of 30mph, with newer ones tending to have a 20mph limit. Just about the only roads you'll see in the UK with a 5-10mph speed limit are service roads to amenities such as schools. I don't know enough about the road systems in other countries to comment - from your description, it sounds like maybe you have living streets (very low speed limit) rather than residential roads (20-30mph speed limits). As I said, I really don't like the residential tag (although I do use it in order to be consistent with the rest of the map). For roads with speed limits over 30mph I don't tag them with highway=residential, even if they have houses along them. the UK and is totally meaningless elsewhere. So we denoted something FTLOG don't go changing them all because you think they're wrong according to some classification you came up with on your own. As I've said before, I have no intention of changing any areas I'm not involved with - I'm just bringing a problem to the attention of everyone else since I suspect that Swansea isn't the only place affected. The roads I am retagging in Swansea are not wrong according to some classification I came up with on my own - they are wrong according to the definitions in the wiki - things like 50mph 2 lane dual carriageways are _not_ unclassified roads by any stretch of the imagination. The problem is simply that highway=unclassified has been used by a lot of people as a general I don't know what the classification of this road is tag because up until recently there was no other tag to use for this purpose. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: But from the your description here, what do you tag roads that are 30mph and don't have a centre line? i.e. the single most common type here. That's a bit of a judgement call depending on the situation I think. Most of the streets on housing estates around the UK are wide 20-30mph and many have no centre line. However, they are wide enough to have a centre line - I guess the council don't bother painting the lines because they see it as unnecessary on a low-speed, low-traffic road and don't want the extra costs involved. I tag these roads as residential if they are lined with houses. If the road is for just for non-residential access (e.g. access to a school, or for deliveries to some shops) and it isn't a through road, I tag it as service Some housing estates have quite narrow roads (just wide enough for 2 cars to pass) and no footways (so it is a shared surface for cars and pedestrians) - I'd tag these as residential. Rural areas are a bit more problematic - they sometimes have fairly narrow roads which are most definately not residential but may have fairly low speed limits (30mph), especially around village centres. I guess I'd err on the unclassified side even though the speed limit is low. I hit a problem a few days ago of not quite knowing how to handle the difference between an unclassified road (high speed limit, just wide enough for cars to pass each other but no centre line) and a very narrow road (still a high speed limit, but only 1 car wide and with no passing places - if you meet someone coming the other way you'll be reversing for a couple of miles!). In the end I settled on tagging them both as unclassified, but setting lanes=1 on the narrow one, but I'm still not entirely happy with this since it renders the same. There was some debate as to whether it should be marked as a track instead, but tracks are supposed to be unsurfaced (and also, they render very similar to footpaths which gives the impression that you can't drive down them unless you look at the map key). Ok, as long as you change nothing in NL I don't really mind one way or the other :) :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote: The equivalent here, to which the tag would be applied, is known as Home Zone, and it has a specific sign: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/coll_newroadsignsandmarkingsleaf/dft_roads_022863-16.jpg (which is taken from this page http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/newroadsignsandmarkingsleafletb?page=1 ) Interesting... I've never come across one of those signs (although the description makes it all sound like common sense - I would think that in any residential area you should expect kids to be playing in the street, no need for a special sign :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote: I don't see the problem in that example: highway=residential maxspeed=50 Yes, in that case. Although I think tagging roads lined with houses as highway=tertiary, abutters=residential is better - really the only difference between a tertiary road and a residential road is that the residential one has houses along it, and you can get houses along primary and secondary roads too so it would seem more consistent to move the existence of houses along the road off onto a separate tag rather than overloading the highway tag. (and personally, I use units - maxspeed=40mph - but that's another discussion we've already done to death; and I haven't been as rigorous as I should have been in recording non-default speed limits). I've certainly not recorded any speed limits to date, although I probably should do. My priority has mainly been to get the roads on the map, since the area that I'm in has had very few mappers (although my other mappers in the area list is now full, which is a nice change :). The absence of any decent aerial photography also slows things down a good deal because you have to go out and resurvey things you aren't sure about rather than being able to have a quick glance at the photos. