Re: [Talk-GB] Reverting all Liam123's edits
Chris Fleming wrote: On 21/07/09 16:39, Mark Williams wrote: My 2p; He has been very active around my area and I have had to put in some work righting wrongs; there are more out there than I have fixed I believe the original was better than the fixed version in some cases. Although some of my time has gone into re-edits, I would prefer to see him reverted completely. If I lose an occasional addition, it will be worth it. If he's a bored teenager in London, there's a Dartford mapping party coming up next weekend; I'll even offer a lift/or mentoring! It's the summer holidays now so if he likes b*ggering about in OSM, the next 6 weeks could be problematic! If he's not interested in being constructive, +1 for a ban. I wonder if some kind of soft ban might be a good way to deal with this. The idea being that the next time the user logs in they are presented with a message to the extent that there has been some concern over their edits, with some kind of explanation of what they have done and a offer of assistance. And a warning that further unwarranted edits might lead to further action and an Agree and Continue button. If further edits are still not productive then we would have a clear audit of a warning being issues and assistance being offered. Cheers Chris _ +1, nice idea if it's technically possible - otherwise a warning to his inbox will be emailed to him, but I gather he has already been contacted anyway. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New wiki page for GB reversion requests
Peter Miller wrote: On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:18, Andy Allan wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Peter Millerpeter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Without going through every edit in the changeset it will be hard to determine. If we do have to go through every changeset then we might as well revert them by hand. Possibly we need to leave this until better tools are available or challenge some clever person to write the required tool in the next day or two. OK, I now have a tool that will revert all the components of a changeset that haven't been reverted already, and ignore everything that has been changed since. And now I have a good example of why it's not that straightforward. Take this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/242058267/history The guy moved it (v3), and then deleted it (v4). So reverting it would put it back to v2. But if it was deleted out of a way, and that way has been moved since, it wouldn't put it back in the way again since that way wouldn't be reverted. Which makes it a bit pointless. And maybe someone has fixed the way (adding in a new node there, or nearby, or similar) so this node isn't needed. So it's impossible to tell what to do with the node. So after a few hours of investigating this, I'm back to where I started* - reverting changesets is easy so long as nothing has changed since. Anything else needs a graphical editor. Better such tools can be created, and ideas/mockups/code is wanted. So for the future, if there's another changeset that needs sorting out, please consider asking someone to revert it before anyone tries to manually fix it. Manually fixing stuff is of course fine but it's an all-or-nothing approach that can't be finished off with a script. Ok, so I claimed 6 change-sets with the ones at the top of the list. I checked all the nodes on the first page and then noticed that this was page 1 of 42 of changed nodes - a total of 823 nodes to fix. Now that is 823 nodes (and 39 ways) in one of 35 change-sets. That is potentially a lot of work. Any ideas anyone? My he has been a busy bunny hasn't he. Virtual Mapping Meetup anyone? [Goes off to investigate the Wiki now..] BTW, it's all very well (and no doubt correct) saying not to change stuff like this, but if you come across an obvious grolly with a name to it you don't know, the natural thought is Oh look a newbie let's be helpful - it's only when you find the next few that you start to suspect. Mark ___ 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, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Steve Hillst...@nexusuk.org wrote: 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. I disagree - I've come across town-centre one-way systems that are smaller than some large out-of-town roundabouts. There is a clear distinction between them in the way they are signed - e.g. using a roundabout ahead warning triangle, so we should in fact record which are roundabouts and which are just circular oneway streets, since they are in fact different on the ground. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
I'm just trying to think what makes a roundabout a roundabout instead of just a one-way system. So far I've come up with: 1. It is one way in the appropriate direction (clockwise in the UK) 2. All the roads leave/join the outside of the loop (*) 3. It generally isn't very built-up in the middle (**) 4. It has a reasonably circular shape (***) 5. It is signposted as such Of course, there are sadly lots of exceptions... * Increasingly there are roundabouts with roads running through the middle: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF The road through the middle is generally one-way though, and usually just one road. ** http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.910579lon=-1.400756zoom=18layers=B000FTF (The Charlot Place roundabout in Southampton now has the reasonably tall Jury's Inn hotel in the middle of it - I'm sure people can think of many others) *** Can't think of any oddly shaped roundabouts off the top of my head, but I'm pretty certain that there are plenty. :) 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! Donald ___ 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] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Steve Hill 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 :) Ahhh the good old hamburger junction :) These are becoming more common now, and yes, their only purpose is to provide a shortcut, in this case its for traffic heading from the M11 south to the A120 east. There is another example at M40 junction 4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.61226lon=-0.76773zoom=16layers=B000FTF amongst quite a few others around the country. Not all of them are one way, some are two way, such as this one up north http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.47973lon=-2.28295zoom=17layers=B000FTF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
