Re: [OSRM-talk] Time-to-destination on OSRM is too short
Spod OSM wrote: Looking at the OSM data, it does look as if there is missing maxspeed data on some of the roads involved (but the maxspeed on the major length of motorway is correctly tagged), but presumably OSRM uses sensible scaled down defaults, relative to the way type, in that case? Any suggestions as to how to help to get the public OSRM server to give more realistic times? Bear in mind that highway=trunk roads in the UK are often of a lower quality than those in the rest of the world. OSRM's standard car profile assumes 85km/h for a trunk road. This is not too far off (say) the A1, A14 or A303 in Britain, but evidently not appropriate for the A61. However, you can't just apply sensible scaled down defaults to fix the A61. That would break the parts of the world which have faster trunk roads, including the A1 etc. The correct solution is to add maxspeed tags, traffic lights etc. cheers Richard ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
Re: [OSRM-talk] Time-to-destination on OSRM is too short
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Generally it seems that different ideas in different areas of the world, of what a trunk road is supposed to be, now fall onto our feet ;-) One option that comes to my mind would be that you change the road classification in Britain to use trunk only on those ways where it is used in other parts of the world, regardless of the actual official british classification. Could this find support in the British community? Quick answer: not a chance in hell of that finding support. Long answer: I don't really see the need, to be honest. All road types have to be interpreted with national defaults in mind for speed limits, permitted access, what side you drive on, etc. The fact that UK trunk roads are (on average) slower is just another one of these. And although UK trunk roads might be slower than German ones, they're probably faster than many of these: http://osm.org/go/wEupZG-- cheers Richard ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] cycle.travel - new OSM-powered cycling site
Gregory wrote: I'll definitely be wanting to try this out next time I have somewhere to go. Thanks Richard. \o/ Thanks! Hmm, I think the gridline must be a glitch in the data. It is, I'm afraid - it's a bug in the way that the SRTM tiles line up which I haven't ironed out yet. * The cartography is surprisingly different. I've been less-accustomed to pale maps that I associate more with paper. I've tried to make it deliberately papery and, in particular, with some echoes of the New Popular Edition and OS 7th series; for example, using a serif font for placenames. * Can I not drag the route on circular routes? This would be helpful to iron out a long double-back stretch at the start. OSRM doesn't support circular routes out of the box, so these circular routes are actually OSRM's first-choice route 'out', then its alternate route 'back'. As a result, adding a via point would add it to both the outward and return legs, which wouldn't be what you want. * Wow, was just about to close the page when I clicked the elevation profile button. (I did have a request from a Mr Jonathan Bennett of this parish for a MAMIL routing option that would _prefer_ hills...) * Are the tiles available for others to use? They're not, because I'd be a rubbish tileserver sysadmin - keeping up with a server for my own use is enough for me, let alone providing one for the rest of the world. :) I would encourage people wanting cycle cartography on their own sites to talk to Andy, as ever, who is much better at running servers than I am. * What is the data refresh rate (near-live or a regular import of some amount)? Weekly, though I can trigger it more frequently if needs be. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/cycle-travel-new-OSM-powered-cycling-site-tp5787609p5788486.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] cycle.travel - new OSM-powered cycling site
On 04/12/2013 16:02, Alex Barth wrote: Congrats, Richard. The site looks awesome. Now I just wish I could make time for a bike tour in England next year Thanks! (John F used an early version of the site for his post-SOTM cycle tour this year. Maybe I should try and follow SOTM around the globe...) cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Upcoming changes to OpenStreetMap.org website
Philip Barnes wrote: Not sure if its been changed recently, but using IE on my corporate desktop, there is a close button. Yes, I submitted a patch and Tom deployed it. People complaining about lacking communication should IMO volunteer to join the Communications Working Group (not you, Lester, I don't think the blog COULD withstand the RANDOM capitals EVERYWHERE). Failing an influx of magic PR fairies, it's not going to get fixed any other way. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Upcoming-changes-to-OpenStreetMap-org-website-tp5785721p5788112.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Upcoming changes to OpenStreetMap.org website
lsces wrote: At least we can still access potlatch in place of Id so the principle has already been adopted here. That's because iD isn't a replacement for Potlatch, it's a new entry-level editor to complement the existing intermediate-level one. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Upcoming-changes-to-OpenStreetMap-org-website-tp5785721p5788113.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Upcoming changes to OpenStreetMap.org website
Andy Mabbett wrote: Perhaps we need an Announce mailing list (with follow-ups set to the 'talk' list)? https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/announce/ :) (it's a bit unloved though... needs more people volunteering for CWG to help) I miss the slider for zooming in and out. Having to make multiple clicks (on the - icon for zooming out) is an inconvenient kludge. You can shift-click the +/- to move three levels at once - apparently this is a standard Leaflet feature. (It's interesting to see that Google are now actually second-guessing people's map clicks and, under certain circumstances, zooming in more than one level on click.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Upcoming-changes-to-OpenStreetMap-org-website-tp5785721p5788165.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] cycle.travel - new OSM-powered cycling site
Hi all, Thought I might show you what I've been working on for the last year or so. :) http://cycle.travel/ is a new everyday cycling website for Britain and it won't surprise you to learn it has lots of OSM mapping in there. Click on 'Map' and you'll find OSM-based route-planning and cycle mapping. If you create an account (just log in with Twitter or Facebook if you like), you can save your routes, export GPX and PDF, and so on. The route-planner is based on OSRM, so you get fully draggable routes. It tries to avoid hills where possible, and knows about NCN routes. Both the route-planner and cartography take account of surface tags on cycleways, bridleways, tracks and paths. Adding surface tags helps cycle.travel know whether a given path is easy to cycle along. There's a bit more about this at http://cycle.travel/about/maps Very very early days and I've not really told the world yet. There's a few bits of content missing (like the bike shop listings) - it's ramping up slowly. But as all the map data has been contributed by you lovely people I thought you should be among the first to know! There are doubtless lots of bugs and you can report them at http://cycle.travel/forum/2 . cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-us] Completing the Appalachian Trail relation
Richard Welty wrote: Josh Doe wrote: I believe I saw SURFACE and CLUB which might be useful. i'm not keeping any of it, the source tag points back to the original data set and that should be sufficient. [...] i don't know that i see a mapping from the AT surface attributes to our surface tag, and an AT:surface tag would be largely ignored by OSM users If you can find a mapping from the Trail surface to OSM surface= tags, or even to tracktype= at a pinch, that'd be superb. I've just built a cycling router (using OSRM) and surface tags make _all_ the difference. They're something OSM greatly benefits from. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Completing-the-Appalachian-Trail-relation-tp5787477p5787521.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-GB] Grounds of Places of Worshiip when not Graveyards
OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: The rules for places of worship This is OpenStreetMap. We don't have rules. Stop placing so much trust in the wiki. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Grounds-of-Places-of-Worshiip-when-not-Graveyards-tp5775209p5775214.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
Colin Smale wrote: Calling the transformation from OSM data to international format trivial does not do justice to the creativity of mappers when entering phone numbers or to telecoms regulators when defining numbering plans. A quick gander at http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/phone#values suggests: - s/[^0-9]//g - s/^0/44/ will actually cope with almost every value currently extant. The exceptions are a few without area code at all, and a few semicolon-delimited multiple values (which is frowned upon in any case). The four lines of regex will need to be different for each country Oh, indeed, but that's the case for most tagging in OSM anyway. Fortunately OSM is a spatial database so it's easy to do region-specific transformations! I don't particularly care about this specific issue because I can't really envisage circumstances in which I would want to use phone numbers derived from OSM. What I'm trying to get across is the general point that non-consumers' attempts to normalise tags, thinking that data consumers will appreciate it, isn't necessarily as helpful as you'd think. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Phone-numbers-in-little-England-tp5774459p5774643.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
Colin Smale wrote: Someone needs to stick up for the data consumers; it's not *all* about the mappers, and anyway most mappers are not so lazy that they can't be bothered to conform to conventions. As a data consumer I wish people would stop sticking up for me and my kin! IMX more heartache has been caused by well-meaning attempts to rationalise tagging for the data consumers than by the original tagging eccentricities. Take the highway=path farrago: I have a whole load of extra code in my Lua osm2pgsql and OSRM includes just to cope with this. If we'd stuck with highway=cycleway and highway=footway life would have been much easier. (Though I should point out that embedded Lua is ridiculously awesome for this sort of thing.) Transforming phone numbers from OSM tags into a uniform, international format is trivial. It's about four lines of regex, I guess, and anyone using phone numbers for national purposes will need to transform it the other way anyway. If you can cope with stuff like http://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/manually-building-a-tile-server-12-04/ (or OSRM, or whatever you're using) then it's not exactly going to faze you. By all means tidy up the phone numbers if it's what floats your boat, but don't kid yourself that it'll make data consumers' life any easier. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Phone-numbers-in-little-England-tp5774459p5774539.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] In the works: iD 1.1