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote: At least the rules governing 20mph areas (not specifically Home Zones) have been relaxed a bit to make them easier to implement (though Cambridgeshire is till very reluctant, places like Hull and Portsmouth have been really progressive on this). To be honest, I'm very surprised that councils haven't been sued under the disability discrimination act for speed cusions since they can cause people with back problems a lot of pain as the car goes over them. (And besides, they are pretty useless since anyone driving a 4x4 has a wide enough wheel-base to blast over them at whatever speed they want). I've also read that they can cause hidden tyre damage that can lead to blow-outs at high speed, so whilst the statistics may show that they reduce low-speed accidents on housing estates they probably increase the number of very serious high-speed accidents on other roads. but have a plate underneath which is a children's drawing all about slowing down (e.g. a snail). I drove through Neath a few days ago and noticed that they had similar signs - certainly an interesting idea (I have no idea how well it works though) Anyway, this is all rather off topic, sorry. Indeed - interesting none the less though :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends used to live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down towards the KFC - it _is_ unclassified. Well, either that or tertiary; It can't possibly be unclassified - an unclassified road is a single carriage way, usually with no centre line. This road is a dual carriageway with two lanes in each direction. I need to go and survey the area to see if it has an A or B number - if it doesn't then it's a tertiary, definately not an unclassified. (and given the size of the road I would be *extremely* surprised if it didn't have an A B or C number). Why not just leave them alone until you have the time to properly survey them, rather than assuming you know better than the original mapper? Two reasons: 1. Informing people who are using the map that the classification is unknown rather than giving them an almost certainly incorrect classification is a Good Thing. 2. Making it more obvious that the road need surveying means that it can be done systematically (possibly by more than just one person too). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote: We've gone round and round the issue of what road classification means many times before. With a few dissenters, the consensus has generally been that you tag what you find on the ground. This sometimes contradicts the official classification. Some people who have had access to this information have used different tags to apply the official classification (though I do wonder about the copyright status of such information). You misunderstand the problem - the problem isn't that the classification on OSM doesn't match the official classification. The problem is that until highway=road was approved, there was no classification for it's a road but I can't remember what type, so people have used highway=unclassified so that the road at least gets rendered. This means that most roads tagged as highway=unclassified are most definately not unclassified roads on the ground - they are residential, tertiary, secondary or even primary roads. If a road is tagged as highway=unclassified, it should be a relatively narrow road - it should not be a wide residential road with houses down both sides, or a dual carriageway. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, elvin ibbotson wrote: If you believe they are wrongly tagged (I would avoid the word misclassified when referring to an unclassified road ;-) presumably you have a good idea what classification they are, so why not just re-tag them as primary, tertiary or whatever? I know that they are not unclassified, but couldn't tell you what they really are without actually going and surveying them. So my plan was to retag them as highway=road so that it would then be easy to see which ones still need to be resurveyed to fix the classification. But whilst doing this I realised just how many such roads there are and wondered if it would be better to just retag them all to highway=road and then resurvey them. How on earth did you arrive at this figure? Wouldn't 'guess wildly' be a better verb than 'estimate'? No, it isn't a wild guess, it is an estimate based on looking at which roads are tagged as highway=unclassified and using my knowledge of which ones definately aren't unclassified roads. No way! I personally have mapped hundreds of roads, a high proportion of them unclassified (and I suspect I am not the only one who knows what this means) and would not want anyone 'aggressively changing' them. So how would you go about making highway=unclassified a meaningful tag, given how many roads on the map are tagged as highway=unclassified even though they definately aren't unclassified roads? What are peoples' views on this? Thats what I hoped to find out by starting this discussion. :) I expect a lot of no, we don't want any bulk changes responses, but I'm interested if anyone has a better idea. The grey area for me is in the tertiary/unclassified/service/residential area. Yes, this is certainly a grey area. For me, I interpret them as: Tertiary: A minor road, usually with a dotted line along the middle. Unclassified: Narrower than a tertiary, usually without a dotted line along the middle and usually with a relatively high speed limit (although you might not want to drive anywhere near that speed :) Residential: Roads in housing estates - they probably look like tertiary roads, but have houses along them (I actually don't like this classification and think they would be better tagged as highway=tertiary and abutters=residential) Service: Something similar to an unclassified road, but used for access rather than a through road. Usually with a low speed limit. However, despite the grey areas, I'm not really discussing the classifications themselves, I'm trying to work out the best way to fix the problem that for a long time highway=unclassified has been used by a lot of people as a catch all for a road, I don't know the classification (maybe because they were traced from Yahoo rather than surveyed, or the submitter couldn't remember what the road was like when tracing the GPS track). C-class roads in the UK are not labelled as such on road signs or maps (and of course we shouldn't look at maps as this might infringe copyright ;-) so if you don't work for the local highway authority you can only guess at what's tertiary and what's unclassified. From Map Features: Tertiary: Generally for use on roads wider than 4 metres width, and for faster/wider minor roads that aren't A or B roads. In the UK, they tend to have dashed lines down the middle, whereas unclassified roads don't. So the difference between highway=tertiary and highway=unclassified is defined - you don't need road signs for this. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: But any automatic retagging would change those roads which are truly unclassified (and maybe have been surveyed by others) to highway=road. Yes, and they would have to be resurveyed because at the moment it is impossible to tell which roads are truely unclassified and which are mistagged. If there is doubt on specific roads then either get out there and check them or add an extra tag giving your reasons for querying them. The problem is that it isn't specific roads - the vast majority of roads tagged as highway=unclassified seem to be in question. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: You keep saying that but you haven't given a good example. Can you? A dual carriageway that was tagged as highway=unclassified: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.67075lon=-3.91377zoom=16layers=B00FTF A bunch of residential roads that were tagged as highway=unclassified: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.62323lon=-3.94775zoom=15layers=B00FTF There are plenty more where they came from - I have retagged them as highway=road with the intention of going back and properly resurveying them when I have time. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: If you know they are truly residential roads, then why not retag them as such? Because they are part of a large number of roads that I know are not unclassified, but were tagged as such. So I have retagged them to highlight the fact that they need resurveying and I am trying to take a vaguely systematic approach. I know that some of that cluster of roads are residential and I'm pretty confident that none of them are unclassified, but I don't know which of them to tag as residential and which to tag as tertiary without going and resurveying them, which I haven't yet had time to do. Just don't go mad and change areas you have no intention of visiting. I'm certainly not planning on changing areas that I have nothing to do with. But I was trying to bring the problem to the attention of people in other areas since they may have a similar situation. The retagging I've done was based on my knowledge of the specific areas, rather than the roads themselves (i.e. given the type of area the roads were in, I deemed it extremely unlikely that they were really unclassified roads, so retagged them to make it obvious they need to be resurveyed). Since I can't tell you the classification of all the specific roads off the top of my head, I can't necessarilly correct the tags immediately, but I can retag to show that the unclassified tag is almost certainly wrong and then resurvey them when I have chance (and hopefully it might also encourage other people in the area to help with the task) Obviously there are many more roads which really are unclassified in rural areas - So far I've been mainly working on the city and a different approach may be needed for the rural areas. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
Following the approval of the highway=road tag, I've set about aggressively changing a lot of the highway=unclassified roads around Swansea, that I believe are misclassified, to highway=road, with the intention that they can then be surveyed and reclassified correctly. However, after starting to do this, I've realised just how many of the roads are misclassified - I'd estimate that well over 80% of the roads tagged as highway=unclassified are, infact, not unclassified roads. So I'm wondering about the merits of changing *all* the highway=unclassified roads in the area to highway=road so that the whole lot can be classified appropriately from scratch. This would make it obvious which roads really are unclassified and which need to be checked. What are peoples' views on this? I imagine that much of the OSM world is affected in the same way, and this renders the highway=unclassified tag relatively meaningless in it's current state. Should there be a global reclassification to fix this, or is there a better way? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Chris Hill wrote: I would be strongly against a global change of highway=unclassified - all of the roads I have tagged as unclassified deserve to be so. I have been working partly on a very rural area, where many of the roads are unclassified (country lanes). To have to retag them from road to unclassified would be a very annoying waste of time. I agree that there are areas where the classifications are accurate, but is there a good solution to the problem? I'm starting the discussion because I think there is a real problem here - I don't have the solution, I'm hoping that a discussion might produce one. :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Map Maker
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Is there not a law against unauthorised reading of emails? It isn't exactly unauthorised if you agreed to the contract when you signed up for the service... Whether they can read _inbound_ emails is a quite different question though, since the sender did not agree to the contract. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, OJ W wrote: Would it be worth moving the introduction, links, wiki, shop, conference advert, and donation buttons from the front page to an about tab in the view/edit/export.. tab strip? The left-hand edge of the main page seems to be getting quite long, so the search box isn't visible without scrolling on some screens. What about moving the search box? Maybe right under the OSM logo, or even on the tab-bar between User Diaries and log in/Welcome (although that may make the page too wide). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OT] OSM based photo catalogue
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, John McKerrell wrote: Indeed, flickr's great and can do most of this stuff well. I like to use this site[1] to geotag my photos on flickr just because it's really nice and easy but there's lots of other ways to do it. I use DigiKam to geotag my photos - it is about the only photo manager I've found which is actually any good. I set up my website to embed a slippymap with markers for each photo. e.g. http://www.nexusuk.org/photos/skiing/switzerland/verbier/2008/02/23/ - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm talk at local LUG
