Re: [Talk-us] Temporarily Deleting Relations from Interstate Ways
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I've been working on state highways and interstate relations myself lately, too. I stopped using Potlatch for exactly this reason... On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Philip Shipley p...@barby.net wrote: Any thoughts, objections, better ideas..please don't say JOSM.. Use JOSM. For simple stuff like this it is pretty easy to use. If you have a specific gripe against JOSM, let me know -- I'd be happy to help you work through it. If you just don't like it, I don't think there are any other editors out there that are as feature-complete as Potlatch or JOSM. Also, I vote that you don't remove relations just to make editing easier. It would be a pain to add those back. Is there a wiki page on how to get the Yahoo imagery into JOSM painlessly? That's the primary reason I used Potlatch when fixing up bits of I-80/81 around here. -Ted ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] silly borders
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Dear Can-Americans, This is silly. Four different lines for one border. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.99906lon=-95.15362zoom=16layers=B000FTF We're good neighbo(u)rs. We should fix our fence. Shouldn't each border be a single way, with a relation for each adjacent region? We should have a fence-mending party. It is quite a mess. When I started the US state border import (which Adam finished), I expended quite a bit of manual effort splitting borders to not make them overlap. AFAIK, the complex multipolygon stuff didn't exist at that point, or I probably would have tried to use it as well. I don't think there were national borders in at that point, although I could be misremembering. And then Ian tossed the county borders in wholesale (which made me cry a little, I admit), and of course none of these datasets quite line up. I've done some fixup locally where I cared about, but it surely needs some love. -Ted ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: Okay, taking you somewhat more seriously now, the ideology that Ted is driving is that everything in OSM should be editable by everyone, and nobody has any better edits to make than anyone else, and everybody gets an equal vote, and if you change something and I change it back, well, those are just two votes and who are you to override me or me override you, and when somebody moves a way five miles long over by one hundred feet and screws up hundreds of roads, well, that was just an edit, and how can an edit be wrong? I never said that everyone's edits were equal, just that all the data should be equal in the eyes of the database. I have no problem with you importing this data, monitoring it, and reverting edits that look incorrect, the same way that I pay attention to my local area and would revert vandalism or misguided edits. But yes, I do believe that *everyone* should have that same right. Nobody gets a special privilege just because they brought a certain data import to the party. As others have said, the wikiness of OSM is the central concept here. Even if I never have reason to edit your data, I object on principle that we should have data in OSM that is not editable, as I feel it violates the spirit of OSM. I have spent countless hours mapping my area, and a lot of that data is arguably the best it's going to get. Any edits by a random user (ban potlatch etc) are more likely to make the data worse, yet I would never argue that it should be uneditable or locked down in some way. The wiki model means you have to take the bad with the good. Clearly we will need to get better tools for change monitoring and easy rollback, but people are working on these things, and it's just a software problem. -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fiwrote: Why not to store this kind of datasets as own layers in the database? DEC data could be on its own, non-editable layer, but if there's something that people would like to edit those features could be copied or lifted to anothet, OSM layer. That would make DEC updates easier as well, they would just update the DEC layer. The same approach would suit other data of similar nature as well, like TIGER or cadastrial data. If you can't edit it it shouldn't be in the OSM db. It's easy enough to set up your own map render with any external data you want. -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] place=island rendering
I've noticed that there's a GNIS import going on in the USA recently, and one of the types of POIs being imported are islands, which are tagged place=island. Of course, the GNIS database contains some very tiny islands, but Mapnik renders place=island up to z10. For example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.69lon=-75.353zoom=10layers=B000FTFT Allentown is a city with a population of 100,000. Eves Island appears to be about 20 feet long, yet the label for it is nearly the size of Allentown. :) Someone on IRC suggested that place=islet might be a more correct tagging for these, and the map features page for place=island seems to agree: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Disland I am mainly thinking of small coastal or river islands which may have a small settlement or a farm--this indicates that tiny little patches of land weren't the original target of this tag. Thoughts? -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: If it's This is what NYS DEC says it manages, then no, it doesn't make ANY sense to change it. Then this data clearly doesn't belong in OSM. If the data is These are NYS's State Forests, then there's plenty of reason to change them. Perhaps there's a typo, or some piece of data which simply doesn't make sense. Data is produced by people, and can have mistakes it. This data is fine for OSM. Someone imported the PA state forests from some government source a while back without any discussion, and they're doing just fine. Perhaps you just need to shift your perception of what you're importing? The canonical source of official government boundaries is not going to be the OSM data, and should never be. However, the presence of a state forest is useful data that belongs in OSM. This does not mean that the latter has to imply the former, even if that's the original source. We've also imported state and county borders from the TIGER data set. These may be quasi-official, but they've still been edited in multiple ways (as mentioned by others). What makes NY state forests so special? In short, I think you have every right to monitor data you've edited/imported and revert incorrect edits (within reason). However, I reject the idea that there is any data that belongs in OSM that makes no sense to edit. If you can't edit it, then by definition it shouldn't be in a wiki-style map. -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mapping driveways