Tom Hughes wrote: No, because they each use their own database, which is entirely separate from the main database. ...and because site improvements often require changes to the database structure - new columns, new indexes, and so on - so it wouldn't generally be possible to hook test instances up to the main (unimproved) database even if it were desirable. [This is implicit in Tom's message but I thought I'd point it out!] cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/In-the-works-iD-1-1-tp5772153p5772960.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] comments on new map widget on main page
Michal Migurski wrote: Provable evidence that the view tab is not sufficiently informing visitors of its functionality? Having a button that says “link” is a great clue that there is an option to link vs. hunting around. Perhaps, but this is definitely a pro feature. There _is_ a button that says link (or rather, an icon that indicates link). What a small number of existing OSM pro users are asking for is, additionally, a way of retaining the single-click behaviour rather than having to open the panel, and the View tab does that. Surfacing everything that pro users might want isn't a good way of building a design that appeals to potential newcomers. But if I say we need more than one map browser, just as we have more than one editor again, I really will start to sound like a stuck record... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/comments-on-new-map-widget-on-main-page-tp5771779p5771810.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] comments on new map widget on main page
Greg Troxel wrote: add the shortlink link in the lower right, so you can more easily use it to get to a URL for the current view, so you can shift-reload to see what yfou just edited Click the View tab. /stuck_record cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/comments-on-new-map-widget-on-main-page-tp5771779p5771783.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Build your own osm.org (was Re: New technology ...)
Lester Caine wrote: Note that I'm not saying that the main map should change - this is mobile technology use, but personally I WOULD like to have the option to select the old style layout. It's not fundamental to how the map works - it's only a style sheet, and we could have several - including mobile centric ones? What rattles my cage is when someone else changes things that I'm naturally used to when there is no need to FORCE me to change - just put an option to select in! You could have several different stylesheet options, but every time anyone makes a simple code change to the site, it would then have to be tested against each one. Just look at the unintentional collateral damage from the recent changes (things like the search box not scrolling, text entry boxes not resizing) and multiply that by several stylesheets. We simply don't have enough developers for that. If you want it, you need to find more developers. And I hate to say it, but these recent threads are not really a very good way of saying hey, developers, come and help OSM, you'll be welcome here! We respect our developers!. So is there a way through? Of course there is. We have two on-site editors, iD and Potlatch. They do not do everything for everyone. No-one expects them to. Instead, the people who want MOAR STYLESHEETS (or moar zoombars, or moar tools, or whatever) use a separate editor. It's called JOSM. You may have heard of it. :) This is a great solution. It means power users get the tools they want, without making the online editors utterly bamboozling to the newbie. It means Java developers have an OSM project to get stuck into, even though the main site is Rails. It doesn't impose extra burdens on the site development team. And it's made possible because OSM is an open project with an open API, and we positively encourage this sort of thing. Why not do the same here? Get a few people together who want the zoom bar/old stylesheets/whatever. Build a power user's mapping site. Use PHP or whatever language you're comfortable with. Start small - just an instance with the features you really need. But it could grow to have oodles more tile layers, talk to the public OSRM API for routing, be tightly integrated with JOSM, all the stuff that we can't expose on osm.org for QC/scaling reasons but which would work fine on a more niche site. And if you have good ideas, some might filter back to osm.org, just as JOSM features occasionally pop up in P2 or iD. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-technology-tp5770731p5770865.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Double-clicking on OSM map does not centre the map
Lester Caine wrote: is there a change log for the code running live? https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/commits/master (though changes may take a short while to percolate to the live servers, of course) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Double-clicking-on-OSM-map-does-not-centre-the-map-tp5770786p5770960.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upgraded map controls
Michal Migurski wrote: On Jul 21, 2013, at 5:42 AM, Pieren wrote: If you missed the discussion because you don't watch the non-localized 35 mailing lists [...] I don't know, and I don't want to have to subscribe to Github pull requests to find out. You only have to follow one mailing list: rails-dev@. Just as if you're interested in the development of JOSM you should follow josm-dev@, if you're interested in the development of Potlatch you should follow potlatch-dev@, if you're interested in the development of Merkaartor, OSRM, Nominatim, etc. etc. All site issues on github and site issues on trac are gatewayed to rails-dev, so you won't miss anything. (rails-dev is a daft, uninituitive name and really it should be called site-dev, but history.) Anticipating next message: Pieren will now complain that this public mailing list is a secretive list as he traditionally does re: legal-talk@. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Upgraded-map-controls-tp5770491p5770755.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upgraded map controls
James Mast wrote: I'm personally not liking that they now have hidden the long/short links to the map location behind buttons. Instead of just one click to get the map location, now it's two clicks and is really annoying and slowing down work for me. :( Ok, I've said this at least three times elsewhere, but for the benefit of those reading here: The View tab does the same as the Permalink button. Exactly the same. Always has. So you can right-click/copy the permalink from there. I believe the real-soon-now intention is to have the URL continuously updating as you pan around the map (which is possible with JavaScript these days). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Upgraded-map-controls-tp5770491p5770533.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Steady increase in the number of mappers in the US
Clifford Snow wrote: We need publicity! Harry Wood is trying to recruit more volunteers for the Communication Working Group. You can e-mail him on o...@harrywood.co.uk . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Steady-increase-in-the-number-of-mappers-in-the-US-tp5770307p5770444.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-GB] Aylesbury mapping expedition: Saturday 20th July
Andrew Chadwick wrote: Anyone want to join up with a handful of people from the Oxfordshire/Cotwolds group for a short mapping expedition to Aylesbury this coming Saturday? I can't make it, I'm afraid, but anyone visiting avec velo might like to map Aylesbury's cycle network: List of routes: http://www.cycleaylesbury.co.uk/page/gemstone-cycleway-maps.php Currently on OSM: http://osm.org/go/eutti3Qm-?layers=C cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Aylesbury-mapping-expedition-Saturday-20th-July-tp5770081p5770088.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Using OpenStreetMap on a daily basis
Guillaume Pratte wrote: How can users actively contribute to the map if they need to rely to a competitive service for their daily needs? No-one has said that. We want everyone to be using OpenStreetMap data. But OpenStreetMap is much more than openstreetmap.org. Just because it isn't on osm.org doesn't mean it's a competitive service. What do you think? What do I think? I think code counts - good quality, robust, deployable code. Routing will happen on the front page pretty much instantly if someone comes up with a top-quality UI and the resources to make it happen. So far they haven't. You can have all the mailing list discussions like this in the world, but they don't make anything happen in themselves apart from, usually, sapping the energy of those who _do_ code. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Using-OpenStreetMap-on-a-daily-basis-tp5768864p5769372.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Using OpenStreetMap on a daily basis
Maarten Deen wrote: The problem with OSM is that with Google, Google maps is the go-to site to get everything: map, routing, information. With OSM it is not. [...] It just is less userfriendly than having it all on one site. And that's a great business opportunity for someone... right? Although: it turns out that not even Google has everything. I guess that if you're a car driver who searches for addresses a lot, especially in places with big long roads (where house numbers are really important), Google Maps is wonderful. But fortunately I live in a country where we have (a) short roads and (b) bikes, and actually Google's not all that. Their bike cartography? Cartography is probably too kind. Their bike routing? Sure, if you like being mowed down on lethal fast roads. Their POI display? I sort of fell out of love with that after spending half-an-hour looking for a non-existent bike shop on the back streets of Great Malvern. So, instead, I use OpenCycleMap, CycleStreets, and a couple of other sites. Maybe one day, someone will build the all-in-one British cycle mapping website to end them all, and I'll use that. And I bet you it will be made with OSM data. If even Google can't manage to be everything, openstreetmap.org certainly can't be. Instead, we're at the heart of an ecosystem that allows people to build their own everythings. If the OSM-based everything for you doesn't exist yet, go out and build it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Using-OpenStreetMap-on-a-daily-basis-tp5768864p5768930.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [oxoncotswolds] Possible pub meetup with the West Midlands crew in early October?