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: From my experience you get lots of questions so best keep the presentation simple and allow enough time to answer stuff. You might also find you get questions regarding the free aspect of the project and the licence. Yes, be prepared for the usual why not just use Google? questions. I did a short lightning talk on OSM at my local LUG a few months ago and being able to cite uses of the data other than the plain slippymap was quite good (such as the Welsh language version (as I am in Wales :), the cyclemap, the pistemap, the ability to use the data for satnav projects, etc.). The level of interest seemed quite high at the time, but sadly I don't think we've got any new mappers from that group. :( I shall try and dig out the slides I wrote, but basically I briefly talked out the benefits of the project over commercial maps and how the surveying is actually done. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm talk at local LUG
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, SteveC wrote: Isn't it easier with such a group to ask 'why not use windows?' Quite possibly, but that isn't quite the same thing. Windows is not free (as in beer), so a lot of people (even LUG attendees) often get hung up on the zero cost side of things, so when faced with two zero cost solutions (Google and OSM) they must be poked into realising that there is also the Free (as in speech) aspect to consider. I consider the freedom I get from using Linux to be one of the main reasons for using it, but one must accept that not everyone thinks the same way, so being quite explicit in the explanation of _why_ to use OSM instead of Google is a Good Thing. As far as Linux is concerned, there are other reasons to use it instead of Windows - i.e. it costs nothing, it is more secure, it comes with more powerful tools, it is generally better. Whilst a lot of these things may have come about _because_ of the freedom that Linux gives people, that fact may not be directly evident to a lot of people. Just my 2 pennies worth... - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Don't you just hate it when part 2...
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Same with me too, though I might have gone somewhere else if I'd known! Guess the lesson is to make sure you know what the others in your area are doing... It is useful to have a wiki page for your area where people can state what areas they are working on... of course it also helps if people actually use it (only two people are using the Swansea wiki page, even though there are more than two of us mapping Swansea) :( - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nested areas
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, spaetz wrote: Why should it work differently? If I want a tunnel under a forest, a layer=-1 *should* draw the tunnel under the forest. It isn't in a tunnel though - if it was, it would have tunnel=yes. layer=-1 is often used for waterways for a couple of reasons: 1. It indicates it is below the _general_ level of the local ground (note: this does not imply it is a covered tunnel) 2. It means that ways which pass over the top don't need to explicitly be moved to a higher layer, which makes editing easier. I don't think areas, such as landuse, natural, etc. should be considered as something physically laid on top of the land - they merely describe the use of the land within them and thus should not obscure other objects any more than the land itself should. If the land itself isn't obscuring objects, why should an area tag, which effectively just describes some properties of that land. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Approved: highway=road (Generic road)
The highway=road proposal has now been approved. It received 27 votes, 17 of which were approvals. The relevant wiki pages have now been updated. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nested areas
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote: If the 2nd area is meant to replace the 1st rather than just say something extra about the land/water then you should probably make a hole. Hmm.. ok. Looks like I need to investigate the multipolygon relations stuff. osmarender rules pay attention to the layer tag even when dealing with areas. In this case the river is on layer=-1, and the industrial area has no layer tag (so defaults to 0). osmarender is rendering all -1 objects first, then moves on to the layer 0 objects. This seems wrong to me. An easy fix would be to subtract a number (e.g. 10) from the layer value of areas so they always get rendered under non-area objects. Maybe I'll look at doing this when I don't have a hundred and one other things to do. :) I suspect there's no easy way of doing the surface-area calculation to keep small areas on top though. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Overlapping ways warning for areas
I have created a number of landuse areas which are divided by ways. E.g. a natural=wood area abutting a landuse=farm area with a highway=footway running along the join. Where they join, the two areas share the same nodes, as does the footway which goes along the join. However, JOSM's validator is complaining of overlapping ways. I know there is some contention as to whether sharing nodes is necessarilly the right thing to do, but in this case the footway really is the thing that divides the woodland from the farmland - should I take notice of the validator and change the way I have drawn the land use areas (I guess I could move them to layer -5, but shouldn't landuse areas default to being on the lowest layer anyway?), or should I just ignore the warnings? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways warning for areas
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Thomas Wood wrote: Ignore the warnings, they were mostly as a warning to inform you that there happen to be two ways there rather than as an error. Ok, I thought as much, thanks. Would there be any bad side effects of the validator never warning of overlapping ways where one of those ways has area=yes? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Update OSM PostGIS DB with .osc files?
