[Talk-GB] FW: Office of National Statistics data
On 31/10/12 13:58, Kev js1982 wrote: Does this set include BT (northern Ireland) , postcodes like nspd open did? If so that is one way it's better than code point open I have just finished processing the BT codes, so Northern Irish post codes are now available too. I haven't been able to cross check them so any comments would be helpful. The BT codes for Northern Ireland aren't under an unmodified OpenGovernmentLicence (look at the ONS website for details) - they're non-free for commercial use. We should remove those from OSM. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes
I was thinking of asking on sabre. Am especially puzzled by the slip road situation. Tomtom does drop the limit to 60 on slip roads, which I had always assumed is an error. One place I have noticed it recently is going from the A41 to the A55 westbound near Chester. At some point, before the traffic joins warning signs it drops its limit to 60. At what point are you supposed to assume you are no longer on a dual-carriageway? I think that's a mistake. The A41 is definitely dualled westbound as it meets the A55. I think it's also a mistake in general. A slip-road having a different speed limit to the main carriageway would be a ludicrous situation. Surely the whole point of a slip road is that you use it to accelerate up to the speed of the traffic on the main carriageway, or to decelerate from speed without having to drop 10mph on the mainline? Would an HGV really have to drop its speed to 40mph before it enters the off-slip? A sliproad isn't just another one-way street. In fact, sliproads are not usually signed as a one-way street when you enter one - yes there's a no-entry sign at the exit, but no one-way sign at the entrance - they're just signed as if they're just another part of the main (dual carriageway) road. They're effectively part of the main road, they do segregate traffic (if you consider the opposite sliproad - then they're segregated by a ~40-50m gap...), so they ought to be under a 70mph limit. There are a few examples where there are very wide central reservations in some roads, there are roads where you can get more than two carriageways each separated by a barrier to the others. (e.g. -- -- -- --) I doubt any of those wouldn't be 70 just because of a wide reservation, or because the carriageways split apart for a time. I think the point I'm trying to make is that it's not a standalone road on its own which happens to be one-way. It's an integral part of the main road. If the main road has traffic in both directions at that point, and traffic can only move in one direction on the part of the road you're on - you're on a dual carriageway and the NSL is 70. I would be very surprised if SABRE give you a different answer. RichardB ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Routing and other problems west of Uttoxeter
I've seen someone has already connected a load of roads up in Leek, but there are still some issues. I'll see if I can fix those from my original survey. RichardB ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Routing and other problems west of Ashbourne (Staffordshire Moorlands)
I originally surveyed Leek back in 2009. It seems Mr Darren39 has simply nuked all of my contributions in the north and east of the town, and replaced them with his own - and none of the ways connect to any other ways. A whole section of the A523 is missing. Much of the replacements are a complete mess. One of the offending changesets is here; http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8517420 I'll see if I can spend some time fixing this. A revert might be possible for some of the changesets, but I presume others have been edited multiple times now. RichardB ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Tracks and there place in society
Very basically this is all a problem becuase highway=track and highway=bridleway/byway/footway cannot both be tagged together. They need to be understood and moved, or duplicated into 'routes' or another key to state access. Having them together any longer will knock 10 years off my life, I'm sure of it! We need to either move bridleways/byways and footways to routes or somewhere/anywhere else!, and just leave highway=track and highway=path. Or we need to move physical things (like tracks) out of the highway key, even though highway is apparently 'Physical', realistically it primarily states access rights. This has been done to death before. The wheel does not need to be reinvented. In the UK, most people mapping countryside areas use what is described in the wiki under the Classic UK Tagging style http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Rights_of_ways_in_England_and_Wales Note, in particular, that the access-type keys are designation=public_footpath designation=public_bridleway designation=restricted_byway designation=public_byway or designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic You can see a real rendering of these rules here; http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/index.php RichardB ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Three-dimensional aerial imagery
I saw this news story about how three-dimensional aerial photos, viewed with special glasses, make it easier to pick out structures on the ground. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13359064 I wonder if any such 3-d imagery is available today? It would seem to involve having two cameras a set distance apart. If OSM ever charters a plane again, as was done for Stratford-upon-Avon, England, a few years back, it might be worth taking two cameras instead of one. In the meantime I guess we'll wait for the 3-d display Windows Phone to come out, with accompanying Bing Maps 3D. Stereoscopic images used to be very common and were, as far as I was aware, usually used to draw up contour lines for OS maps in the UK. You can see some examples here and on the next few pages http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect11/Sect11_3.html They're a bit like magic eye images - and a lot of people should be able to see them without special glasses. Basically, you put two images side by side, taken from slightly different angles. Look in the centre of the two images and defocus to a point beyond the page. Eventually you should see the image in full relief. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] OS grid positions
When I last looked some time ago, the OS recommended using Grid In-quest http://www.qgsl.com/?product=gridinquest Which they say can be downloaded free, and with no restrictions on use. They also claimed that the calculations should be accurate to ~ 10cm. It can convert OSGB36 - ETRS89 - which is essentially WGS84 adjusted to remove movements of the European Tectonic Plate - which should be less than 50cm difference. Most OSBG - WGS84 web algorithms I've seen seem to suggest that the calculation should be good to around 3-7m ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I'm an outsider to all this OS business but if you guys in the UK should really have been uploading data that requires attributing OS in every downstream product then we have a problem which has nothing whatsover to do with the license change. I can see *no* OS attribution on any of the major tile providers, including our own. Of course you can always go to the source and see from the object history that OS was involved, but that is a technique that you seem to discount above. So either this is all a big misunderstanding, or nobody who used OS data until now has cared sh*t for the license. It's on the Copyright page though http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010. That is, IIRC, what we were required to state. And the original OS OpenData license was meant to be explicitly compatible with Creative Commons licences. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? Probably because OS OpenData has been used fairly significantly by many folk in the UK since released. Without any sort of public indication otherwise from the LWG, it was difficult to believe that a new licence chosen wouldn't be compatible with data which appears to only require attribution. Not that I agree with it, but OS StreetView has been used to map out entire towns in the UK ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] inferred single-carriageway NSL?