On 08/07/2013 17:45, Andy Robinson wrote: No schedule but I'd expect it to be a bit of an ad-hoc mapping party before adjourning to the pub but if something more substantial gets organised that's cool. We certainly would need: 1. A cake Banbury Cake! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banbury_cake Banbury is one of those places that's been intermittently mapped over the years. It's nominally road-complete now but largely due to the usual suspects armchairing it from OSSV, I think. A couple of estates have been done well (Hanwell Fields and Hardwick to the NW, though I'm not entirely confident about the geometry) but elsewhere there's lots of scope for improvement. cheers Richard ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] [oxoncotswolds] Possible pub meetup with the West Midlands crew in early October?
On 08/07/2013 17:45, Andy Robinson wrote: No schedule but I'd expect it to be a bit of an ad-hoc mapping party before adjourning to the pub but if something more substantial gets organised that's cool. We certainly would need: 1. A cake Banbury Cake! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banbury_cake Banbury is one of those places that's been intermittently mapped over the years. It's nominally road-complete now but largely due to the usual suspects armchairing it from OSSV, I think. A couple of estates have been done well (Hanwell Fields and Hardwick to the NW, though I'm not entirely confident about the geometry) but elsewhere there's lots of scope for improvement. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Swindon mapping party
Hi all, Swindon Borough Council is organising a mapping party in Swindon on Saturday 13th July. (How enlightened is that?) http://www.swindontravelchoices.co.uk/news/contribute-to-swindons-new-map.aspx The core event is 10am-2pm but people are welcome to come for longer. Swindon also has a nascent Museum of Computing (http://www.museumofcomputing.org.uk/) and a rather splendid railway museum if you're into that sort of thing! cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on the OSM Wiki
Pieren wrote: You cannot say that. Give me an example where the editors decided how to tag features in the past. Two off the top of my head: 1. Potlatch popularised the use of a certain set of values for the surface= tag. 2. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=designation+talk-fr+site%3Alists.openstreetmap.org By chance, the developers are not trying to impose new tags or changes. They follow what's happening on the tagging list and/or the wiki. I can't speak for any other editor, of course, but I have never _followed_ tagging@ or wiki votes for Potlatch tag presets. They are one piece of source material, yes, but only something to be informed by, and even then very minimally. taginfo and real-world mapping experience are much more useful. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Survey-on-the-OSM-Wiki-tp5766905p5766969.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Place name translations
Someoneelse wrote: Someone's being adding translations of place names using: These aren't translations, they're transliterations. General consensus is that we shouldn't add transliterations (which are essentially algorithmic) to OSM. Apparently Place names translations are public knowledge and it can be used on OSM. Does this sound plausible? I genuinely have no idea No, public knowledge does not of its own allow things to be copied into OSM from any other source, otherwise we could just copy streetnames etc. wholesale from Google Street View. This is the old database rights/sweat-of-the-brow thing for the n millionth time. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Place-name-translations-tp5765423p5765426.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Kerry Irons wrote: Nathan, [...] Please advise when you will remove these tags. Nathan (NE2) has been given an indefinite ban from OpenStreetMap on account of his inability to work with others on what is a crowd-sourcing project: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/347 It'll therefore fall to the rest of the US community to fix this (assuming the community agrees!). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Removing-US-Bicycle-Route-tags-tp5764061p5764067.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Google maps source
Rick Marshall wrote: If we use bing imagery for tracing the road geometry, but Google Maps to discover the name of the road is it incorrect to use source=google? You are not tracing a road geometry from Google Maps, but you might be using it for other attribute data. _Do_not_copy_ANYTHING_from_Google_Maps_. From the terms you agreed to on sign-up: Your contribution of data should not infringe the intellectual property rights of anyone else. If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. From openstreetmap.org/copyright: OSM contributors are reminded never to add data from any copyrighted sources (e.g. Google Maps or printed maps) without explicit permission from the copyright holders. From the Legal FAQ on the wiki: Other sources must not be used as the base of any data uploaded to OSM - whether maps, aerial imagery, or photographs such as Google Street View. This is because their licences and/or terms of use (contracts) forbid you to do so. Only sources with compatible licenses - such as US Government information released into the public domain - may be used as bases for adding OSM data. That means _any_ data from Google Maps. Not just street geometries, any data. If you have copied streetnames from Google Maps, please let the Data Working Group know (d...@osmfoundation.org) so that they can remove it from the database. Thanks. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Google-maps-source-tp5763947p5763957.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] User Cam4rd98 gun-jumping new highways + adding fictional alignments
Ian Dees wrote: This is what an account block is and it already happens. For those unaware of account blocks, you can read all those that have been imposed at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/User-Cam4rd98-gun-jumping-new-highways-adding-fictional-alignments-tp5763647p5763708.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] OSM Data Quality
Martijn van Exel wrote: I think I just wrote half of one of my SOTM US talk. I think you just wrote half of mine too. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-Data-Quality-tp5763578p5763648.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] iD Editor live on OpenStreetMap
Russ Nelson wrote: This is ridiculous. I tried ID, and it didn't make my penis bigger OR harder, my breasts didn't get bigger, I didn't get six-pack abs, and I didn't get shaplier thighs in just six weeks. You should submit an issue on github. I believe there's a Math.abs function in JS so the third issue should be fixable, at least. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/iD-Editor-live-on-OpenStreetMap-tp5760198p5762613.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] source=Google
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: But in the end I think this whole source thing is completely overestimated. Yup. What do you propose to do with source tags found on an object when you modify this object based on a different source? OSM has full object history. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/source-Google-tp5761629p5762025.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
I've just been bitten by the minority, largely undocumented usage of railway:historic=rail on a bunch of dismantled/abandoned railways in Britain. Having exported some OSM data and done a few days' manual processing on it, I belatedly find that various lines are missing due to not taking account of this tag and I'm going to have to do a whole bunch more work. :( Taginfo/Taginfo GB suggest that railway:historic=rail is not used much elsewhere in the world, and that railway=abandoned, =disused and =dismantled remain the popular choices. No client software appears to take any notice of railway:historic=rail. Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground? The only documentation I could find (on a wiki discussion page, of all the obscure places): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:historic.3Dxxx_or_former:railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of_railway.3Dabandoned.2Fdismantled.3F cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] iD Editor live on OpenStreetMap
NopMap wrote: And putting a simple general or how to question into an issue tracker is rather weird. help.openstreetmap.org is the commonly used and expected method of asking simple general and how to questions. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/iD-Editor-live-on-OpenStreetMap-tp5760012p5760053.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Complaining about refs on roads again!