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Ian Dees wrote: Has anyone experimented with using the hourly, daily, etc. OSC files available on planet.openstreetmap.org to update their live PostGIS database? Ideally, I'd like to also kick off mapnik re-rendering of the tiles that have changed. I'm looking at it, but wanted to make sure I'm not duplicating someone's work. I got part way through writing code to do it, but didn't have time to complete it. I did hear rumour that osm2pgsql might be gaining support in the future to do this (not sure how likely/soon that is). My experience has been that storing all the data in the DB can be very slow and use a lot of disk space, so fairly careful design of the database is needed. Also, I made the mistake of doing it in Python - I really think it needs to be done in C to get a decent efficiency. I'll be extremely interested in anything you can come out with though - it'd be very useful to be able to import the changes since it would allow minutely updates. You should also be able to calculate which tiles need updating while importing the changes, allowing the old tiles to be easilly expired and updated. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] simplifying mapnik layout definition
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Andy Allan wrote: Now, if someone is volunteering to make a concise definition format that can be pre-processed into the mapnik XML format (or mapnik python code, or even just read by a modified mapnik directly, or whatever) then I'd absolutely love to SEE THE WORKING CODE. That osm.xml is an unwieldy beast isn't in question, nor are the myriad of possibilities to improve it - what is lacking is working alternative. For OpenPisteMap I create the XML using some PHP code: https://public.subversion.nexusuk.org/trac/browser/openpistemap/trunk/scripts/mktemplate.php I've not converted the entire XML file yet, and I don't pretend it is a universal solution, but I find it easier to work with than the raw MapNik XML file. It would be nice to have some kind of cascading language so that styles can be defined for each object at the top level and then modified for each zoom level, but I suspect no one has the time to do it (I certainly don't). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Vote: highway=road
Please read and vote on the proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Generic_road
Vote with {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}}.
Thank you.
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (It's reasonably easily settled - either get Google to give the ok, or rerectify against OSM. Better still, rerectify against OSM's GPS traces alone, thereby sidestepping potential CC-BY-SA issues.) Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database, accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC: Proposed feature, generic road
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Steve Hill wrote: I'd like to draw attention to the highway=road proposed feature and request comments: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Generic_road Does anyone mind if I raise this for a vote? (Commenting seems to have ceased) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [EMAIL PROTECTED] style updates
Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] pull the latest Osmarender styles from svn every so often? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
Lester Caine wrote: But it is an area that needs to be fine tuned in the guides! In reality at smaller scales they are never in the same place This depends what you are mapping. For example, I have used shared nodes on beaches - below the high water mark I have mapped a beach with a water=tidal tag, above the high water mark I have mapped a nontidal beach. Where the tidal and nontidal beaches join, they share nodes - this reflects reality since there really is no gap between tidal and nontidal bits of beach. Similarly, where beaches change from sand to rock, there is no gap and so the nodes should be shared. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
Peter Miller wrote: I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would suggest it is not notable in OSM itself. I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's biggest problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way. I've seen too many genuinely useful articles get blown away because someone decided they covered non-notable subjects, to the point that I gave up editing Wikipedia. The point is: why should anyone care about notability so long as the data is useful, accurate and maintained? Wikipedia's deletion policies are deeply flawed: There are a group of users who make it their mission to delete articles. When they nominate an article for deletion, most of the people who vote either wrote the article, or one of the group who's sole mission is to delete stuff - no one else cares enough about the deletion procedure to take part. So the majority of the time, well written articles get deleted purely because of the massive bias in the quorum who vote on deletions. I sincerely hope OSM doesn't decide to go down a similar route. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Nick Whitelegg wrote: But that's what foot and horse are for. highway=path could easily be used to distinguish public and permissive footpaths and bridleways. Would it be better to have something other than yes to mean legally enshrined access permission to protect against people tagging stuff as yes without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not reading the wiki)? -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping Ways - Embrace or Avoid?