In summary, this little tag is much less simple than it may appear at first glance! I am very interested in getting a fuller set of this data into OSM. Thanks for the 'pedantic' examples of 60mph limits on dual carriageways. Being pedantic back can anyone demonstrate the existence of a 60 mph sign on a single carriageway road? I can certainly do that. I believe this one was places to remind drivers that, despite having four lanes, it's still a single carriageway and = 60mph max http://tinyurl.com/6x5u4la In this case, it's probably technically national, but specifically signed at 60. I know of a couple of examples of cases on a dual-carriageway where it's specifically signed 70mph AND most definitely not the national speed limit. http://tinyurl.com/66pucm7 The reason it's not the national speed limit, is because of the way that the legal orders that created this stretch of road were drawn up. In this particular example, this type of road has no national speed limit - and a white sign with black diagonal line would mean genuinely derestricted. (It's a non-motorway special-road in case you're asking - and special-roads only have a national speed limit if they are also motorways - hence a specific 70mph speed limit order had to be drawn up). Back to the point in question, however; Do we *really* need to be tagging national speed limits on individual ways? E.g. the vast majority of roads ought to be one of; *residential roads subject to 30mph *rural roads subject to NSL (I realise a lot of councils have been cutting lots of roads from NSL - 50 in recent years, but I'm sure NSLs outnumber 50s on the whole) Perhaps we could tag the ones that differ from the above - and let post-processors add national defaults as necessary? Taken to its extreme, are we going to bother adding surface=paved to every motorway, motorcar=yes to every road? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData contours
I've done this, but on my own computer only, for hill panoramas. Hi Richard, Is this open-source? I'd be particularly interested in the code to transform raw OS format - SRTM hgt-like format, as I already have code which works with .hgt files. However the whole code coule potentially be useful. If it's not open source then yes, examples would be useful. Thanks, Nick I have taken the new heightfiles from Nick's dev site - and used them with my modified code to generate panoramas. I've posted the results on the wiki. I'll post the full source code there if anyone is interested. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Creating_a_panorama_with_OS_OpenData There are, however, some heightfiles missing from the full set. There are no heightfiles with the name XX99 e.g. on the wiki, I've given an example showing that SJ99ne, SJ99nw, SJ99se, SJ99sw are all missing. This is true of every OS grid square - so full 100x100km OS grid squares fully on land only have 396 5x5km files, instead of 400. Also, OS grid squares HP,HT,HU,HW,HX,HY HZ are also missing. These only cover the Orkneys Shetland islands off the Scottish northern coast, but I'm sure someone will find them useful if they were present. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData contours
Hi, Am interested in using the OS OpenData contour set for an augmented reality app for walkers (extension of the OpenTrailView idea). What I have in mind is to load them into a database and implement a lookup facility where the elevation at a particular lat/lon can be obtained by querying the dataset. I believe the OS contours are rather higher precision than SRTM, hence my interest in them, but to potentially save effort, has anyone done something like this already? I've done this, but on my own computer only, for hill panoramas. The program I wrote is very crude but basically follows the following procedure; * Convert the OS contours into a regular grid of heights - just like the SRTM data * From the current position - split the 360º panorama into half-degree segments. * Using the grid - work out the height of each segment at, say, 200m distance intervals. * Do a coordinate transform from x,y,z - distance, altitude, azimuth. * Hide points that cannot physically be seen (because a nearer point on that azumuth has a higher altitude) * Plot the altitude azimuth into a bmp file - shade points at different distances to give some depth perception. I could upload a couple of examples to the wiki if you like. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode centroids
What I've done in the past is created a .osm file with my particular post-code of interest - and then added the file as a new layer in JOSM - so I can overlay it. I would certainly be interested to use this new site - when my postcode areas of interest have been loaded. All very useful observations. What is your postcode area (e.g. HU) so I can load it? Mine is SK (Stockport), but I'm very close to the boundaries with WA (Warrington) and CW (Crewe) - and have added address data to areas of each. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode centroids
Please do not just add the centroid to the map. I don't see the value of that. I am interested in the experience people gain from using this data, for example to add postcodes to an address such as addr:postcode. I've added a few addr:postcode to my existing addr:* house numbering. In the vast majority of cases, I've found that the centroid itself isn't actually a centroid in the geometric sense - but more sort of a median house. e.g. even on a curved road, the centroid lies at the position of one of the houses that the postcode applies to, not at the geometric centroid - which would be some distance away and make it very tricky to assign post-codes to addresses. The following seem quite common in my area; *Short roads often have just one post code covering every address on the street *Slightly longer roads will often have one post code for one side of the road, and one for the other. *Some roads will be split into segments where each address on both sides of the road have one postcode - then further up the road, each will have a different one etc. *Then there are ones with one for each side of the road - and split into segments. The roads mostly seem to split into segments if there is a convenient junction splitting up the housing - but sometimes not - and this requires a bit of educated guesswork sometimes. What I've done in the past is created a .osm file with my particular post-code of interest - and then added the file as a new layer in JOSM - so I can overlay it. I would certainly be interested to use this new site - when my postcode areas of interest have been loaded. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
FWIW I've now replaced several occurrences of highway=unsurfaced in the UK (thanks to Steve's very timely rendering), starting in areas I know personally (West Oxfordshire and Rutland), and not a single one would be described as a road in the UK. I added some several years ago. I've changed some to highway=*, surface=unpaved where I've mapped that way again since - but I seem to remember almost all of them were unadopted (i.e. private, not maintained by the council) residential roads where tarmac had never been layed. I'll see if I can get around to changing these near me. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally recreated in this scenario? I don't think it will be possible to accidentally reverse engineer the DB, and if you intentionally reverse engineer it, you cannot claim independent creation. OK, imagine the following; Suppose that some time from now, OSM has moved to ODBL - and a group has forked OSM using the last CC-BY-SA planet file - for the sake of argument call it OSM-CC. The original OSM project, with the database under ODBL still releases its map tiles on its main website under CC-BY-SA. Presumably, the OSM-CC project would be well within their rights to use the OSM created map tiles as a background layer in JOSM / Potlatch etc. to allow users to trace map data. The data created is derived from the CC-BY-SA tiles - and so must therefore also be under a CC-BY-SA licence. Therefore it's compatible with the OSM-CC project. With sufficient resources, the OSM-CC project could in theory create a substantially similar database to that of the main OSM project - although it's extremely unlikely to be identical. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Derbyshire area unconnected (Dave F.)
Agreed. From memory, the road up to Nick'i'the Hill isn't a culdesac. It looks like there's been an attempt to add in a section of the Staffordshire Way along the ridge to Mow Cop (but not actually as highway=anything), and I suspect that that'll need correcting too. I've seen that, but had not been along it myself, so didn't change the highway status. The road up from the Congleton side to Nick'i'th' Hill is one I've added myself, back in 2008. I remember I was in the car at the time, and I turned back when I was not prepared to proceed any further as it seemed to turn into a bumpy un-made track further on. The whole area has lots of footpaths that need adding. I'll get round to it at some point. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Derbyshire area unconnected (Dave F.)
