Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
2009/11/3 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 2009/11/3 Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com: Also, a free-hand drawing mode (e.g. press-down left mouse button and drag) in JOSM would go a long way towards faster tracing. Clicking to add one point at a time is pretty slow. +1 -1; I doubt it would be of any help at all. I'm drawing a lot in vector-programms (professionally) and never using those free-hand-modes, as you can't draw exactly with a mouse (at least I can't, or if I do I'll have to adjust 80% of the controll points manually afterwards, so there is no gain in time). Well, if you got a digitizer it might be useful. If there are very few tracks in the area you are drawing in, it might also be useful if there was a snap to gpx-point-mode, but still I think that's too many ifs. (of course: feel free to develop a solution and convince me of the opposite). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
2009/11/3 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2009/11/3 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 2009/11/3 Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com: Also, a free-hand drawing mode (e.g. press-down left mouse button and drag) in JOSM would go a long way towards faster tracing. Clicking to add one point at a time is pretty slow. +1 -1; I doubt it would be of any help at all. I'm drawing a lot in vector-programms (professionally) and never using those free-hand-modes, as you can't draw exactly with a mouse (at least I can't, or if I do I'll have to adjust 80% of the controll points manually afterwards, so there is no gain in time). Well, if you got a digitizer it might be useful. If there are very few tracks in the area you are drawing in, it might also be useful if there was a snap to gpx-point-mode, but still I think that's too many ifs. (of course: feel free to develop a solution and convince me of the opposite). Gimp lets you plot freehand or if you hold shift will do a straight line, I'm sure there is a number of modifiers that would make a free hand mode useful... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
2009/11/3 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Gimp lets you plot freehand or if you hold shift will do a straight line, I'm sure there is a number of modifiers that would make a free hand mode useful... Gimp is a bitmap-based-programm. As I pointed out: nearly all vector-based programms offer freehand-modes (Adobe Illustrator, Ex-Macromedia Freehand, Flash, ...) but they are not useful when it comes to precise drawing. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
2009/11/3 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2009/11/3 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Gimp lets you plot freehand or if you hold shift will do a straight line, I'm sure there is a number of modifiers that would make a free hand mode useful... Gimp is a bitmap-based-programm. As I pointed out: nearly all vector-based programms offer freehand-modes (Adobe Illustrator, Ex-Macromedia Freehand, Flash, ...) but they are not useful when it comes to precise drawing. It doesn't matter if it's vector or raster, we're essentially talking about plotting points and having those points joined by a line/way, the point is it's just a data entry method, and as I said even gimp can draw a precise line. If you don't want to use such a features that's your pejorative, there is plenty of features I don't use in JOSM, but other people would like the option of being able to do this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Also, a free-hand drawing mode (e.g. press-down left mouse button and drag) in JOSM would go a long way towards faster tracing. Clicking to add one point at a time is pretty slow. To everyone in this thread: If you have feature suggestions for JOSM please file them *on the JOSM bugtracker* at http://josm.openstreetmap.de/newticket and not here. The JOSM developers are very good at responding to feature requests, so if you have minor nits or enhancement suggestions please note them somewhere where they might actually make a difference. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Bitmapped images don't scale well. When you zoom in, the pixels get larger, rather than more pixels being added. For purposes of map-making, it seems like a vector-based system would work better. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:51:38 To: m...@koppenhoefer.com Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM 2009/11/3 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2009/11/3 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Gimp lets you plot freehand or if you hold shift will do a straight line, I'm sure there is a number of modifiers that would make a free hand mode useful... Gimp is a bitmap-based-programm. As I pointed out: nearly all vector-based programms offer freehand-modes (Adobe Illustrator, Ex-Macromedia Freehand, Flash, ...) but they are not useful when it comes to precise drawing. It doesn't matter if it's vector or raster, we're essentially talking about plotting points and having those points joined by a line/way, the point is it's just a data entry method, and as I said even gimp can draw a precise line. If you don't want to use such a features that's your pejorative, there is plenty of features I don't use in JOSM, but other people would like the option of being able to do this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