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The area shares some nodes with the highway, creating overlapping ways. 2. The area shares no nodes and was drawn as close as possible to the road. I couldn't find any recommendations in the wiki on which option to prefer. I prefer sharing nodes. Overlapping ways allow a cleaner data model and saves nodes. But editing such ways is quite a hassle. There is currently no function to split nodes so that ways can be separated again. So if the border of the area needs to be changed, the complete area has to be redrawn (at least to my knowledge). JOSM handles overlapping objects reasonably well (using the middle-click menu). If you need to separate the ways you can add a new node to each way individually and then delete the shared node - could be neater, but it isn't bad. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] RFC: Proposed feature, generic road
I'd like to draw attention to the highway=road proposed feature and request comments: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Generic_road Thanks. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Shaun McDonald wrote: I find it interesting that you use motorcar, as I generally just use car, as that is what I think is on the wiki (unless someone has decided to change it). The wiki uses motorcar as the access restriction tag. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Alex Mauer wrote: IMO if it's sufficiently unknown that it will have to be revisited anyway for more accurate classification, marking it as a road rather than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone. Sure it is - I know I can drive down a road, I don't know that I can drive down any arbitrary highway feature. I don't think it's a good idea for the highway tag to be used for so many non-road things -- but that's probably a discussion for another time. Yes, I dislike the current overloading of tags, but I don't think that is going to change soon. Andy Allan asked me to put together a wiki page with respect to the namespacing discussion, which I haven't had time to do yet, but overloading tags like highway is one of the things I'd like to address on that page when I get chance. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway. It has a gate across the east end end so you can't drive along it from the east, but you can drive along it from the west end. The west end has no restrictions other than a sign saying No Though Road. There are a couple of buildings down there, so someone might have legitimate reason for driving along it even though they can't get out at the other end. So I'm a bit unsure how to tag it - any suggestions? Thoughts that spring to mind are either highway=bridleway, motorcar=yes or highway=unclassified. Presumably with a highway=gate, motorcar=no node on the gated end, or maybe highway=gate, horse=yes, foot=yes. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal administrative description. Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass that confusing mixture of physical and legal descriptions. :) (It is something we should probably try to move away from, but that's another discussion). Just because it's a bridleway does not necessarily mean car=no. The wiki indicates that OSM considers highway=bridleway to be a footpath which horses are permitted on (I would think highway=footway, horse=yes would be better and am in favour of getting rid of highway=bridleway entirely. However, I also want to be consistent with what other people are doing.) The landowner will almost certainly have access over the route. Since it's a bridleway however the public probably do not (unless its permissive). In this case, I imagine the highway belongs to the National Grid, since it provides access to the Swansea North substation and some of their offices. However, at the west end of the highway there is no private, no cars, etc signs, just a No through road sign (which makes sense since there is a gate at the other end... probably to prevent people rat-running). Also, there are currently some roadworks on the highway, which are signed as you would expect them to be if they were on a public road (the normal red-triangle roadworks and blue-circle-with-white-arrow keep right signs). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (The High Street in Oxford is nominally the A420, so we tag ref=A420, but it's no good as a through-route - the bollards are a bit of a giveaway - so we tag highway=tertiary.) I'm left wondering why they haven't removed the A-road designation if they put bollards in... Anyway, I'm going a bit off topic now. :) Skimming the thread, your road sounds like highway=unclassified; designation=bridleway. Or something - finding a consensus for designation= is left as an exercise for the reader. horse=yes seems as descriptive as designation=bridleway. I think I will settle on highway=unclassified, access=private, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=permissive, motorcar=permissive. I don't actually know the status of bike and car access, but the fact that it has been signed as a bridleway indicates to me that pedestrians and horses have a legal right of way along there. Thanks for the input folks. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Crossing access types (was: Road crossings proposal - status?)