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: It's only because of poor assumtions and a lack of forsight by renderers and data users that we have this problem now. I don't think that's fair. We do have the general (and generally misinterpreted) rule of don't tag for the renderer, but there's also the assumption don't make every single client's life needlessly hard. In this case, anyone building a worldwide render or router from OSM data will have to build in an obscure chunk of UK-specific logic - roughly speaking, where ref=~/^[C-Z]+\d+/i, don't show it - or their renderer or router will show confusing information. It doesn't degrade gracefully. Yes, granted, there are one or two other cases where international tagging differences don't degrade gracefully (bikes being forbidden on highway=trunk is the one that springs to mind), but we should seek to avoid creating more. [...] Otherwise we're likely to continue with an inconsistent mixture of ref, admin_ref, official_ref, local_ref and probably others too. Yep. local_ref doesn't really explain what this putative tag would do (these refs do happen to be set by local authorities, but that's not the point we're addressing). Taginfo reports that admin_ref has significantly more uses than official_ref, admin:ref and official:ref, and it's consistent with the established _ref principle. I'd therefore suggest we go with admin_ref, but am open to arguments! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Complaining-about-refs-on-roads-again-tp5759139p5759241.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Missing place=city nodes: Manchester, Leeds
Philip Barnes wrote: Leeds, however it is in the middle of a pedestrianised area, so makes routing results at best unhelpful as it directs you to a dead end side street. Would be better on a main road from which the central car parks are accessible. http://osrm.at/33S Agreed that routing is a really important use for place nodes. Many settlements have an obvious 'centre point'. In Oxford it's Carfax, in Cambridge it's the Market Place / Great St Mary's, in Gloucester it's the main crossroads, in Leicester it's the Clock Tower, in Peterborough it's the square outside the Cathedral, here in little old Charlbury it's the crossroads by the Rose Crown, and so on. London's routing centre is famously Charing Cross. A place node is a good way of mapping this. But when a place node is arbitrarily situated, or isn't present, routing instructions tend to start/finish at an obscure alley somewhere. I've recently moved several place nodes to these centre points for exactly this reason. I'd slightly modify Philip's advice, though. I don't think accessibility of car parks should be a consideration. OSM data is used for all modes of transport and we shouldn't make value judgments that favour motor traffic. Better to choose the established/historic centre point - i.e. a factual approach rather than simply tagging for the router. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Missing-place-city-nodes-Manchester-Leeds-tp5758812p5758845.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
Alex Barth wrote: This is an updated proposal based on an initial RFC from earlier this year titled Contributor Mark [1, 2]. Thumbs up. This is really good. I love having Local knowledge in prime position. It'd be good to release Leaflet/OpenLayers plugins to do the attribution. If I were feeling Machiavellian I'd suggest we consider hosting them on our servers (load permitting) so we get an automatic heads-up of who's using OSM... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-updated-OSM-Attribution-Mark-was-contributor-mark-tp5758043p5758183.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What to do with failed (Potlatch) save changeset?
Steve Bennett wrote: Assuming I'm happy to simply lose any changes where there really is a version conflict (which I am), what can I do with it? (I don't use JOSM at all, so would prefer to avoid that hurdle if possible...) The couple of times I've encountered this situation, I've manually edited out the conflicting element and then used upload.py to upload it to OSM. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Upload.py cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/What-to-do-with-failed-Potlatch-save-changeset-tp5756998p5757002.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why do we have so many registered users with zero edits ?
Cartinus wrote: Most of these are people who didn't read what Openstreetmap was about before they registered. They most likely thought they would need to register to _USE_ all the features of Openstreetmap, not contribute to it. +1. You'd be surprised how common this is. Our village website only requires registration to post (you can read everything without registering), and the posting UI is incredibly simple, yet the great majority of registered users have never posted. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Why-do-we-have-so-many-registered-users-with-zero-edits-tp5756797p5756845.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] NCN 28?
Hi all, Is anyone able to verify the existence or otherwise of NCN 28 from Exeter to Dartmoor, as shown on OSM right now? It's been mapped from the DfT cycling data, but when cycling in Devon last week, I didn't see any signs of it when I'd have expected to do so. The Sustrans mapping shows it as following a completely different route (and still not open). I'm tempted to think this is a mistake in the DfT data, but would welcome any on-the-ground reports! cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Railway bridge numbers
Philip Barnes wrote: Seems a good idea. I would suggest a new tag, such as bridge_ref. I have come across cases of canal bridge numbers using the ref tag [...] Most canal bridge numbers are in the name tag, but I am not sure that is right either. There seem to be a lot of canal bridge numbers in the ref tag around Cheshire, but not so many elsewhere. I've replaced them when I've spotted them. I've long used bridge_ref for canal bridges, in the same vein as lock_ref and lock_name. The only place that doesn't work easily is on a railway-over-canal bridge, but you can namespace those: railway:bridge_ref, waterway:bridge_ref. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Railway-bridge-numbers-tp5756366p5756384.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] NCN 28?
Kevin Peat wrote: The South Devon Link Road construction gives rise to new cycle paths from Newton Abbot down to Torquay which this document: http://www.devon.gov.uk/ldfpaper-newtonabbot.pdf mentions as being part of NCN 28. Interesting - thanks. That tallies with the Sustrans website and suggests that the DfT-sourced alignment in OSM right now is wrong (probably an old proposed route). I'll scout around to see if there's any other documentation that supports the DfT route, but assuming not, will remove the ncn_ref tags in the next few days. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/NCN-28-tp5756322p5756393.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans still using OS map data
Dave F. wrote: I presume someone within OSM has talked to them about it. Do they have a long term contract, or not consider our data complete enough? Seems a great shame a charity is paying for something that could be free. Some Sustrans maps are now made with OSM data - in particular, the new Sustrans/Four Point Mapping area maps (the ones with the red covers). I'm sure that as time goes on we'll see more of this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Sustrans-still-using-OS-map-data-tp5755909p5755937.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Crossroad names
Andrew Errington wrote: That's exactly what he did. So what else is he supposed to do? Perhaps the wiki should be edited to state don't bother making graphical suggestions because the system is too unwieldy now and we dare not change it. No-one has said that. There is an active effort to change it, as Tom pointed out: [quoting Tom] | The problem is that the original XML stylesheet is all but impossible | to edit which is why it is being redeveloped in carto and preparations | are being made for deployment of that redeveloped version. Please don't use unnecessarily pejorative language like we dare not and thereby denigrate those who _are_ working hard to do something about it. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Crossroad-names-tp5754463p5754616.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Design] Banners on the Front Page