On 21/08/2010 10:01, Ian Spencer wrote: I suspect that it is an area where it has never been done properly, so there hasn't been an example to follow. It's also a between other mappers area - north of the West Midlands, a bit west for me and a bit SE for mikh43. He's roughly editing at my southern limit as well. I mapped all but the very central part of Leek, and most of the east side if Biddulph until I managed to pop a spoke in one of my wheels. I took a bit of time to get it fixed, and in the intervening period, darren39 has filled in the remaining parts. The road names look to agree with StreetView in the main, but the road alignments looked like complete guesses. Originally, Cheadle, Staffs was the same, but he's gone back and re-aligned all of the roads, and it now seems to agree with Streetview. I had a go at fixing part of the west-side of Biddulph with StreetView some time back, but it probably needs another visit with a GPS I think. RichardB ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Landform Panorama data
I've had a look at the height data, and it appears that it is incomplete (many tiles are missing altogether). Does anyone know why? I realise that it is the only dataset that won't be updated, but presumably they have a full set. I haven't been able to find an explanation, and the information about it online suggests it is a full set, though the downloaded index shows it to be partial. I thought one of you 'more closely involved ;-) ' guys might know. Presumably any ones which are missing are the ones which are out to sea and therefore have no contours in them? e.g. the 100x100km grid square SV only contains sv80.dxf - as that's the only square which has any land in it (the Scilly Isles) For the ones on land - there should be 25 files per larger-grid square., i.e. each file represents a 20x20km square. I've by no means checked every one on my download, but a look at quite a few squares show that I have all the ones I expcet to have for those squares. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] VectorMap District: Completely crazy idea, maybe, but...
and contours from SRTM (or even the OS's own contour data, if that's better than SRTM?) To give you an idea of what the contours from the OS Land-Form PANORAMA Contour dataset look like, I've taken a small section of the Cheshire Peak District, centred on the hill Shutlingsloe. See what I've done here; http://www.flickr.com/photos/19863...@n00/4490652840/sizes/o/ Literally all I've done is taken the points from the dxf file, and plotted them using MS Excel - and it's just straight-line segments drawn between every point. I've then coloured all of the contours in a red-brown colour - except for the 300m contour (green), 400m contour (purple), 500m contour (blue). Just like the OS - I've made every 50m contour bolder. The dxf file itself just contains a list of lines, with points contained within the line with x,y,z coords. There are contours, lake boundaries, coastlines spot-heights. I think there are a couple more types in some files. Compare and contrast that against the cycle map which shows the contours http://osm.org/go/eu3FpOHq-?layers=00B0FTF The OS one certainly looks more detailed. By inspection, it also looks to agree with my copy of Landranger 118. See here; http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=397663Y=369556A=YZ=120 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
As Andy says, I say we start with getting boundary data fixed up from Boundary Line and then look at Vector Map District in a month's time and decide what the next step is I agree with this; especially as boundary data is hard to come by any other way In the mean time, can't we just import everything that's available into a database which can be fronted by the OpenOS website that SteveC announced he had secured last week? You could have a database with all of the vector data - which gets rendered - and is displayed as a different layer along with the OS raster stuff. Could use those as a WMS layer for JOSM/Potlatch etc. The data itself could be accessible via an API. Bit like osm.org really. That way, it'd be easy to compare the OS datasets with each other and the OSM data - and we can import anything if-and-when we're ready to - and could import stuff more locally if necessary. Would also be a useful single-point-of-contact for all of the OSOpenData stuff. Any thoughts? (note however that although I am willing to help, I probably don't have the technical know-how to actually put this into action.) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS 1:25000 out of copyright maps
I have been following the availability of the OS 1:25000 maps closely. I am particularly interested in sheets SU77 and SU78, which are identified in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/6/62/25kOS_Index_Graphical.pdf as 'Available online now', and in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/1/11/25kOS_maps_Held.pdf as 'Tiled' as of 04/02/2010. I use JOSM and can see other sheets in the surrounding area, but not the two I mentioned. Is there some sort of time lag? There seems to be a time lag of a few days to these tiles appearing for zoom levels z=14 outwards They are currently available for z=15 and z=16 For z=17 they don't seem to have appeared yet. In JOSM, if they haven't loaded, try zooming out a bit and right-clicking on the layer and choosing the option change resolution. I have just tried and loaded ok. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] TAG-Suggestion: highway:trailer_shipment (Carsten Moeller)
A highway=steps would imply you can use your car here. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Steps.jpg You wouldn't *seriously* consider driving up or down a flight of steps...surely?? If I understood the intention correctly then highway is something you can drive on. No. The highway key is a group of tags, some of which would imply you can drive on, some you cannot. In England, a public highway could include a narrow footpath through a field, where cars are forbidden and it could be completely unsuitable for vehicles - up to an 8-lane motorway, where pedestrians are forbidden. The only ones I'd consider that a car could route over would be highway= motorway trunk primary secondary tertiary unclassified service With the possible addition of track or byway as a last resort ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ClosedCycleMap (was: Re: Cross-renderer tag support, now with OSMdoc!)
I think it's important here to separate technically rational arguments like one update per week is enough from emotional/social/visceral factors like omg, I made a change and it's already in the map! That instant feedback has been a huge factor in Wikipedia's success. If the original contributors had had to wait a week to see their change incorporated in anything, it never would have progressed beyond a niche activity. I'm not saying it's easy to get the hardware to make this happen for multiple renderings, like CloudMade can do. But it's important, if we want to attract more users. Oh, come on! Minutely rendering of Mapnik is an recent development. The original contributors to OSM *did* have to wait a while to see any changes. Sometimes more than a week. And you can't say OSM hasn't come on since then can you? It can't be that big a block to attracting more users: The number of users has increased dramatically - almost exponentially. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal
3) Extra precision requires more time, which we don't necessarily have. Let's say that we agree that all divided roads should be mapped as two ways. Let's also say it takes on average 1 minute to trace out a single way. There's a volunteer with 60 divided roads to map in front of him, and he's got one hour to spend. See where I'm going? And you don't have to do all 60 dual carriageways in one sitting. But to be completely honest, mapping out dual carriageways is really not *that* time consuming. In JOSM you could just copy the way you have drawn and drag the copied way a few metres to the side and reverse the direction. You'd then have to connect up side roads and tweak a few nodes - but should take no more than a couple of seconds if you can't be bothered drawing out the other carriageway. I'm sure Potlatch probably has a similar feature. And in a world with a large but finite number of roads, where a relatively small fraction of roads are dual carriageway, and an ever increasing army of mappers - it's really not that bad. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal