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: * If two ways cross at a crossing Node, access keys would logically apply to both. Declaring that crossings are somehow special and that access tags on them apply only to the crossing traffic is worse. Ok, sounds like we would need a relation for this so you can specify which way it applies to. * The access tag is not documented as being applicable to Nodes. Most crossings will be Nodes. It probably should be applicable to nodes so that you can apply it to things like gates - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
On Sun, 11 May 2008, 80n wrote: highway=road This is suitably vague, but has a clear enough meaning. Ah, ok - does this get rendered? (It isn't on Map_Features - maybe it should be). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Jeffrey Martin wrote: Did we ever decide what to do when a road continues but we didn't continue down the road? I tend to do fixme=Road continues or fixme=Footway continues. Although to be honest, in most cases for roads I either follow them as far as they go (when I am doing real OSM surveying), or I am just collecting a track as I drive on some other business so I don't get any detail other than the road's position (and thus won't know if the road continues when I review the track later). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
On Mon, 12 May 2008, 80n wrote: Ah, ok - does this get rendered? (It isn't on Map_Features - maybe it should be). No. But you are welcome to add it to any of the rendering engines. Ok, I'll look into doing so. What is the procedure for adding this sort of thing? Just post a patch on the dev list? It would be particularly useful if Yahoo tracers were to use highway=road as I'm sure they can rarely tell what kind of road it is from 30,000ft. That's exactly what I thought. Also people who are just driving around with a GPS without paying particular attention to the information they are collecting (I am guilty of this since I think it is better to collect _something_ when you're driving on unmapped roads, even if you aren't in a position to collect all the information you would usually need from a full survey). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Brian Quinion wrote: I like this - but would suggest a small change: highway=crossing crossing=zebra|toucan|pelican|... No, get rid of the UK specific classifications of crossing completely - they require too much background knowledge to interpret and are pointless if you have already split out the various properties into separate tags. Where crossing=zebra is explicitly defined (on the wiki?) as a short cut for: highway=crossing crossingcontrol=uncontrolled foot=yes horse=no I'm not a big fan of having many alternative ways of defining exactly the same feature. A better way to implement shortcuts is to have presets in the editors which automatically set the appropriate tags. My feeling is this leaves lots of room for future expansion without breaking backwards compatibility with most of the existing data. What do people think? IMO It just adds lots of redundent data, which massively complicates anything interpretting it (e.g. the renderers). A clean change over to a totally new system would require no more complexity, but would make it possible for the complexity to eventually be reduced since the old tags could gradually be replaced with new ones (or there could be a bulk search/replace, but I know some people are opposed to this). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Brian Quinion wrote: The only problems I can see is that because it is centralised it is somewhat out of user control - so maybe it should make sense to pull the list of presets from a wiki page (once a day?) and there would be a small amount of server side load to implement it. That would certainly be do-able. People do need to be aware that exactly what a preset tag sets can change without notice as the wiki is updated, and that the changes will only affect new uploads though. I think some sort of quick marco language would be a bonus for all the editors esp. if they shared a standard format for defining them, although at that point I wonder if an api change is needed - downloading a formatted page from the wiki might be as easy esp. if it was cached by the editor. That could be quite cool. One thing that would be really useful is for the editor to tell me what options could be set for an object, and what their defaults are. I.e. when I set a way to highway=tertiary it can tell me that I can set a name, ref, access restrictions, etc. Maybe ordered by the popularity of the various tags and with tags that are semi-mandatory (such as the name of a residential road) in bold. All that data can be pulled from wiki pages and tagwatch. Sadly my Java skills are nonexistent. :( This might be a viable way of handling some country specific presets too, so pre:de:highway=autoban That would be extremely useful since it would allow us to (more easily) throw away country-specific bits from the real data and move them out to a translation system to make editing easier. TBH regardless of the current discussion I think this would be a nice feature so I'll write it! Neat - I look forward to it! :) -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unknown road classifications
Alex Mauer wrote: Isn't a value of unknown in use on several other tags? It is at least on the whole access series of tags (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access) So highway=unknown would make sense to me. Something like road=unknown might make sense, but because the highway tag is used for lots of non-road things, highway=unknown could be talking about any kind of highway, such as a footway. Quite a lot of the time you know it is a road because you drove down it, but you don't necessarily know what class of road it is. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Road crossings proposal - status?
Dave Stubbs wrote: Some of us really couldn't care less either way. Frankly, please stop talking about it -- you're not getting anywhere. Actually, I think some fairly insightful suggestions have been made and it is a useful discussion. You don't _have_ to read this thread if you don't care about it, but I dare say that some of the people who are taking part in the discussion do care. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