[wider issue, so cc:ing talk@] On 22/03/2013 15:32, Shaun McDonald wrote: On 22 Mar 2013, at 14:06, Harry Wood m...@harrywood.co.uk wrote: ...we have a strip down the left, and this screen real-estate is valuable space. Here more than anywhere users are eyeballing the graphics, text, and user interface elements we choose to put there. We have in the past chosen to put graphical banner ads promoting State Of The Map conferences and some other events, in the run up to these events. How about a rotating banner that rotates round showing all of the upcoming SOTMs? This would then minimise the vertical space needed. Actually, this is a great opportunity to devolve local marketing to local chapters. Let's call it the message space. Allow local chapters to choose what marketing message goes in that space for their country (subject to certain criteria, i.e. must promote OSM, mustn't give advantage to one commercial provider over another, mustn't look dog-ugly). Use GeoIP etc. to find what country the user is from. Serve the message for that country. So, to take this example, OSM-US decides its priority is promoting SOTM-US. It puts the banner there. US visitors therefore see it. Ideal solution for US visitors. Also ideal for Bulgarians who don't really want to know about a conference in SF; they have their own priorities. The beauty is that it doesn't have to be restricted to conferences. Let's say the French community has a project to map shops. Fine: they put a little banner there which clicks through to the project page. Or let's say the US community wants to focus on addressing. Same again. Of course, OSMF could still override for international messages (like the main SOTM conference), though it would be polite to give a couple of weeks' notice to the local chapters. Our local presence and local knowledge is our strength. Let's make the most of it. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] International cycling routes tagged as NCN
Hello all, And in an echo of the C-road thread... Someone has created relations for the UK parts of several international cycle routes, such as 2793118, which is EuroVelo 2 - part United Kingdom [sic]. These are tagged as network=ncn. This, to me, appears to be clearly wrong. They are not national routes, they are international routes; the fact that it's a 'sub-relation' of national scope is immaterial. Does anyone have any objections if I change the network tag? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Refs on Tertiary Unclassifed Roads in Highland
SK53 wrote: I'd be interested in what others think (these council based refs do appear elsewhere in the country: I can't recall ever seeing one on a road sign). I agree very, very strongly that unsignposted C-road numbers (or U, or D, or E, or whatever) should not be placed in the ref tag. It breaks people's expectations of OSM data (and it's not a harmless breakage - any turn-by-turn router which prefers refs over names will give out unfollowable directions). When Paul says However, isn't the issue more about the renderers and routing rules knowing that C-number roads are never signposted? then I see his point, but I don't believe it's realistic for us to demand that this UK-specific rule is implemented in every worldwide renderer and router. Better, and just as easy, to use another tag. Personally I use admin_ref but would be just as happy with official:ref. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Refs-on-Tertiary-Unclassifed-Roads-in-Highland-tp5753484p5753518.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Refs on Tertiary Unclassifed Roads in Highland
Someoneelse wrote: Could that, or something more appropriate to road reference numbers, be used here? Ah, déjà vu. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-May/011628.html cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Refs-on-Tertiary-Unclassifed-Roads-in-Highland-tp5753484p5753547.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-us] US Bicycle Routes in KY, TN, AL, MS, and GA
Kerry Irons wrote: I would like to get in contact with the mapper(s) who put these routes into OpenStreetMap/OpenCycleMap and clarify this. We are always looking for enthusiastic folks who want to work on the USBR system but in this case putting detailed routes on maps is a source of confusion. Hello from over the pond... Here in the UK, several volunteers for Sustrans - the charity that runs the National Cycle Network - are involved with OSM (I'm one; Andy Allan, developer of OpenCycleMap, is another; but I think there's probably around a dozen in all). The upshot of this is that the routes as shown on OpenCycleMap are usually very accurate - on occasion, even, more up-to-date than the mapping on www.sustrans.org.uk itself. I'd encourage you and the ACA to follow this lead and find a small number of people who might be prepared to bring their detailed subject knowledge of the US Bicycle Route network to OSM. OSM always works best when it's populated by people with real knowledge, rather than the guesswork involved in armchair mapping. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-US-Bicycle-Routes-in-KY-TN-AL-MS-and-GA-tp5752481p5752606.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-GB] London Tube Tagging Problems
Derick Rethans wrote: What's wrong with names in different languages? Names in different languages are genuine content and therefore worth tagging (e.g. Londres, Moscow). Simple transliterations aren't content, however. They're essentially just algorithmic derivatives. AFAICT the Russian names for tube stations are just simple transliterations. Though Vauxhall might be the exception in the Russian case... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/London-Tube-Tagging-Problems-tp5752482p5752575.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
WhereAmI wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
Eric Sibert wrote: They established a route that for instance allows to from city A to city B but not with the short way. Instead, it is going left and right to visit points of interest, alpine hutch and so on. They claim that such a work is an original work. Yes, I can see that. I've planned such routes (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/65903, in particular); it's hard work and requires a lot of judgement. It would qualify for sweat-of-the-brow copyright protection in the UK were it not for the statutes expressly limiting this to original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works; sound recordings, films or broadcasts; and the typographical arrangement of published editions. French law appears to have no such limitation. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Question-about-copyrighted-hiking-routes-in-France-tp5750170p5750333.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License Review
nicholas ingalls wrote: Just want an opinion from someone a bit more knowledgeable in the field of license compatibility. In Canada *paging Richard Weait* cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/License-Review-tp5750426p5750441.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)
Rovastar wrote: Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass, etc don't as far I I know appear on the ground however I think the some record should appear in OSM. I am worried about the trend in this case of placing them as the name of the road as what reference point would people use for these. Having lived near there (part time) for six years, certainly I never heard anyone call it that. I tend to tag C-roads with admin_ref rather than ref, on the basis that it's a reference for administrative purposes rather than general usage. By the same token, maybe admin_name would work here, or something like it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/road-names-along-the-A50-and-elsewhere-tp5749880p5750003.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)
Philip Barnes wrote: I did briefly discuss this with Andy on IRC and the other issue is the insertion of soft-hyphens into the names so Hatton becomes Hat-ton. Not sure why, is he trying to make a satnav pronounce each syllable? Or copied and pasted from a document? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/road-names-along-the-A50-and-elsewhere-tp5749880p5750045.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New user reinstating old railways in Norfolk
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: However, I think it's now clear that the whole of both changesets [3,4] need to be reverted. Presumably, this should be done as quickly as possible to avoid the risk of subsequent edits complicating things. I don't have any recent experience of doing reverts, so is there anyone reading this who would be able to do them instead? Done. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15078224 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15078231 cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-user-reinstating-old-railways-in-Norfolk-tp5749762p5749768.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?
Paweł Paprota wrote: Just a last word - I am not proclaiming doom. To the contrary - I am full of energy and ideas but at the same time I am a bit afraid that if this energy does not lead anywhere then I will be burnt out in this project because of the frustration that I cannot change anything. One humble suggestion born out of bitter experience: do one thing and do it well. OSM has no shortage of barrack-room lawyers and the project will survive quite well without any more. It could possibly (whisper it) even cope with a few less. But OSM does have a shortage of smart people working on awesome code. The OWL stuff is terrific and it'll make a really big difference to the project when it's done. Don't let the dramas of talk@ distract you. They rarely achieve anything. Or in other words: be a Paweł Paprota, not a Gert Gremmen. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Pawe-s-q-what-can-be-done-tp5747772p5747987.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?