2009/7/23 Donald Allwright donald_allwri...@yahoo.com: I'm just trying to think what makes a roundabout a roundabout instead of just a one-way system. So far I've come up with: 1. It is one way in the appropriate direction (clockwise in the UK) 2. All the roads leave/join the outside of the loop (*) 3. It generally isn't very built-up in the middle (**) 4. It has a reasonably circular shape (***) 5. It is signposted as such Of course, there are sadly lots of exceptions... * Increasingly there are roundabouts with roads running through the middle: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF The road through the middle is generally one-way though, and usually just one road. ** http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.910579lon=-1.400756zoom=18layers=B000FTF (The Charlot Place roundabout in Southampton now has the reasonably tall Jury's Inn hotel in the middle of it - I'm sure people can think of many others) *** Can't think of any oddly shaped roundabouts off the top of my head, but I'm pretty certain that there are plenty. :) 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! The roundabout I really dislike is at Winnersh Triangle, UK: http://osm.org/go/eusmtxB_j- If you look on some satellite imagery you will see it really does have a dual carriage way going right through the middle of the roundabout. -- Jon ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
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 :) You can use it if you come off the southbound carriageway and want to go west (or into the services), or if you approach from the west (or from the services) wanting to go South. In both cases you could also take the outer loop, although I think the signposts discourage it. I think I'm correct in saying that the shortcut was the original part of the roundabout, and the extra extension was built at a later stage to accommodate increased traffic as a result of Stansted airport just to the east. Donald ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
I think that we let taggers decide whether it's a roundabout or not (to me the defining feature is that you perceive it as a single junction, rather than a series of connected junctions in a one-way system, usually because there's nothing in the middle, however there's quite a grey area, and perceptions will vary among users, especially when there are lights). Question really is how do we tag that and does splitting it cause any real problems. I think most purposes are served by putting junction=roundabout on all the ways in the circulating carriageway (including any shortcuts in the middle). That way routers will know that they're sending someone onto a roundabout. And renderers who want to use a roundabout symbol can do a reasonable job without pre-processing for small and medium roundabouts (you just put the symbol on each and every node). I could see it might be helpful to give large roundabouts (maybe 100m diameter) a distinctive junction= tag (or just treat it as a one-way system). But I can't on the face of it see any major need for roundabouts to be single ways, or any pressing need to put the component ways into relations. Unless anyone else can think of one? Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
On 22 Jul 2009, at 23:24, Richard Mann wrote: I've not exactly rushing to get to that stage, but I couldn't see any obvious way to edit the ordering of a relation. Could anyone give me any clues? You can change the ordering of the relation using JOSM's relation editor. You may need to update to be able to get it. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Shaun McDonald wrote: Sent: 23 July 2009 1:56 PM To: Richard Mann Cc: talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org; Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies On 22 Jul 2009, at 23:24, Richard Mann wrote: I've not exactly rushing to get to that stage, but I couldn't see any obvious way to edit the ordering of a relation. Could anyone give me any clues? You can change the ordering of the relation using JOSM's relation editor. You may need to update to be able to get it. But we need that tool improved to be able to reorder a route relation consisting of ways and bus_stop nodes. It's very difficult to see what the correct order should be, especially when streets have been chopped up because different routes leave at different junctions. It's an improvement to have ordering and re-ordering capability, but still some way to go to be useful for large relations. Cheers Andy Shaun ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Hill wrote: * Increasingly there are roundabouts with roads running through the middle: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF The road through the middle is generally one-way though, and usually just one road. This one has 2 dual carriageways running through it perpendicular to each other, and a third dual carriageway that ends at the roundabout: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.497691lon=-0.45292zoom=18layers=B000FTF Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpoY7MACgkQz+aYVHdncI1/6gCdHxXtffw7hx0oczaCJSH1AV9N PV4AoKuJbCL+f89fAxjeUyzWbnw//Pzg =SHzZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
From: Robert (Jamie) Munro rjmu...@arjam.net Message-ID: 4a6863b5.2090...@arjam.net This one has 2 dual carriageways running through it perpendicular to each other, and a third dual carriageway that ends at the roundabout: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.497691lon=-0.45292zoom=18layers=B000FTF And, to add to the fun, that isn't quite right on OSM as it stands (unfortunately I'm not in a position to edit right now), as the short bit of road between that roundabout and the one immediately to its south is under motorway restrictions. See http://pathetic.org.uk/current/m4_heathrow_spur/photos/pages/46_JPG.shtml and http://pathetic.org.uk/current/m4_heathrow_spur/photos/pages/03_JPG.shtml. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
One more thing about roundabouts as if it isn't complex enough already: which street/road name do roundabouts get from all the roads entering them? I can never decide so I just don't add a name ( except where it is a major roundabout on a ring road for instance which tends to get and individual name givven to thit) - or do we just put up with all the nags from various services telling us we have a way with no name? Regards Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Dartford mapping
Hi, If you do look at mapping further East, please be aware that the village of Bean is now mapped - does not show up on 'noname' yet. Nick (Tallguy) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