John Smith writes: If you don't want to use such a features that's your pejorative, there is plenty of features I don't use in JOSM, but other people would like the option of being able to do this. Plugin. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Nop wrote: It has been suggested several times, that the possibility to do this indirectly be removed from JOSM altogether and having corrected many bad direct uploads I am rather in favour of this. Potlatch enables you to convert a GPS track to a way by clicking Edit beside the track (in the GPS Traces listing), then selecting Convert track to ways when Potlatch loads. There is no option _not_ to simplify the track on import; it runs Douglas-Peucker over it, and I would commend this forced simplification to the JOSM devs. Ways are automatically split after an interval of n seconds. I find it works very well for long country roads where manual tracing of a 50-mile sinuous course would be both exasperating and (for most mappers) low resolution. One of the reasons I added it is that I was fed up of seeing people trace lovely bendy rural roads with 45-degree angles. But, yes, you'd be insane to use it in urban areas. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Hi! Richard Fairhurst schrieb: Potlatch enables you to convert a GPS track to a way by clicking Edit beside the track (in the GPS Traces listing), then selecting Convert track to ways when Potlatch loads. There is no option _not_ to simplify the track on import; it runs Douglas-Peucker over it, and I would commend this forced simplification to the JOSM devs. Ways are automatically split after an interval of n seconds. It is good that simplification is forced. But of course, it will still stupidly add a large zig-zag caused by bad reception to the map. (I have seen beginners manually add such zig-zags before they learn that GPS isn't perfect, but at least they usually learn) How does it take care of crossing other ways without a junction point? bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Why not (a) convert the GPX layer to a data layer and then (b) use the simplify way tool from the JOSM plugin? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 November 2009 06:57 To: Shalabh Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM 2009/11/2 Shalabh shalab...@gmail.com: I will leave this open to discussion but I thought it better to bring this to everybody's notice, so JOSM can be made more user friendly. You can already convert a GPX layer to a OSM layer and then upload the results, just right click on the layer, however it can be very tedious to remove points if they are once a second and all points are imported etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
John Smith wrote: 2009/11/2 Dan Homerick danhomer...@gmail.com: Once the GPX layer is converted to an OSM layer, you can run Simplify Way on it to reduce the number of points to a reasonable number and frequency. It's available via the Tools menu once you have installed the 'utilsplugin' plugin. It isn't aggresive enough to cope with most GPX files I've tried it on... This can be solved by adjusting the setting simplify-way.max-error. regards ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Nop wrote: It is good that simplification is forced. But of course, it will still stupidly add a large zig-zag caused by bad reception to the map. (I have seen beginners manually add such zig-zags before they learn that GPS isn't perfect, but at least they usually learn) How does it take care of crossing other ways without a junction point? It doesn't - well, not explicitly. I did wonder about automatically creating crossing nodes, but then you'd have all sorts of palaver about well, if this is a river then it should intersect with other rivers, but if it's a road it shouldn't - well, unless there's a ford, but Rather, it creates the way as a locked way; it explicitly won't be uploaded, even when you click Save, until you've unlocked it. This is indicated with a bright red drawing rather than any other styling. The docs then duly explain that you should tidy the way by tagging, adding intersections, removing zigzags etc. before unlocking and uploading. If you don't read the docs, you won't know how to unlock the way anyway. ;) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I would commend this forced simplification to the JOSM devs. Ways are automatically split after an interval of n seconds. Unlike Potlatch JOSM is a powertool. It shouldn't force you to do anything. Recently I traced a zigzag road in Greece from a GPX track in JOSM by converting the GPX to OSM, cleaning it up by deleting a few point clouds and then merging it into the main layer uploading: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40783985/history I tried to simplify the track using the utilsplugin but that made the road way more inaccurate than my trace was. What was previously a smooth curve around a bend turned into a few crude points that would have looked bad on the map. I could have manually traced or fixed the whole thing but that would have taken me at least an hour instead of the 2-5 minutes it took by using the GPX-OSM-fix method. We would do well to remember that not everyone wants to spend an hour to perfectly trace some way in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes importing an almost raw GPX track is quick, good enough and perfectly appropriate. We can always fix the data later. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: I would commend this forced simplification to the JOSM devs. Ways are automatically split after an interval of n seconds. Unlike Potlatch JOSM is a powertool. It shouldn't force you to do anything. ...is a very high-minded principle which nonetheless leads to some lousy edits in the database. I would have a bit more sympathy had I not, once again, spent a good while last night clearing up some ways, badly traced in JOSM with 45-degree angles all over the place. Had the mapper used a good GPX-simplified way function, he would have created a road which was much closer to reality yet nonetheless took him much less effort. It's the responsibility of the tool developer to lead the user to the right choice. Glib phrases like unlike Potlatch JOSM is a powertool (I note JOSM #67 is still open :p ) don't absolve responsibility for UI design. By all means offer the choice, but make the 90% case the default. We would do well to remember that not everyone wants to spend an hour to perfectly trace some way in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes importing an almost raw GPX track is quick, good enough and perfectly appropriate. Yep. Exactly my point. The challenge for the developer is to balance not everyone wants to spend an hour and _almost_ raw (my emphasis), and in this area I think Potlatch gets it about right. mandy rice-daviesThough I would say that, wouldn't I?