Michal Migurski wrote: We seem to have an OSMF that's not effective at communicating I tried :( FWIW Communications Working Group is very good, just under-resourced. There needs to be more of them, and they need to be given the space to thrive without interference. cheers Richard (ex-board, ex-CWG) -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Pawe-s-q-what-can-be-done-tp5747772p5747915.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Why is Openstreetmap yielding to such blatant appropriation of the English language ? Because we have bigger battles to fight. Let Google piss their money away on defending the term geocode. If OSM has $1m to spend, which it doesn't, I'd rather it spent it on making the site easier to use and attracting more mappers, rather than throwing lawyers at a trademark troll. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Recent-edits-in-the-wiki-Trademark-issue-tp5747591p5747607.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue
Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: What about mailing list archives? Will the OSMF then start deleting emails if they contain Google Maps links? I'd quite like the OSMF to start deleting e-mails that don't quote the previous message properly. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Recent-edits-in-the-wiki-Trademark-issue-tp5747591p5747682.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik at zoom=19
Gervase Markham wrote: Who do we need to talk to or where do we need to file a bug to get this request considered officially? Anyone? If you want to make it happen, the best way to do this is to take part in the project to port the current stylesheet to Carto: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto and to make sure that the resulting stylesheet is actually capable of rendering at z19 convincingly. (The current XML one isn't.) Beyond that, it'll take some investigation into what extra hardware burden z19 will impose. Perhaps you could help by running some tests into that? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Mapnik-at-zoom-19-tp5744338p5746642.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik at zoom=19
On 27/01/2013 16:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: IMHO there is no connection between the port to a different style sheet language and the decision which zoom level gets rendered. The connection is that the current stylesheet is abandonware. If anything is to be fixed then it'll be in the Carto port. Space requirements depend mostly on the actual usage (how many of them would be created). I guess it wouldn't make sense to prerender them I guess is nice for mailing lists, but the sysadmins can't be asked to make decisions based on a guess. Evidence is more helpful. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Simple improvement(s) to openstreetmap.org
Paul Johnson wrote: So pick social media that doesn't cater exclusively to a crowd whose education stopped midway through Grade 2. It's nearly impossible, in the English-speaking world, to express an intelligent thought in 140 characters or less. It's writing system just doesn't work that way. Its cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Simple-improvement-s-to-openstreetmap-org-tp5743501p5744669.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Future Look
Paweł Paprota wrote: The simple fact is that some of the improvements won't ever be implemented without people working full time on it (look at the Top Ten Task list to get some idea). How do you propose to solve this problem without funding people to develop them? Complete disarming honesty time: the thing that puts me off working on OSM code (and heaven knows I've spent enough time on it over the years) isn't the lack of remuneration. It's the community, and its sense of entitlement. Something has gone wrong with the OSM community and I wish I knew how to fix it. Writing code for OSM has become a really thankless, unpleasant business. Most of the Top Ten Tasks, though ambitious - that's why they're in the Top Ten, after all - are perfectly within the capability of one developer with a vague acquaintance with OSM and a modest design sensibility. (Of them all, the hardest is actually being tackled - by you, of course, Paweł!) But really, why bother? You'll only get crap thrown at you for doing so. Every time there's even a modest layout improvement to the front page, all hell breaks loose on some forum or other and there's an outcry of Why wasn't I consulted?. Let's keep the WMF comparison going: I don't think the Wikipedia, or Linux, guys consult the entire fucking community every time they swap two bytes in the code. But for some reason, much of our community expects it, and vocally, without being prepared to lift a finger to help. Thing is, if you actually look below the surface of the lists and the diaries and the chat snipers and all of that, there's a huge, silent layer of contributors new and old, just as there's always been, quietly getting on with mapping the world (when, that is, they're not being angry-messaged by experienced users to say YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG). They're the guys who make OSM what it is, not the voices on the lists. But I'm not strong enough to ignore the noisy ones, and I wish I was. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-Future-Look-tp5743118p5743359.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
Toby Murray wrote: I think it would be great to make more tools support more external data sets as opposed to dumping *everything* into OSM. Yep. Absolutely. To my mind this is one of the really nice things about TileMill. I'm currently playing with it to render (UK) maps that combine OSM and OS OpenData, and no import kittens have been harmed in the creation of the map. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Anyone-ever-talked-about-adding-more-Land-Ownership-data-to-OSM-tp5743315p5743361.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
Barry Cornelius wrote: Robert Whittaker wrote: I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the way resides in. My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council as I do not think it's obvious which authority is involved. For example, the data for Devon does not include Torbay. I agree with Robert. OSM is a geographic database. We should (and do) have boundary polygons for Devon County Council, Torbay Council (unitary authority), and so on. Finding out which authority is responsible for the path is simply a matter of querying the database to find out whether a point/line is within this polygon. Many sites using OSM data already do this sort of query as a matter of course. As a general principle, we optimise for the mapper. Mappers are our most important resource, therefore we make it as easy as possible for them to enter the data, and minimise the 'barriers to entry' - tagging rules they have to learn before they can enter data. One way we can do this is by reducing unnecessary duplication - such as entering tags when in fact the information can be inferred from a boundary polygon. By analogy, we don't tag roads as ref=A361, operator=Devon County Council. In line with the principle of optimising for the mapper, we only tag the exceptions, which in this case are Strategic Roads (ref=A38, operator=Highways Agency). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Guidance-for-adding-PRoW-to-OSM-prow-ref-tp5742085p5742800.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Tom Chance wrote: Mapping it as farmland needn't distract anybody apart from the poor sod editing the data, that is. yours from the sticks Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Marking-landuse-and-field-boundaries-tp5742119p5742180.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Tom Chance wrote: I also cannot understand comments such as Richard's, which arise every time somebody wants to add additional data that they consider valuable. Compared to the days of just mapping roads, many cities today are a dense mass of addressed buildings, metadata-to-the- eyeballs roads and every amenity known to man. Should we pity the poor sod who tries to edit that? Yes, we should, and I do. To quote Christian Quest on talk@ just a few minutes ago: After trying to contaminate a couple of friends with the OSM virus, the biggest problem I think we have comes from the complexity of the editors (even P2) multiplied by the growing data density. The growing amount of data makes editing looking more difficult and newcomers are afraid of breaking existing stuff. Already, if you zoom all the way into a densely mapped part of London and click 'Edit', you will either boggle your browser or wait an unacceptably long time for the data to load - simply because there is so much stuff there. Or if you go into a part of the countryside where the roads are comingled with admin boundaries plus landuse and a hefty sprinkling of long-distance foot and cycle routes on top, you will be forever tripping over yourself with shared nodes, accidental junctions, layer ordering and heaven knows what. There are possible things that can be done in the editor software to address these but they are seriously bloody hard (believe me, I've spent a couple of years worrying about them), and no-one is lining up to code them. In reality, the majority of editor-developer time in the past few years has gone towards broadly reimplementing the same tool in a succession of languages, or to providing ever more advanced features for the advanced users. Which is why I pity the poor sodding newbies. Complex tagging abstractions and dense data are making OSM editing harder every month, and the tools/API aren't keeping up. If you don't believe me, hang out in #osm-gb some time and follow the newbies' first edit notifier: people are seriously floundering right now. The excellent UI work that Mapbox are putting into iD will go a long way towards addressing this, but it can't solve the entire problem - no client can. Personally I'm coming to suspect that something layer-like in API 0.7 is the only way past this, much though our traditional pride against accepting anything invented by GIS people might make it hard to swallow. And, as with editors, we're not exactly swimming in developers in this area. Until then, the advanced mappers must share in OSM's collective responsibility to keep the project editable by newbies. That's why I believe widespread farm landuse mapping in the countryside is an actively harmful indulgence. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Marking-landuse-and-field-boundaries-tp5742119p5742192.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] State of the Map 2013 - Call for Venues
Hi all, The State of the Map 2013 call for venues is out: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2013/Call_for_venues Looking forward to seeing the bids. Please do forward this to/translate for your local country lists. cheers Richard [sent to both talk@ and osmf-talk@, please be selective in your replies :) ] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
Someoneelse wrote: o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land Rovers) To my mind, the duck tagging principle means that highway=cycleway is more appropriate. It quacks like a shared-use cycleway so we should tag it as one, unlike a track that is (say) regularly used by forestry traffic or agricultural vehicles. There are lots of 'rail trails' around Britain that are tagged as highway=cycleway and it would seem a shame to depart from established practice. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/The-Monsal-Trail-in-Derbyshire-tp5740527p5740695.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Unfit for motors - tagging for routing
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: Instead I've used highway=track based on the physical appearance, and then added designation= unclassified_highway to record the legal classification. Agreed: I often do something similar. In this case, though, I'm not entirely comfortable with highway=service as a tag, because there's no consensus that highway=service implies a right of through-passage for (among others) cyclists, pedestrians etc. A routing engine would not be off-beam to interpret it as access=destination; so it may well be the case that, by fixing routing for cars, it's breaking it for other users. As ever, we tag what's on the ground. In this case, there's a sign advising Unsuitable for motors. So rather than motor_vehicle=unsuitable, which implies a value judgement on OSM's part (we say this is unsuitable), we could perhaps use the subtly different motor_vehicle=not_advised (with source:motor_vehicle=signage for the truly pernickety), or something like that. It's all a bit angels-on-a-pin until any routing clients actually take note of the tags, of course, but it's certainly an issue worth considering. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Unfit-for-motors-tagging-for-routing-tp5739827p5739879.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Oxford OSM meeting tonight - quick reminder
http://lanyrd.com/2012/openstreetmap-oxford/ Hope to see some of you there. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing
brycenesbitt wrote: Is there evidence of Google using streetview plus OCR for addressing data yet? They've integrated it into ReCaptcha: http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/29/google-now-using-recaptcha-to-decode-street-view-addresses/ cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/US-Addressing-tp5738103p5738467.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Address push part deux: tracking licenses, notifications, etc.