But to be completely honest, mapping out dual carriageways is really not *that* time consuming. In JOSM you could just copy the way you have drawn and drag the copied way a few metres to the side and reverse the direction. If that's the case, it sort of shoots down the dual carriageway contains more information than a single way argument, doesn't it? Speaking for myself, what motivated my interest in this is that it is tedious, and doesn't feel like the right thing to be doing. These minor roads don't seem like they deserve too complete roads No, it doesn't shoot down the argument. I just said it was an option if you couldn't be bothered to map it properly. And really, it doesn't take long anyway. And your proposed scheme for routing makes your scheme more complicated for the routers than mapping as two ways. In the existing scheme, if a shared node is not present between two ways, no routing is possible directly between the two. This is true regardless of what routing software you are using - it doesn't require extra tags or fudges to make it work. And think for a minute that there might be external data users who might not know to update their routing software for these extra tags. And not knowing about physically impossible turns is worse than not knowing about legal restrictions (turn restrictions). I can't disagree more about minor roads not deserving to be mapped fully. We should map everything to the best of our abilities. And given the community we have, I'm sure someone will sooner or later - even if you find it 'tedious'. Some people actually enjoy mapping you know... Google Maps maps them as single roads. Not around here. http://tinyurl.com/yz8y8dh The white coloured roads are just roads for a shopping centre. Scroll a bit further south, and you'll even see where G-Maps have split the road around a long-ish traffic island. A bit further south still, is a motorway junction where Google has mapped sliproads (and even marked on a sliproad bypassing the roundabout). The Yahoo for the same location http://uk.maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=mlat=53.465566lon=-2.354163zoom=18 The principle we have used in the past is where it is not physically possible to cross between two carriageways without leaving the road surface then mark it as two separate ways. I've not seen a compelling argument against continuing this practice. The only argument I've seen from you is essentially, it's boring - it takes far too long - which I don't really agree with. Dual carriageways all over the world are mapped like this on OSM (and it seems Google, Yahoo and I'm sure others do as well). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal
Maybe we should be mapping slipways, hopefully there's a better approach than marking them all as fully fledged roads though. Sliproads are tagged as highway=xyz_link e.g. a sliproad to a motorway would be highway=motorway_link sliproad to a trunk road would be highway=trunk_link etc. See the wiki map-features page. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 20
2) There is a divided road that has been sketched out roughly, simply to indicate the division. (Very common, I think) Converting this to a simple divided=* tag doesn't lose information, and better indicates the actual level of information stored. Here's one that looks like 2): http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-37.77825lon=144.830416zoom=19 There are two lanes to indicate the divided highway, but the mapper hasn't marked out the cut throughs, so this results in worse mapping than if they'd just made a single road. - the router can't tell that you can turn left across the median strip. If you follow that road south a bit, you'll find cases of 3 and 2: painted lines, some of which are marked as separate lanes, some aren't. IMHO it would be cleaner to represent all of those with a divided=* tag, but tthat's just my opinion. Right; If you find a road which has been sketched out very roughly - and you have excellent NearMap imagery; then perhaps the best solution is to draw it in more accurately... Note that if you follow your 2nd example further south, you'll reach two junctions with service roads into the Cinema car park. http://osm.org/go/uGy6p24ha The northernmost junction only allows traffic heading South on the road to exit to the left, towards the car-park - and traffic entering the car park to exit onto the road heading South. Northbound traffic on the road cannot turn, traffic from the car park cannot exit to the North. The southernmost junction allows traffic heading in both directions to enter the car park - and allows traffic from the car park to exit in both directions. Using single ways to represent the dual carriageway doesn't distinguish between these two junctions - but the possible movements are different - the topology is not the same. Using turn-restrictions is not ideal as restrictions are really designed for physically possible turnings which are legally forbidden - so for instance, an emergency vehicle might be able to make the turning - but an ordinary 'civilian' driver could be fined for doing so. Mapping as two ways removes any possible doubt here. For the northernmost junction, the north-bound carriageway of the dual-carriageway has no shared nodes with the access road to the car park - so there is no need for any fudge of the routing to stop it using those roads. It's surely a lot simpler to map out separate carriageways as separate ways - it really doesn't take that long - and I can't believe there are so many to map that the task is overwhelming to map two ways. There are probably enough messages and replies on this topic that you could have mapped several already. If you don't have two carriageways; some roads have something in between the two carriageways - e.g. part of a footpath, there's another road (not motorway) between the two carriageways of the UK's M6 for a short section in Cumbria. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
Using areas seems like a lot of work for no benefit if you just need a simple 2 lane road that has no foot paths or other interesting features. Are you saying that you wouldn't find mapping areas satisfying? If so, that's fine - you don't have to. But for people who want to do it, they should be able to. That's what this thread is about - giving them a way to map the world more accurately, if that's what they're into. There's nothing stopping anyone mapping highways as areas. However, it could be a long time until routers and renderers catch up; the majority of the world wouldn't be able to position the areas accurately enough to make this worthwhile; GPS errors approaching the size of some roads; no suitable aerial imagery; lack of time to get the theodolite out everywhere... For renderers: *nearly all maps exaggerate road width except when really zoomed in. A 30-35 metre wide motorway would appear almost insignificant at z levels less than 10 or 12 - but this is precisely the opposite of what we'd want; motorways should be significant roads when zoomed out. You'd have to find a way of expanding the areas to make these more significant. For routers: *routing over areas is much harder than routing along ways between nodes. Directions are not defined so one-ways are meaningless. You could do routing over areas, with some pre-processing, but it would 'break' a number of existing established routers In summary, I have no problem with people mapping everything as areas; however, I believe for the moment we will have to use both areas and ways. Most wide rivers mapped as areas I've seen also have a way down the centreline - to define the river name, and direction of flow. More importantly, using both ways and areas would render the way we'd expect; wider when zoomed out because the way is rendering wider than the area; wider when zoomed in because we are seeing the visible extent of the area, and we can have street names rendered in the right direction down the centreline. For routers we can continue to follow the ways as navigation paths, ignoring areas, and we can define the direction of travel for one-way streets. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] positioning of barrier = stile
My query relates to where a footway joins a road and there is a stile. say a- b is footway , and c - d is road Should the stile be placed at b c | | a--b | | d or should I put in a node e and tag that with barrier = stile: c | | a---e-b | | d I have been doing the former, but it appears this might stop routing applications allowing a car to travel from c - d as the barrier = stile blocks the road to vehicle transport, and so the second tagging option might be better. I've always tagged the stile where it actually is (via geo-tagged photo). I would therefore use the 2nd option, but my positioning of node 'e' will depend on where my photo says it is. Regardless of routing applications; the best option here is to ask yourself how many stiles are there on the road between c to d. If the answer is none, then the way c-d should not have any node tagged as a stile. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What Streets are in what Places
The problem with admin boundaries, here in the Uk anyway is that they have very little to do with the towns or places they actually are around. Admin_level tends to suggest a simple hierarchy that does not exists. and tends from what I've seen here to be related to govenment admin stration areas, Parish, Borough, County etc etc. In parts of England, the parish boundary will give the best indication of what village a street belongs to. There are complications of course; some parishes will contain more than one village; some larger places will be completely unparished - but in general you may be able to use some of these as a first approximation. Luckily, most parish boundaries should be visible on NPE or other out-of-copyright maps ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin eTrex Vista Hcx