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.comwrote: First of all, you should NEVER remove anything from the database, unless you have made certain by your own eye that the object in question is an error and not existing in reality! Even than take care not to remove anything marked as abandoned or alike, that marks this object was once here and the info is kept for historical reasons. I would disagree with this statement in this particular case. The data is TIGER data, not entered by a human, and there are plenty of errors in the TIGER data. I routinely delete unnamed highway=residential ways from TIGER after a brief look at the aerial imagery. It's one thing to delete something that someone else manually entered, it's another thing entirely to delete something that came along with a mass import from a data source with known flaws. -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] place=island rendering
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting issue. The techy in me thinks that tagging the island (tag the way) rather than a point may help, since that allows data consumers (e.g. renderers) to calculate the size of the island (and even, perhaps in future, the longest diagonal to write the name at an angle). Defaulting to putting the name in the middle of the polygon is easy and done already with buildings. We have a similar area-based thing with way_area in mapnik rendering rules already. Yeah, the unfortunate thing here is that this import probably brought in a few hundred to a few thousand of these place=island POIs, and I would hazard a guess that a large (huge?) portion of them don't have the physical island boundaries mapped (since a lot of them are so tiny). -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] National Park Boundaries
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote: The thing about the several renderers we currently have is that they can't be expected to take every possible mapped feature into account. The map would just get too cluttered. I think for a general street map (the Mapnik layer) one color for all types of protected/conservation designated land is fine. Borders between different land designations should be shown as well. It seems to me that national/state parks are often surrounded by national/state forest, but the opposite is not often true. Probably parks should be rendered above forests, or better yet render them with transparency above forests so the borders of both can be seen. Of course I don't know who is in charge of the renderers so I can't really change the way it's currently done. I strongly agree that we should not try to have Mapnik render everything possible, or make distinctions like this. I think the goal of the mapnik layer should be to make a *nice looking map*, even if it omits some data. If all green space were the same shade of green that would be just fine with me. If you want a more precise map, make your own render! -Ted ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Language rendering query
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:31 AM, D Tucny d...@tucny.com wrote: Not now it doesn't... jth did the last render and is obviously missing fonts needed... however, it seems some people do have OK fonts... Does t...@h require the correct fonts to be installed on the user's machine? That seems pretty suboptimal. Couldn't it ship a free font with the software and use that? -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Potlatch / API inconsistency?
I went to look at an area I edited last week in the Mapnik rendering, and noticed it looked wrong. I thought maybe my edits hadn't been picked up somehow, so I looked at the data view on the slippy map. It matched the rendering. So I thought maybe Potlatch had failed me and not saved my edits. I clicked Edit, and Potlatch showed the data as I remembered editing it. So somehow Potlatch has a view of this data that doesn't match the API. Anyone know what's gone wrong (and how to fix it)? http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.4776lon=-75.54364zoom=15layers=B000FTF The dual trunk ways there should be roughly parallel. I believe the one with the US 6 ref visible in that image is in the correct placement, and the other one is the old TIGER data that I modified to be sh Thanks, -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch / API inconsistency?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: The easy fix is to edit the way with Potlatch, make some sort of change (maybe drag a point away, then back again), then deselect to force an upload. Thanks, this appears to have worked. Regards, -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Campus map - Who's got a good one?
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Andrew MacKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Don't forget University of Toronto - http://openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=43.66328lon=-79.39365zoom=16 (shameless self promotion... that took several hours' work, walking around campus and checking building names) That really is nice work! The Mozilla Toronto office is right next door (on Spadina less than a block from Bloor) and I was checking out the area in OSM before I visited. I was quite impressed! -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Changes to TIGER data
You can split ways in Potlatch by selecting the way, then clicking the node, and then pressing 'x'. You can delete ways and their nodes by selecting the way and then pressing Shift+Delete. This wiki page is quite helpful: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Potlatch/Keyboard_shortcuts -Ted On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Sorry, I generally use JOSM (but I haven't been doing much mapping lately, more programming if anything). I'm sure there's a way, so I'm replying to the list where someone more knowledgeable can reply. Karl On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Nathan West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been using potlatch to make all of my edits. Is there a way to delete sections of ways and their points? This needs to be done for some ancient pieces of road that do not exist anyone in my area and for small sections of the old railway. thanks for all of your help, all of the suggestions have been really helpful. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Richard Weait [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 21:55 -0400, Nathan West wrote: Hey everyone, I'm pretty new to OSM, and I was wondering what the recommended way to make changes to the TIGER data is. The situation I'm currently looking at is a 40 mile walk/bike trail that is a converted railraod and is still listed as a railroad in OSM. I am also fairly sure that while the TIGER rail line matches pretty close, it is a little off in areas. So the final question is: If there are fairly large outdated data sets that may be off in location, is it easiest to just delete the old way and create a new route? (I can get the actual route easily) make your changes to reflect the truth on the ground to the best of your ability. Once you have reviewed and updated something that was originally TIGER data, change the tiger:reviewed = no to tiger:reviewed = yes Or better yet, delete that tag and save some space in the database. Karl ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Good example of OSM coverage - Sofija, Bulgaria