Jeff Meyer wrote: Ok... this is sort of an import question, but how do we / should we credit each imported item with a link or tie to the appropriate use statement / contributor? source= is just for showing your working. It is not a means of providing attribution. That should be done on the wiki /Contributors page and (in extremis, for national-level imports) on osm.org/copyright. If the attribution is really long, link to a sub-page off /Contributors. On objects, source=data.seattle.gov will do fine. Please don't repeat the mistake of the French cadastre import where every single fricking object has source=© Directeur General des Impôts La Plume De Ma Tante Mais Où Sont Les Neiges d'Antan or whatever it is. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Address-push-part-deux-tracking-licenses-notifications-etc-tp5738521p5738526.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing
Jeffrey Ollie wrote: It looks pretty good from what I saw, with the obvious exception that newer homes aren't tagged. I'm going to clean up my code a bit and stick it up on github somewhere. If you chaps are all dead set on doing another massive TIGER import - hey, it's your funeral - could I at least urge a little caution on the practicalities of it all? Just having a look at the .osm file posted here, for example, the street names are all unexpanded: Washington St, Park Ave, Deer Run Ln, etc. There have been about 937 threads about expanding TIGER street names since the initial import and it would be a shame to fall into the same hole again. I'm also very very doubtful about the value of importing city, state and (!) country: if we don't have polygons for all of those already, then we really should. Importing n billion nodes into the States which all say hey, this is in the States will bloat the database and hammer download speeds for absolutely no gain whatsoever. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/US-Addressing-tp5738103p5738298.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing
On 29/11/2012 22:46, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: None of the Iowa data that I am processing originates with the US Census or TIGER. Sure, I should have said big massive ---k-off import rather than TIGER. They both look the same from several thousand miles away I'm afraid. :) As Richard Welty said, the addr:city tag is pretty much required, as US addresses aren't defined by the boundaries of the city you live in (or don't live in for rural addresses), but the post office that delivers your mail. I can see not including the country or the state, do the various routing/geocoding engines take advantage of state/country polygons? I'm pretty sure they do. But regardless, the point is: they could. It's saner to fix (say) Nominatim than it is to import a really huge quantity of redundant data into OSM. If you're determined on doing this, then an extra few days to get it right won't hurt. You could pretty easily, I think, generate automated post office boundary polygons from the source data, rather than settling for addr:city. If it takes a few extra hours of coding, it's worth it; it'd make it _much_ quicker and easier to add a new house in the future. (One less thing to mistype.) Similarly, you might have to scratch your head a bit to write the code which expands St Andrews St into St Andrews Street and not Street Andrews Street. But it's worth it. Because if you don't do it, the 50 poor sods who write the turn-by-turn voiceover code are going to have to, every time they use your data. The specifics of what you have to do aren't really my point. I don't know much about the US and even here in Britain I don't have any personal use for addressing, so you shouldn't listen to me on the specifics. What's important is that the ideas get waved around in front of lots of people - and ideally not just on the US list - so that the hive mind can get to work and achieve the best result possible. cheers Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining Creative Commons Licensed Data with ODbL and Redistributing
Kate Chapman wrote: So is the new dataset a derived database? It seems like it is to me. What should we be licensing this? CC-BY is pretty much compatible with ODbL: CC-BY only requires attribution and ODbL provides that. There may be tiny differences of legalese but nothing substantive. So you can release the derived database under ODbL as long as you give credit to both OSM and the producers of the hazard database. cheers Richard (obviously not a lawyer etc.) -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Combining-Creative-Commons-Licensed-Data-with-ODbL-and-Redistributing-tp5737936p5737971.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-us] Operation Cowboy - Preaparing Thank you gift
!i! wrote: Hi, one last personal note on the mapathon and a big thank you (literally): http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/!i!/diary/18132 And thank you, too. I've always been sceptical about this sort of event - my vision for OSM is that we need more contributors with local knowledge, not more remote mapping - but in hindsight I think this, and MapRoulette, are showing some really interesting ways forward. By applying the OSM community to a problem in Mechanical Turk fashion, we're able to achieve much better results than an unthinking import or automated edit would do. Give the OSM community a task and it will carry it out much better than you'd imagine. There's lots we can learn from that. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Operation-Cowboy-Preaparing-Thank-you-gift-tp5737472p5738099.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] What to call OSM data?
Kate Chapman wrote: Does anyone have suggestions or a preference? OpenStreetMap says it all. As in Hi. We're OpenStreetMap. You may have heard of us. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/What-to-call-OSM-data-tp5737570p5737660.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations on Irish islands
Joseph Reeves wrote: What does different mean? This should be outer? I'd hazard a guess that's a Potlatch 2 bug resulting from some edge case when editing the role with multiple items selected. I'll have a look but feel free to add a trac ticket to remind me. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Relations-on-Irish-islands-tp5736825p5736842.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] tesco store location data
Chris Hill wrote: So the answer, as always with this sort of question, is no we cannot use that data without written permission of the copyright holder to use this data in OSM for any purpose. I don't think that is likely to be forthcoming. Indeed. Don't forget, too, that Tesco probably didn't create the data themselves - they might have sent a guy out with a GPS to each of their stores, but I doubt it. More likely it's referenced against some external, commercial, protected-up-to-the-eyeballs dataset. Even if someone in Tesco's Customer Contact Centre (or whatever) says yes, they likely aren't aware of upstream copyright issues. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-tesco-store-location-data-tp5734297p5734302.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Igor Brejc wrote: 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that *Content* was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, *and that it is available under this License*. The it in this sentence refers to Content (i.e. the extract from the ODbL-licensed Database) rather than the Produced Work as a whole. Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work) - besides, in practice, why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licenses-for-Produced-Works-under-ODbL-tp5732278p5732291.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-fr] Continued aggression against French contributors (cadastre integration)
Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Talking about that, members of the talk-fr mailing list are discussing pragmatic solutions that might bring everyone together Good luck. I tried that last month: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-September/064482.html and immediately got shouted down by Christian: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-September/048512.html at which point I pretty much lost the will to engage. :( cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-OSM-talk-fr-Continued-aggression-against-French-contributors-cadastre-integration-tp5731365p5731868.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] What is the status of the Toolbox?
David ``Smith'' wrote: The banner at the bottom has some issues. Helpful for new and maybe intermediate users, but i'd like the option to turn it off. You can do that from the options dialogue (and it remembers your preference). I tried to put a little 'x' close box in there but, well, Flex had other ideas. Essentially the contextual help banner is there to (partly) answer the problem I clicked Edit, now what the hell do I do?. Also, it's an *editable* text field, which frequently captures keystokes that were meant for the tag pane. Yep. Cockup on my part. That was fixed at the same time as the movement stuff. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-What-is-the-status-of-the-Toolbox-tp5731560p5731712.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-fr] Continued aggression against French contributors (cadastre integration)
Pierre Enclos wrote: Henning Scholland wrote: Just a question: If I filter all buildings with cadastre-source out of an osm-planet and publish this extract [...] it is illegal? There is no difference between ODbl and CC-by-SA on this point. Which may be true but is largely irrelevant. :) Pierre - do you or anyone else have a contact at the Cadastre people so that we can get an answer to Henning's point? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-OSM-talk-fr-Continued-aggression-against-French-contributors-cadastre-integration-tp5731365p5731512.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] What is the status of the Toolbox?