/mandy rice-davies cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: I would have a bit more sympathy had I not, once again, spent a good while last night clearing up some ways, badly traced in JOSM with 45-degree angles all over the place. Had the mapper used a good GPX-simplified way function, he would have created a road which was much closer to reality yet nonetheless took him much less effort. Thanks for this one Richard, a point I completely missed while raising this issue with JOSM. I have been mapping mountain roads for the last 3 months now. While I dont draw 45 degree angles, I dont think that with the 'creating nodes' option, I do a great job. The road ofcourse looks slightly angular. I am actually talking about roads which take a U-curve every 50 metres or so in the Himalayas. The GPS trail is a perfect U but I cant say the same of all the curves I end up drawing. Anyway, to get them even slightly accurate, I end up drawing at very high resolution, which means spending hours just drawing the track already drawn by the GPS. Regards, Shalabh Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: I would commend this forced simplification to the JOSM devs. Ways are automatically split after an interval of n seconds. Unlike Potlatch JOSM is a powertool. It shouldn't force you to do anything. ...is a very high-minded principle which nonetheless leads to some lousy edits in the database. I would have a bit more sympathy had I not, once again, spent a good while last night clearing up some ways, badly traced in JOSM with 45-degree angles all over the place. Had the mapper used a good GPX-simplified way function, he would have created a road which was much closer to reality yet nonetheless took him much less effort. It's the responsibility of the tool developer to lead the user to the right choice. Glib phrases like unlike Potlatch JOSM is a powertool (I note JOSM #67 is still open :p ) don't absolve responsibility for UI design. By all means offer the choice, but make the 90% case the default. We would do well to remember that not everyone wants to spend an hour to perfectly trace some way in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes importing an almost raw GPX track is quick, good enough and perfectly appropriate. Yep. Exactly my point. The challenge for the developer is to balance not everyone wants to spend an hour and _almost_ raw (my emphasis), and in this area I think Potlatch gets it about right. mandy rice-daviesThough I would say that, wouldn't I?/mandy rice-davies cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: I would commend this forced simplification to the JOSM devs. Ways are automatically split after an interval of n seconds. Unlike Potlatch JOSM is a powertool. It shouldn't force you to do anything. ...is a very high-minded principle which nonetheless leads to some lousy edits in the database. I would have a bit more sympathy had I not, once again, spent a good while last night clearing up some ways, badly traced in JOSM with 45-degree angles all over the place. Had the mapper used a good GPX-simplified way function, he would have created a road which was much closer to reality yet nonetheless took him much less effort. It's the responsibility of the tool developer to lead the user to the right choice. Glib phrases like unlike Potlatch JOSM is a powertool (I note JOSM #67 is still open :p ) don't absolve responsibility for UI design. By all means offer the choice, but make the 90% case the default. I have nothing against good UI design which would make this sort of thing easy. Doing this in JOSM currently is much harder than it should be. What I usually do when I want to do this is: 1. Import the GPX track 2. Convert it to OSM 3. Split up the bit I need select it 4. Search for -selected to invert selection 5. Delete (nukes all the bits I don't want 6. Merge to main datalayer 7. Manually connect the track to other roads 8. Manually clean it up (e.g. getting rid of self-intersections) 9. Maybe simplify it. But sometimes the automatic utilsplugin simplify process sucks so I'd rather do it myself 1-8 should be made easy, but I disagree with you that JOSM should force some simplification process. I've already cited an example where this did more harm than good. Perhaps the utilsplugin can be improved to use a better algorithm or have a way to configure the amount of simplification that it does, but there will always be cases where the software does stupid things and I'd rather not have to edit the source code for my editor recompile it because someone thought his algorithm was so smart that it knew better than its users in all cases. That is all. We would do well to remember that not everyone wants to spend an hour to perfectly trace some way in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes importing an almost raw GPX track is quick, good enough and perfectly appropriate. Yep. Exactly my point. The challenge for the developer is to balance not everyone wants to spend an hour and _almost_ raw (my emphasis), and in this area I think Potlatch gets it about right. mandy rice-daviesThough I would say that, wouldn't I?/mandy rice-davies I certainly agree that for this case Potlatch's UI is way superior for the common case. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