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Ralf Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to share a good example of OSM coverage with you. It is the city of Sofija in Bulgaria. A friend of mine is travelling there and asked me if OSM has good maps of that area as Google does not show much. I converted OSM maps for him to use on his PDA. Now he is well equipped for his trip. Here is the direct comparison: http://geo.topf.org/comparison/index.html?mt0=googlemapmt1=mapniklon=23.332386lat=42.6927823z=12 This makes me smile. This is why I have so much fun mapping the world with OSM. Only somewhat related, but anyone know why there are so many hospitals on that map? Is that just some unusual tagging? -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders - mapnik
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Beau Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The US national border with Canada is all tagged with admin_level=4, border_type=state, border=administrative... It also has the left/right countries (at least the bit I looked at in WA did). How should state borders that are also national borders be tagged? I believe those were all imported from the TIGER polygon data, so they were just state borders originally. The ways might need some massaging to make a continuous national border. -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National borders - mapnik
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Beau Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please clarify one thing: any border that is both a state and national border should be tagged at the highest level (in this case national, admin_level=2) To me this sounds like there is just one way for the state/national border... but... and the state borders will come in too, with their appropriate style. This sounds like there are two ways, one for the state border and one for the national border. This seems to make the most sense to me given the second sentence quoted above. The US state borders are already split into multiple ways, since they all would have been 250 nodes otherwise. It shouldn't be a problem to further modify them to make parts of them national borders instead. Just make sure to keep the left:state/right:state tags as appropriate. I would agree with Steve that if someone wants to use them as polygons, they should be post-processing anyway. (Or just using the original TIGER data, which is shapefiles.) -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Ari Torhamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: su, 2008-05-04 kello 15:40 +0200, Mike Collinson kirjoitti: At 01:33 PM 4/05/2008, Ari Torhamo wrote: la, 2008-05-03 kello 17:39 -0400, Ted Mielczarek kirjoitti: Why else are we contributing this data if not for people to *use* it? I suggest you go and present this breath taking argument to RMS, and we might soon get an updated, more free version of GPL. Ari The GPL works very well as it already allows folks to *use* software with no restriction on what they make with that use. Adding something new to GPL software source code is clearly different from using existing GPL software to do something new. That distinction is far from clear when using collations of facts like OSM data. So a different model is required. The PD argument is a very easy and elegant solution, but it makes some contributors very uncomfortable. The new license being worked on seeks to make a, hopefully, comprehensible distinction for factual data. OK, thanks for explaining this. I was actually just responding to sarcasm that I didn't like, but perhaps I could have been more educated doing it :-) (or perhaps it would be best that we weren't sarcastic to each other at all). For what it's worth, I wasn't being sarcastic, more like exasperated. I hate seeing licensing issues confound useful activities, whether they be software, music, art, or mapping. Seeing people wasting time having a discussion about whether they can legally use something instead of spending that time doing something useful makes me sad. I apologize if I came off as sarcastic, it can be difficult to infer tone over email! Regards, -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 6:36 AM, Vincent MEURISSE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand why some users want their work in PD. The goal of osm is to have a map of the world freely available for anyone. But with PD someone (eg google) can take all the work of osm, correct and complete it, and copyright it in a way that osm cannot reuse the modification. So the copyrighted map will be better than the free one. And while they're taking the data, correcting and completing it, we'll be continuing to update and improve our copy, so what have they gained? Imagine if Wikipedia was public domain, and you made the same argument there. Certainly one could take a complete copy of Wikipedia, try to correct all errors, and publish it as your own work, but I doubt you could ever truly create something better than the mass of Wikipedia users. For me, it seems ironic that a project spawned from licensing issues over map data has found itself in a situation where licensing issues are still a problem, and hopefully the license update will resolve these and make using OSM data easier. Why else are we contributing this data if not for people to *use* it? -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unexpected :)
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Steve Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, maning sambale wrote: Well, they do censor their images, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_blurred_out_on_Google_Maps Why not, in their streetmaps? Dunno.. I just didn't expect them to censor their own offices from their own map :-/ I'd hardly call it censored when they don't have any buildings at all displayed in Mountain View. (notes that the Mozilla offices are still missing on the OSM map. :-) -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Navit on the Asus EeePC with Debian Testing
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Off topic I know, but I presume the upcoming Firefox 3, with its page scaling, will make web browsing on an 800 pixel-wide screen a lot less painful. Unfortunately the official Firefox builds won't run on Gtk 2.8, so you may be out of luck there. :-/ (There's a patch to disable the new print dialog, which is what requires GTK 2.10, here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418885 ) -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