Shalabh schrieb: Would just like to figure out if any of you have had the same issue with this model or any other Garmin GPS. I have a similar Issue with the Garmin Vista HCx. Occasionally I observe, that the GPS position is way off the known road/path I am on. The satellite accuracy is high +-5m. When I switch the device off and on again, it positions me right where I am supposed to be. So it seems to accumulate some sort of error in its internal calculations and needs the occational reset when it is going wrong with great confidence I've never had this problem with my eTrex Vista HCx. The only time I've ever had position errors greater than, say, 15m or so, is when I've first turned the unit on. Whilst it's looking for satellites, the track-log records the current position as where I last turned the unit off for a few seconds until it has a signal lock. However, there might be a couple of causes to large errors; *Some cars are known not to permit very good GPS reception. This would tend to be shown in the +/- position though. *I have heard from others that an earlier version of the software or firmware was known to cause accumulated errors. When I first bought my unit, it was installed with a version previous to these which was fine. I have since upgraded to a later version which is fine. But in general I've never really had any issue with it, other than the rubber part 'ungluing' itself, which is apparently a common fault. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage
Hello Andy, Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl. These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing development extended, but at least were maintained as a route. True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people interested in using rights of ways are going to be using them in the countryside. Whilst that's probably right, I notice that the boundaries of these urban areas are drawn very loosely and don't just exclude heavily urbanised areas, e.g. you have excluded quite a large proportion of what is essentially rural Cheshire due to its proximity to Manchester - but in reality much of it is very rural including some long-distance footpaths etc. All of the land between Liverpool and Manchester is missing, and only shows countour lines at closer zoom levels, not just the cities themselves. There's also a large void from Bridgnorth in Shropshire all the way to the North Sea near Lowestoft which cuts off a lot of rural areas. There is a large void in the North of England - which includes part of the Northumberland National Park. Are these voids intentional, or are they areas that haven't been rendered for whatever reason? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] RR8 - Possible International Vandal (assistance required in various countries)
Just a further heads up that this user appears to have posted to SABRE asking for a way to edit OSM privately. Any suggestions I should pass on to him? It should keep him from vandalising live data if it was possible. Just a bit of a heads up really. I've just spotted some random changing of road classificaions from old friend RR8 again. Some are definitely wrong. Can people check local edits to check to see if anything has been incorrectly changed? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google has dual carriage way where it'snot
Then you are proposing highway=planned planned=* (highway class) Is that correct? Sounds OK to me. I'd use highway=proposed instead. Already has renderer support on the Mapnik layer There are approximately 7 times more highway=proposed than highway=planned in the database so far (although numbers for both are quite small) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2) Use existing keys if you can. When you use a key, check to see if there's an existing value that matches what you are mapping. To go looking, put your key into the following URL where it says shop: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop 3) Use existing tags if you can. When you use a tag (key=value), check to see if an existing tag is already documented. Don't use it in a different way if it's already documented. To go looking, change this URL where it says shop=car: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=car 5) If you disagree with the definition of the key or value, then create a new key or value with a different name, use it in your editing, document it in the wiki, AND (this is important) edit the page for the tag you disagree with so that it mentions your tag as an alternative so that people understand that there is disagreement. Link to tagwatch / osmdoc / tagstat so that people can find out which is more often used in practice. I'm not sure 2 + 3 sit well with 5 here; Use existing tags, unless you don't like them, in which case create your own way to tag things. I think we should be encouraging use of the well established tags for the current purpose. (Which we already do in many cases - very few people in my country use the main highway=* tags for anything different). We could end up with many alternatives on the wiki for particularly well used tags - that will be very confusing for newbies (and others alike) I would probably have something saying; Tags or keys already in well established use should not be changed unless there are very compelling reasons. Aesthetic reasons are generally unlikely to be considered compelling for this purpose. The proposal to change existing well-established tags should be discussed on the tagging mailing list. The level of consensus needed to be reached for changing these tags should be much higher than for proposing new tags. New tags can be used without voting, however it may be worth discussing possibilites with others on the tagging mailing list first. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
oneway=no is useful for highway types which would usually imply oneway=yes: highway=motorway, highway=motorway_link and junction=roundabout. The southern A601(M), that bonkers sliproad on the M50, and (depending on interpretation) the Swindon Magic Roundabout are UK examples of each case where two-way traffic is permitted. Richard Do you know where are the Motorway Ends signs are located in you examples? OS define the links as M* classification, but Google shows them as A* B*. http://osm.org/go/evhVzyiB http://osm.org/go/euwqKRNL Google has it incorrect. The southern A601(M) is definitely (M) http://www.pathetic.org.uk/current/a601m/photos/pages/Dsc00054_jpg.shtml Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetView
[still not enough :)] For moderating: right now I moderated several photos until I cam onto a visible license plate. This I masked and added the tag licenceplate, left the masking area, clicked mark as safe and save - and then an error showed up: | There was an error saving your changes Now moderating is stuck at this one photo, I can't go on. Marking as unsafe and saving the change gives no reaction of any kind. I've got the same issue. I'm stuck on an image that I wanted to add a mask to, and it said the same thing There was an error saving your changes. I can't load any more images to moderate whilst I've still got this one - and I can't seem to be able to do anything at all with this image. Some way of being able to download more images to moderate (say, so that you have around 10) even if you've got one left would be good here. A couple more bugs; It took half an hour for my authentication e-mail to arrive. Someone else on IRC said the same. Some others report it being instant. Also, I've mistakenly uploaded an image without geolocation in the exif (I haven't pushed it towards moderation yet). Any chance we could have the option to remove an image? On Internet Explorer - the map fails to display on the main page. Also, when trying to mask-sections of a photo on IE, it appears that you are selecting something - but the mask is not blacked out - and no area is actually selected. On Firefox, I can see the map with thumbnail images in some places. I can't see any way of seeing larger images. Is that functionality to be added, or is it a bug? Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RR8 - Possible International Vandal
I'll go over what the mapper did in Ireland, which to me is the clearest case of (at least) reckless incompetence (an ill that can be cured through communication, but only with two-way communication): * All motorway under construction marked complete. Including adding amateurish (wrong way, driving on right) stubs to make the pieces connect. * Most long-distance dual-carriageways up-tagged to motorways, including the changing of refs (e.g. N7-M7) * Slip roads on the up-classified sections retagged to motorway (not motorway_link) In all, about 2-200km of road were retagged with no basis whatsoever But some dual carriageway *has* been upgraded to motorway recently - August 28th - 294km worth - (including some sections under construction) See http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/10193-PRESS_RELEASE1_-0.DOC Having said that, I reviewed some changes done in Derbyshire in the UK and they looked horribly wrong. Didn't seem to move any nodes, but road numbers were changed, road classifications changed without any clear indication as to why. Some highway=primary reclassified as highway=secondary with fabricated B-road numbers. Some fairly minor roads upgraded to highway=secondary or highway=primary, again with fabricated route numbers. I'll be happy to revert these particular edits. Most of the edits are not in areas I know well enough. Most seem to be in Iceland. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] 3 more changesets from Liam123 for reversion