2009/11/2 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I would commend this forced simplification to the JOSM devs. Ways are automatically split after an interval of n seconds. Unlike Potlatch JOSM is a powertool. It shouldn't force you to do anything. wait for potlatch 2.0 ;-) Recently I traced a zigzag road in Greece from a GPX track in JOSM by...http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/40783985/history I tried to simplify the track using the utilsplugin but that made the road way more inaccurate than my trace was. What was previously a smooth curve around a bend turned into a few crude points that would have looked bad on the map. +1, the main issue is that no piece of software but just you know where there was a curve, which line was straight and where it was really ondulated. I personally care about those details, and while I would like to represent a straight line with just 2 points (and not 3 or 4), I would also like to have quite a lot of points in curves to represent them well. We would do well to remember that not everyone wants to spend an hour to perfectly trace some way in the middle of nowhere. perfectly true for the middle of nowhere but horrible in densly builtup areas. Sometimes importing an almost raw GPX track is quick, good enough and perfectly appropriate. We can always fix the data later. true, but what I sometimes face is the opposite: traced for some time very precisely some road/footway till someone thinks: hey, it would be enough to have this represented by 8 nodes, and applies some algo-magic to it. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: 1-8 should be made easy, but I disagree with you that JOSM should force some simplification process. I've already cited an example where this did more harm than good. Sure - you're spot on there and I can't argue with any of that. Probably provide a strong default would have been a better word than force. :) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 01:59:10PM +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: I have nothing against good UI design which would make this sort of thing easy. Doing this in JOSM currently is much harder than it should be. What I usually do when I want to do this is: 1. Import the GPX track 2. Convert it to OSM 3. Split up the bit I need select it 4. Search for -selected to invert selection 5. Delete (nukes all the bits I don't want 6. Merge to main datalayer 7. Manually connect the track to other roads 8. Manually clean it up (e.g. getting rid of self-intersections) 9. Maybe simplify it. But sometimes the automatic utilsplugin simplify process sucks so I'd rather do it myself Instead using this workflow maybe its better to use the editgpx plugin 1. Import the GPX track 2. Use the editgpx plugin to clean it up 3. convert egpx to gpx 4. convert it to OSM and continue in 6. Merge to main datalayer -- Celso González (PerroVerd) http://mitago.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
2009/11/2 Celso González ce...@mitago.net: Instead using this workflow maybe its better to use the editgpx plugin 1. Import the GPX track 2. Use the editgpx plugin to clean it up 3. convert egpx to gpx 4. convert it to OSM and continue in 6. Merge to main datalayer Editgpx is a very bad general purpose GPX editor. It can only delete trackpoints which you can do just as well using normal editing tools once you convert the GPX layer to OSM using the standard editing tools. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM: simplify with gpsbabel
You can already convert a GPX layer to a OSM layer and then upload the results, just right click on the layer, however it can be very tedious to remove points if they are once a second and all points are imported etc. Though i never used a gpx layer directly before (simply forgot about it), i experimented on pretreatment for gpx tracks with gpsbabel. I learned, that simplifying the track to 1/4 of the original amount of points gave me a perfect result. I don't know what the gpsbabel algorithm does (maybe someone can explain), but with my material of one point per second, i got perfectly detailed curves while unnecessary points on straight parts got removed. So my strategy would be: - Take the track and get the amount of points (that was the hardest part for me with my gpsmouse ;) ) - Simplify it with gpsbabel to 1/4 of the original amount of points. - Use it in JOSM and do corrections there with much less points. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Also, a free-hand drawing mode (e.g. press-down left mouse button and drag) in JOSM would go a long way towards faster tracing. Clicking to add one point at a time is pretty slow. Michael. On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 01:18:46PM +0530, Shalabh (shalab...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi Nop, thanks for your email. I take your point, it would be difficult to delete and then we would be purely depending on the mapper's diligence. So yeah, I think I would rather use the suggestions given by Dan than advocate an auto track feature. Regards, Shalabh On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Hi! Shalabh schrieb: Given my limited understanding of mapping and even more limited understanding of computing, I think it would be better if JOSM assumed the trails to be correct and drew nodes on it on its own. This is possible combining several features. However, it is a bad idea, most ways added this way are in horrible state and need correction. - way too many nodes. The API does not return more than 5 nodes in one request, so many tracks with 1500 nodes each quickly make it impossible to download a sizable area - the GPs is inaccurate. If you just stupidly add the track, all the mismeasurements are added to the DB. While drawing the way, you can smooth out the obvious zigzags of errors and deviations of known bad reception. Also, as the distance of nodes (usually 1m) is way smaller than the basic error of the GPS, it makes no sense to add this sort of misleading pseudo-accuracy - those ways are then unconnected to all other ways. It is very difficult and tedious to create the proper connections - most people who take this easy way don't connect and simplify the way properly, you will often find ways that are simply created over existing, manually edited versions of the same way. So in practice this doesn't work out. If you process your track properly, it is quite some work either way, but using the track directly encourages quick and sloppy adding of bad geometry. It has been suggested several times, that the possibility to do this indirectly be removed from JOSM altogether and having corrected many bad direct uploads I am rather in favour of this. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
2009/11/3 Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com: Also, a free-hand drawing mode (e.g. press-down left mouse button and drag) in JOSM would go a long way towards faster tracing. Clicking to add one point at a time is pretty slow. +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
2009/11/2 Shalabh shalab...@gmail.com: I will leave this open to discussion but I thought it better to bring this to everybody's notice, so JOSM can be made more user friendly. You can already convert a GPX layer to a OSM layer and then upload the results, just right click on the layer, however it can be very tedious to remove points if they are once a second and all points are imported etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
2009/11/2 Dan Homerick danhomer...@gmail.com: On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: You can already convert a GPX layer to a OSM layer and then upload the results, just right click on the layer, however it can be very tedious to remove points if they are once a second and all points are imported etc. Once the GPX layer is converted to an OSM layer, you can run Simplify Way on it to reduce the number of points to a reasonable number and frequency. It's available via the Tools menu once you have installed the 'utilsplugin' plugin. It isn't aggresive enough to cope with most GPX files I've tried it on... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Hi! Shalabh schrieb: Given my limited understanding of mapping and even more limited understanding of computing, I think it would be better if JOSM assumed the trails to be correct and drew nodes on it on its own. This is possible combining several features. However, it is a bad idea, most ways added this way are in horrible state and need correction. - way too many nodes. The API does not return more than 5 nodes in one request, so many tracks with 1500 nodes each quickly make it impossible to download a sizable area - the GPs is inaccurate. If you just stupidly add the track, all the mismeasurements are added to the DB. While drawing the way, you can smooth out the obvious zigzags of errors and deviations of known bad reception. Also, as the distance of nodes (usually 1m) is way smaller than the basic error of the GPS, it makes no sense to add this sort of misleading pseudo-accuracy - those ways are then unconnected to all other ways. It is very difficult and tedious to create the proper connections - most people who take this easy way don't connect and simplify the way properly, you will often find ways that are simply created over existing, manually edited versions of the same way. So in practice this doesn't work out. If you process your track properly, it is quite some work either way, but using the track directly encourages quick and sloppy adding of bad geometry. It has been suggested several times, that the possibility to do this indirectly be removed from JOSM altogether and having corrected many bad direct uploads I am rather in favour of this. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Hi Nop, thanks for your email. I take your point, it would be difficult to delete and then we would be purely depending on the mapper's diligence. So yeah, I think I would rather use the suggestions given by Dan than advocate an auto track feature. Regards, Shalabh On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Hi! Shalabh schrieb: Given my limited understanding of mapping and even more limited understanding of computing, I think it would be better if JOSM assumed the trails to be correct and drew nodes on it on its own. This is possible combining several features. However, it is a bad idea, most ways added this way are in horrible state and need correction. - way too many nodes. The API does not return more than 5 nodes in one request, so many tracks with 1500 nodes each quickly make it impossible to download a sizable area - the GPs is inaccurate. If you just stupidly add the track, all the mismeasurements are added to the DB. While drawing the way, you can smooth out the obvious zigzags of errors and deviations of known bad reception. Also, as the distance of nodes (usually 1m) is way smaller than the basic error of the GPS, it makes no sense to add this sort of misleading pseudo-accuracy - those ways are then unconnected to all other ways. It is very difficult and tedious to create the proper connections - most people who take this easy way don't connect and simplify the way properly, you will often find ways that are simply created over existing, manually edited versions of the same way. So in practice this doesn't work out. If you process your track properly, it is quite some work either way, but using the track directly encourages quick and sloppy adding of bad geometry. It has been suggested several times, that the possibility to do this indirectly be removed from JOSM altogether and having corrected many bad direct uploads I am rather in favour of this. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