Charlotte Wolter wrote: What is the status of the Toolbox? When will it be fixed? It is difficult to do any editing without those tools. And, whose idea was that banner? Did they ask anyone before they implemented it? Did they test to make sure it didn't break anything? Goodness me, Charlotte, you are hard work sometimes. I'm assuming you're referring to the Potlatch 2 toolbox, though you don't say. I am working on it Right Now and have been doing so for the last hour. I would have fixed it yesterday were it not for your opinionising of the trac ticket, which exasperated me sufficiently that I went and did something else instead. Right now I am trying not to get similarly exasperated... though clearly not with much success. :| Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing of works containing geocodes pinpointed on OSM data
Jani Patokallio wrote: Any advice would be appreciated, as I still have a faint flicker of hope that we can get this past the corporate legal team and possibly even contribute back to OSM! On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of OSM-derived data and other data is a Derivative Database (has to be shared) or a Collective Database (doesn't have to be shared). As a rough guideilne, we say that it's Derivative if you've adapted the two datasets to work with each other, Collective if you haven't. On the broader issue: I'd be interested to see a discussion as to how we should define 'Substantial', and 'Collective' vs 'Derivative', for geocoding (in terms of principles). I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to say that geocoding an unsystematic set of self-collected points is a less substantial use of OSM data than distributing the roads as part of a connected dataset. But I've not got much further in my thinking than that. I may go and hunt for some relevant case law (*shudders at thought of William Hill vs BHB*)... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licensing-of-works-containing-geocodes-pinpointed-on-OSM-data-tp5730883p5730991.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Stiles (and gates) on roads
Philip Barnes wrote: Does anyone know how I go about getting this added to keepright? Harald Kleiner, keepright [at] gmx [dot] at (and +1 to the suggestion) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Stiles-and-gates-on-roads-tp5729687p5729817.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Potlatch2 a évolué (était Encore un alignement de points abusif liéà Potlatch 2.)
Teuxe a écrit: J'ai l'impression que nous avons été entendus... Oui. :) amitiés Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Encore-un-alignement-de-points-abusif-liea-Potlatch-2-tp5729034p5729634.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [Talk-GB] Bomb dropped on St Helens Town Centre
Nick Whitelegg wrote: As an aside I'm quite surprised at that, as almost all places ending in hurst in the UK are south of the M4 and east of two degrees west. That sort of factoid is surely what OpenStreetMap was invented for. :) The origin of Fairhursts is quite starkly regional, though: http://www.ancestry.co.uk/name-origin?surname=fairhurst cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Bomb-dropped-on-St-Helens-Town-Centre-tp5729428p5729469.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Réf.: Re: All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Philip Barnes wrote: Select way or node. Click advanced. Click way/node number. Click more details. You don't even need the fourth step - the dialogue that appears when you click the way/node id is the history. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Ref-Re-All-you-ve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-french-cadastre-tp5727997p5728061.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging the source
Lester Caine wrote: I did put my hand up for a tag which is automatically applied for those of us who forget it ;) If I have a background layer up it automatically adds that tag to each object. In Potlatch you can simply press 'B' (for 'Background') to add the source= tag for the current background imagery. It isn't added automatically, and won't be, because it doesn't follow that you're necessarily tracing from a background source just because it's displayed. You might be using a GPS track, or your own local knowledge, or a vector background layer, or whatever. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Ref-Re-All-you-ve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-french-cadastre-tp5727997p5728076.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Réf.: Re: All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre
Someoneelse wrote: Is there any easy way (in any editor with any plugin) of getting to this information - preferably a collated list of object / changeset tags? I've just done this in P2's history dialogue for 'comment' and 'source': https://github.com/systemed/potlatch2/commit/f827b5368307dfd1a12f717e778ba91b46e242e3 If more changeset tags become relevant then I'll add those too. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Ref-Re-All-you-ve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-french-cadastre-tp5727997p5728096.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for import guidelines
ThomasB wrote: Seems what you mean and what you wrote differ somehow I'm not sure where you read the extra requirement for discussion or bureaucracy in what I wrote. Could you clarify? But I read it so. Also selecting 10 buildings in JOSM and pressing Q would fall below your proposal (automated geometry fixup) and require me to add these extra tags. That qualifies as manual drawing actions rather than automated. I was seeking to address things like xybot's bulk geometry corrections. But if you have a suggestion for better wording, I'm all ears. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Proposal-for-import-guidelines-tp5727448p5727567.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for import guidelines
Tordanik wrote: If you want to address changes performed by scripts/bots, then why don't you just say so explicitly and avoid any potential misunderstandings? Because it's not just about scripts and bots. The Cadastre situation, which started all of this off, is often people loading .osm files into JOSM, running a quick validator check over it, and uploading. In terms of impact on the map and on the community, there is no significant difference between this and the same operation using upload.py. (On a matter of language: if you want to... then why don't you just say so? comes across as really quite hostile in English. I won't assume that it's meant as such, as I recognise that English isn't everyone's first language on this list. However, this is intended as a constructive suggestion to solve an impasse which we've reached and a rather less hostile tone would be nice. It doesn't actually make any difference to me personally - I only _use_ OSM data for the UK, where we don't have imports, and I'm not on DWG so I don't have to deal with the angry mails. I'm simply trying to help and getting hostile doesn't really encourage that.) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Proposal-for-import-guidelines-tp5727448p5727607.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Imports du cadastre et compte dédié
Christian Quest a écrit: Richard, en quoi le volume change quelque chose ? C'est un impact plus grand sur le map (et le communauté) alors on a besoin de visibilité maximale. Je pense que c'est approprié que, par example, DaveHansenTiger et xybot sont des comptes dediés. Mais tout d'abord, c'est un compromis. Certains veulent une compte dedié pour chaque import, certains veulent toujours utiliser leur propre compte. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Imports-du-cadastre-et-compte-dedie-tp5727181p5727604.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for import guidelines
I'm off to bed but would just like to respond to this one before I do. Tordanik wrote: On 25.09.2012 19:11, Richard Fairhurst wrote: - search-and-replace tag changes - automated geometry fixup - reverting edits In my opinion, none of that (if performed though editing software on a moderate amount of data) is something that should require the same amount of discussion and bureaucracy as a country- wide import. Hang on, you've got this completely wrong. There is no extra discussion involved in this proposal. No extra bureaucracy. None. This proposal is _purely_ about how edits (that are already happening) are flagged up. The proposal is just to add two extra tags, on the changeset, that permit extra visibility. It's not much. I run a revert bot (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/General%20Dreedle) and would be very happy to add one line of Perl to add these tags and thereby flag up this is an automated edit. It doesn't seem onerous to me. And no - this isn't intended to hit restoring a single way via P1 (while it still exists) or whatever. Though I have to admit I'm rather flattered that Jochen has admitted to using Potlatch. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Proposal-for-import-guidelines-tp5727448p5727548.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Imports du cadastre et compte dédié
Nicolas Moyroud a écrit: C'est vraiment une honte d'avoir effaceacute; le texte de Pieren du Wiki ! Without wanting to reawaken the argument, I think Pierre's wiki text was a little injudicious and I can see why Grant removed it. Writing a local community guideline instructing people to reply to an OSMF working group with a cut-and-paste response is never going to help us reach agreement: it's just institutionalising conflict. Some of us are working to try and get some clarity into this issue (slowly, but everything happens slowly in OSM) and it would really help if you guys would stop dialling up the temperature. :) Richard (desolé pour l'anglais, mais je pense que vous me comprenez meilleur en anglais qu'en français très mauvais ;) ) -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Imports-du-cadastre-et-compte-dedie-tp5727181p5727406.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