Peter Miller wrote: Personally I see little justification for not removing every edit done by Liam123 until he talks to us or clearly starts to make good useful contributions that we can verify. Can I ask you to reconsider you decision and remove the changeset where he has made small changed because on principle I don't want his work in my area unless he changes his ways and starts talking to us or behaving. Right I've managed to revert 2057445. It contained several coastline and boundary moves. Some of which were obviously not possible (e.g. where the coastline now overlapped a footpath with GPX trace etc.). Some just looked like a couple of ways had been dragged. It's changeset 2070045 if you want to look. All I've done is restored every node back to its original position. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Of the authorities I have managed to measure, the following all show more road mapped than the DfT believes exists: There could be a number of reasons for this; 1.Our boundaries are plotted from old parish boundaries on NPE typically. I had to move the Trafford/Manchester boundary in a couple of places because it has obviously been changed when the Metropolitan Borough was set up. Also, NPE has variable accuracy. i.e. we could easily be including roads in OSM's count which actually are in different authorities on the ground. 2.I'm pretty sure the DfT list will include only roads maintainable at public expense or adopted roads. In some areas there are quite a few unadopted roads - which could easily be on OSM. Roads in newly constructed housing estates sometimes take a while for these to become adopted. There are many new housing estates on OSM. In addition, have you included highway=service in your tally? Roads in supermarket car parks, driveways etc. won't be on the DfT list. i.e. we could easily be including roads in OSM's count which are not going to be counted on the DfT list. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
The way I have handled dual carriageways (and motorways) is to assume that both carriageways are plotted separately on OSM. So the figure that results should be twice the length estimated by DfT. However, for primary roads, DfT themselves show the total length of primary road, and the length of this which is dual carriageway. So by adding their two numbers, I effectively double up their figure for dual carriageways, to reach the same (in principle) as the OSM total. Hence I can ignore dual carriageway tags on the OSM stuff. I think. calculation. Generally the figure for motorway is pretty close. I suspect that significant differences in the motorway figure are down to errors in the boundary position. It should be possible to compare adjacent authorities to see where these have resulted in a motorway appearing in the wrong authority - but this is on my ToDo list for a later stage. The motorway figures aren't *that* close though. Your figures are almost all overstating the DfT's list. I count only a single authority that you've calculated the OSM length less than that of the DfT's. If it was purely due to boundary positions you'd expect that an overstatement in one authority would be balanced by an understating in the neighbouring authority. It does suggest that we're including things the DfT are not e.g. you mention sliproads. What would the figures be without highway=foo_link tags? Also, we might be double counting e.g. Shropshire. DfT list of motorways: 12.4km x 2 = 24.8km. OSM 55km That can't be right however we are counting, unless the OSM figures for Shropshire count that for Telford Wrekin Unitary as well (which you've done separate analysis for). If that's correct then we're still over in both Shropshire County Council area (OSM ~ 29km vs 24.8km), and Telford Wrekin (OSM 26km vs DfT 24.0km) - but it might be close if we remove sliproads? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage
Oh just a thought, does the calculations include toll roads? Do the DfT monitor these in their figures? (M6 toll, Severn Bridge etc.) Yes they do. It's in the notes on the DfT website that private toll roads which form part of major routes are included, but private minor roads are not. Incidentally, I had a go at recreating the figures for Shropshire Telford motorways I referred to earlier, excluding sliproads. I've done these by just making a new way down the centreline of the motorway on a local copy - and just finding the total length. I get 12.4km for Shropshire (spot on with the DfT figures) I get only 9.5km for Telford (DfT 12.0km) - which suggests that perhaps the DfT are including some sliproads for that one, but not for Shropshire - maybe to do with the more complex junction 5 being included in the total - or perhaps each authority submits the figures to the DfT - and Telford has chosen to include sliproads?? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Bridge heights and speed limits
Forgive me if I don't go around measuring the true height of each bridge. (That's before we come to arched bridges.) Yes, the heights are advisory, but both are useful and I feel both should be tagged. I don't believe I should be the one making the decision on how to deal with dual signage; I should be gathering the data that's there and leaving it up to the data users to work out what to do with it. That sort of what I meant - you note down the height on the sign itself - in both units if present. And tag for both units - because you cannot make a simple conversion. I realise this started with how to tag in the UK, and is still on the talk-gb list, but the UK isn't the only place being mapped, and I'm open to other places having dual signage. If these Wikipedia pages[1][2] are anything to go by, some places do, and both limits are rounded: Houston, Texas has some signs in both SI and imperial units near its airports and downtown. Well that's different. If there genuinely are two different signs - then you would have to tag both. The legal situation might also be technically slightly unclear. It would be even more wrong of me to attempt to convert, potentially losing accuracy. I never said do that. The whole point is that you *don't* lose any accuracy in converting from mph to km/h. 30mph is *exactly* equal to 48.28032 km/h. There's no approximation here, no rounding done - no loss of accuracy. It's an exact conversion - because the mile has been defined exactly in metric units (as well as most other imperial units). Similarly 40mph is exactly equal to 64.37376 km/h 50mph is exactly equal to 80.4672 km/h 60mph is exactly equal to 96.56064 km/h etc. Where there is one sign only - it makes absolutely no difference whether you tag as maxspeed=30mph or maxspeed=48.28032. The values relate to the same speed. I'm not saying you have to prefer one method over the other. That's up to you. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bridge heights and speed limits
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Richard Bullockrb...@cantab.net wrote: Similarly 40mph is exactly equal to 64.37376 km/h 50mph is exactly equal to 80.4672 km/h 60mph is exactly equal to 96.56064 km/h etc. Where there is one sign only - it makes absolutely no difference whether you tag as maxspeed=30mph or maxspeed=48.28032. The values relate to the same speed. Following that logic, you could replace bridge = yes with bridge = is the pope catholic? -- they may be equivalent values, but one is noticeably easier to read than the other (as with 30mph vs 48.28032 of whatever the wiki says are default units) Well, I did say I didn't mind which way round you do it. Some folk were seeming to suggest that we shouldn't use units in the tag. I was just pointing out that 30mph is equivalent to 48.28032km/h. You could tag as maxspeed=48.28032 and that would be equivalent. And once you've seen a few different values, you'd get used to the conversion (there are only a very few different values that could appear in the UK). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Bridge height - speed limits
Any suggestion on what we should recommend for the UK? I suggest that whatever method we use also be used for other limits, such as maximum heights. The difference with maximum heights in the UK is that both a height in feet and inches, and a height in metres are often given, and they don?t convert, even to the point of metric heights varying for the same imperial heights (though not by much). I don?t know that this is the case for speed limits somewhere in the world, but does suggest a scheme that allows both values would be better for the mapper. The reason that bridge heights do not convert is that the safety margin that is included in the height that goes on the sign is defined differently in imperial and metric. In addition, the imperial heights are rounded up to the next 3 inches. Metric heights rounded up to the next 0.1 m - and 0.1m is not equal to 3 inches. Of course the actual true height of the bridge does convert. 1 foot is exactly equal to 0.3048m - by definition Speed limits on the other hand are a limit. In a black and white version of the law, you could be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit by any amount. There's no safety margin akin to the bridge heights. 30mph = 48.28032 km/h exactly. There's no rounding in that conversion. The mile is defined as exactly 1.609344 km We should therefore: Use maxspeed=30 mph. (It should be trivial for any pre-processing of data to get this in the right format for whatever application it is required) *or* use maxspeed=48.28032 maxspeed=48 is wrong - you are legally allowed to travel faster - so hence it is not a maxspeed. Maxspeed=48.3 is also wrong - as the true maxspeed is lower than that. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Highways tagging vs Polygon
Am I missing something, or can we not just assume that e.g. each highway=residential has a speed limit consistent with urban areas in that country - unless explicitly tagged otherwise e.g. in the UK, highway=residential would be 30mph (48.28032km/h), unless tagged as something else. each highway=trunk, primary, secondary etc. has a default speed limit consistent with rural areas in that country - unless tagged otherwise. each highway=motorway has a default motorway speed consistent for that country. That way, we only need to tag major through routes in cities, and rural roads which do not have the usual national speed limit. The same thing applies for access restrictions. We don't need to tag that roads are accessible for cars - that should be assumed unless tagged otherwise ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Yahoo imagery, Hungary vs Croatia
Pecs ih Hungay is in high-res: http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=slat=46.074824lon=18.226571zoom=17 Kaposvar; http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=slat=46.36273lon=17.796989zoom=15 I didn't all towns in Hungary but Pecs is a bit bigger that Osijek, and Kaposvar is much smaller that Osijek in Croatia. Do Hungarians have some special treatment? ;) Any special reason why Yahoo would pay for to get areal photography for small towns and villages in Hungary and not for other countries? Kaposvar is covered as part of the same strip of aerial imagery as Pécs. They haven't taken it out specifically to get small villages. Most likely they've paid for a strip which includes both places. As far as I can see, only Budapest and Pécs areas are covered. That doesn't sound like particularly special treatment. It seems very random which places get covered and which don't. E.g. Birmingham - one of Europe's largest conurbations - much bigger than Zagreb - similar in size to Budapest - hasn't got Yahoo high-res imagery. You'd have to ask Yahoo what their reasons for choosing a certain city over another. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 57, Issue 39
StreetView data would be awesome to have, since it would massivly increase the amount of information we could add. Footpaths, speedlimits, number of lanes, etc etc, Theses are things you can't get from aerial imagery. But surely you can get this from, say, actually going there, like most people do when they're out mapping?! If you are going to somewhere to collect GPX traces, and collect street names, you can collect any number of other pieces of information at the same time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] What should we do with the towns/cities section on the
Before we start are people happen with using ceremonial counties (such as Cheshire and Berkshire) at this top level? Cheshire was split into two unitaries a few weeks ago! Ceremonial counties sounds reasonable as they're unlikely to change that often unlike administrative districts - and if you start using anything too historical then what's on the ground could be difficult to equate with what's on the site. Actually you've slightly jumped the gun with Cheshire. Cheshire becomes two (four actually if you include the two that already existed which are still part of the Ceremonial county) unitaries on 1st April. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Can not remove a way from a relation
nodes. Using the script I found that the relation (21359) contains a reference to way 8135282, which was deleted on January 5th (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8135282/history). I tried to remove the way from the relation, but get the same error while uploading. There could be another way that has been deleted, or there is a node that is reference by a way that is missing. I've managed to undelete the way - and using Potlatch remove the way from both relations (the E20 and E6 Euro-route relations) - and then re-delete the way. All seems to have worked ok at first glance - and the way is no longer showing in the list of ways in http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/21359. However - I tried to use JOSM to add a way to the relation - and it still gave a 412 Precondition Failed response. Sounds like there could be other ways with referential problems somewhere along the line. Richard B ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Deleting way from a relation
I am unable to remove way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4596756 from the relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/21359 I am thus also unable to delete way 4596756 which is overlapping another way also beeing part of the relation. I am using JOSM and get en error when I try to upload the relation after having taken way out of the relation. I can see that this relation has more than thousand ways, and I think this could be the problem. I have seen in other threads that large relations should be broken up and nested, but how can this be done when I am simply unable to remove ways from the relation. I would think that it might be natural to break the relation (which is highway E20 from UK to somwhere in the Baltics) could pe seperated into sub relations for each country that is passes. I've gone and done it. In JOSM it gave a 412 Precondition Failed response - and didn't delete the way from the relation. So I opened Potlatch and it deleted it without any problem. I've deleted the duplicate ways - I hope that was what you wanted to do. Presumably if there are duplicate ways everywhere (and I found 11 duplicates on top of each other in the UK where the route relation E20 had been created) - then this relation can be slimmed down anyway just by removing excess ways. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Maritme borders
In Europe a number of maritime borders have been tagged recently as national borders, with boundary=administrative and admin_level=2. Exactly what is tagged varies: North of Norway: A part of the exclusive economic zone Finland: 24 mile contiguous zone South of Sweden: Looks like an approximation of the 24 mile contiguous zone Denmark: 24 mile contiguous zone Germany in the Baltic Sea: Seems to be territorial waters, but I have not checked the ED50 coordinates given in the source with the actual points Germany in the North Sea: Old 3 mile territorial waters? The Netherlands: Source is AND? Line approx 1 mile of the coast, unsure what this is. Belgium: 24 mile contiguous zone Italy: The coastline, but some places into the sea and other places on land. Greece/Turkey: Only tagged where islands from both countries are close to each other. This is, at best, confusing and, at worst, wrong. The territorial waters and contiguous zones have very different legal status from a national border, you can for instance pass through the territorial waters of a nation without any border controls. Some details are in the Wikipedia article for United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I would suggest that maritime borders are not tagged the same way as land borders. Should we have a new tag for maritime borders? Stop tagging them? Ignore the problem? The UK, Ireland, France and Spain also have ways around their coasts - but only tagged as FIXME=robot-generated-12nm-border ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Saddleworth
I've been looking at Saddleworth where I used to live (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.5499lon=-1.9963zoom=13) and there is lots missing, the roads aren't aligned with NPE, it's badly tagged and there are bits which from memory are wrong. It's too cold for me to be going out there doing mapping at the moment, so is it worth me mapping it from a combination of NPE and memory given the existing roads aren't aligned with NPE? Or should I just leave it until somebody considers it warm enough to visit? Many of the roads on the map-link you posted have GPX traces, although some have a fairly low sample rate, such that it's not the easiest to join the dots. I would say in general that GPX traces are likely to be more accurate than NPE. If you know something is wrong, then I'd just go and change it, but I definitely wouldn't bother aligning loads of stuff to NPE if someone has been up there with a GPS. It might be worth asking whoever did the original mapping if they have any notes or photographs - perhaps they've interpolated between two known points to get some streets on there? Perhaps there are also GPX waypoints? Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] OSM Inspector
Message: 4 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:49:05 + From: Steve Chilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Where have all the contributors gone? To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED], osm talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Use the excellent OSM Inspector. There is loads you can do to sort out errant geometry for instance. I've been looking at this for the past couple of weeks. I'd almost finished sorting out all of the UK geometry problems marked outside of the London area - however, I leave it for about 3 days, and the number of geometry problems have increased again, with new problems being created. Most of these are either mistakes or oddities in the way some people go about tagging: there are many places with roads that don't connect to any others - many roads which have several ways layered on-top of each other, mostly using the same nodes - I even found one place where one-way roads were overlayed on top of each other in different directions. There is plenty to fix out there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Map Features
Since at least a few are using smoothness, I don't see any problem to put it on map features, and let people who want, use it. Are you *seriously* suggesting that we put every tag used by at least a few on the main map features page? According to Tagwatch - there are over 4300 keys in use in Europe alone, each potentially with multiple values. It's just not practical to display every one of them. Perhaps Map Features should be for the main core tags only (for newbies mainly - the basics of how to get their road/feature displayed). Perhaps we should limit it to the things we consider important enough to render on the main renderers - and we can have other pages for more specialist tagging - e.g. the properties of these ways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging
b) 2+1 ways as we call them in Sweden, they are normal ways but have a small fence in the middle and 2 lanes on one side and 1 lane on the other side. They look like this: http://www.vv.se/filer/V?gprojekt/3-Falt.jpg I would say that these should be done the same way as motorways, with 2 parallel one way roads. The appropriate number of lanes can be added for each direction. I understand that I can map them as two roads, but physically they are one road. So I'm thinking, why map them as two roads, when they are one. Motorways are different, they consist of two separated pieces of way. They have ramps and acceleration fields. Where there is a physical barrier, splitting a road in two, tag as two separate ways, with a oneway tag. Where a physical barrier splits a road in two, this is a dual carriageway, regardless of how many lanes each carriageway has. It doesn't matter if a dual carriageway has at-grade junctions (i.e. just gaps in the barrier or side-turnings), or motorway-style slip-roads and bridges - they are still both dual carriageways and must be tagged with two ways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Metric / imperial bridge heights
Mappers should be mapping what it is they find. If I find an 11'3 clearance bridge with a 20mph limit beneath it then that is what I want to map. Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't do that. I'll certainly express the view that when I drive under that bridge, my km/h speedometer and lack of feet and inches reckoning skills will mean that I'll want that translated into real money, but this is going to be possible wherever you choose to store this information. What I'm saying is that when we have tags that are documented as containing simple numbers interpreted as being in a particular unit, that you should either convert your data into that format or choose another tag where your preferred way of using it doesn't break with the already documented behaviour. With speed limits - there is an exact conversion factor. 1 mph = 1.609344 km/h exactly. It's not massively difficult to imput data in to OSM in km/h - just multiply the mph limit by 1.609344. In the UK with bridge heights there isn't an exact conversion factor - mainly because a signed 11'3 bridge isn't 11'3 high. To get the signed height - you subtract 3 inches from the true height then round down to the next 3 inches. There will always be between 3 and 6 inches leeway. When a UK bridge is signed in metric as well, you don't convert the imperial measure. You subtract 0.08m from the correct height measured in metres - and then round down to 1 decimal place. Thus the actual leeway will be between 8cm and 18cm. The regulations say that bridge heights must be reviewed every time the road is resurfaced or similar works occur. This can lead to two bridges being signed the same in metric - but different in imperial - or vice versa. E.g. http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img7896am4.jpg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Motorways and Motorway_link
I stand corrected on the two direction sections BUT the examples you give ARE motorway_links rather than motorway. Most of the links like this that I frequent have now been divided with a barrier. And a word of warning the 'Maximum speed' for a single carriageway road in the UK is 60 MPH. This applies to these links up to the 'start of motorway' sign which may not be actually at the end of the link - I've seen traffic cops with speed guns on a couple of roads that merge into the motorway ;) But motorway_link has usually been used to tag sliproads. These aren't sliproads - it's the mainline of the motorway. http://pathetic.org.uk/current/a601m/photos/images/Dsc00055_jpg.jpg The start of motorway sign is at the end of the link where it meets the B-road in the case of the A601(M) - and the end nearest the Walton Summit Industrial Estate in the other example. The 60mph limit for cars on single carriageways do not apply to special roads - which is the legal term for motorways (and one or two other bits of road like the A55 at Conwy - where you'll notice there are 70mph signs rather than the national speed limit sign). Instead, the Motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974 apply to all motorways - defining the limit to be 70mph for cars - regardless of whether it is single or dual carriageway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Motorways and Motorway_link
(Trim the crap and return to sanity ;) ) The definition in the UK would mean that motorway and motorway_link ARE always one way and anything that needed to be two way would not be flagged as 'motorway' but no doubt parallels in other countries are not quite so clear cut? Perhaps the OSM definition of motorway should include the restriction of a single direction carriageway and move anything else to 'trunk'? The UK definition is any road defined as a motorway. Anything beyond http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zeichen_330.svg this sign is a motorway. In the UK we even have single-carriageway sections of motorway. e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.71933lon=-2.63209zoom=16layers=B000FTF here It's not a sliproad - it's really single carriageway - and it has blue-backed motorway signs. It has all of the usual motorway regulations applying - no cycles, no pedestrians, no learners - you can drive a car legally at 70mph on it (but given the length of it, it's only easy to do so in the downhill direction with most cars) etc. There's another one here - part of the A601(M) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.12654lon=-2.74652zoom=16layers=B000FTF These should be motorways on OSM - they are in reality. Personally, I tag motorways and motorway_links with oneway=yes if they are oneway. That way we don't go making any false assumptions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] graveyards not rendering correctly
I mapped some time ago a small grave yard ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.49298lon=23.9686zoom=17layers=0B00FTF), however it appears as though neither Mapnik nor [EMAIL PROTECTED] are rendering this area. landuse=cemetery renders on both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and mapnik. With religion=christian as well it renders crosses instead of headstones. Not sure if this works for other religions or not. See this example http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.47261lon=-1.96507zoom=17layers=0B00FTF Hope that helps. Richard B ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?
Message: 9 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:54:51 -0500 From: Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ? To: talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Pieren wrote: Dear talk, Could some native english speaker explain the difference between highway=path and highway=byway recently introduced in map features ? For one, byway was never proposed or described or otherwise documented, but instead just plopped into map features. So I guess no one really knows except Richard B, who put it there. -Alex Mauer hawke I only added it because it was already; 1. In use: see http://etricceline.de/osm/Great_britain/En/tagstats_highway=byway.htm 2. Rendered on both Mapnik and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, it was already documented on the wiki here; http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_public_rights_of_way If it's already in reasonably widespread use - and will render, then we should be adding these to Map Features - people are voting by using the tags. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mapping canals
And what is the exact SI equivalent of 30mph? I can give you an approximation: 48.28032km/h. What happens though if everyone sticks in 48 instead.. close enough isn't it? Nitpicking, but 48.28032 km/h *is* exact. Although in the usual SI unit, 30 mph would be 13.4112 m/s (exactly). Richard B ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
