Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database (was: relations)
Erik Johansson wrote: Real mappers don't document; their tags are enough. Wannabe mappers read documentation and follow templates. So how should you become a mapper if there is no documentation. There is a lack of people who are willing to write something on the wiki, not too many. there have been occasions when real mappers have documented their tags on the wiki, only to have the wiki pages overwritten by someone else's better ideas. maybe this puts some people off? Yes that is very cumbersome but how often does this happen, and does it really warrant that flippant attitude? Having a better way to handle multiple meanings of tags might help. Often enough that I have stopped caring about what the wiki says. The wiki were a great help if it listed commonly used tags together with a list of applications that are using/understanding those tags. (or probably describing that a certain app actively refuses to 'understand' a certain tag). That would allow people to help making their decision on whether they want to tag something as highway=culdesac or add a noexit=yes (a completely unneeded tag :-)). But this is not how the wiki is used. I have been tagging stuff since quite some time now and I refuse to have people telling me now that highway=cycleway;foot=yes is not valid anymore because its deprecated. If the wiki listed the formats of speed measurements that apps understand together with the frequency of actual format used, that would help much more than an eternal discussion on whether speed:mph is better than speed=30mph or whether everyone is/should be using metric measurement anyway. spaetz ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database (was: relations)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik Johansson wrote: Real mappers don't document; their tags are enough. Wannabe mappers read documentation and follow templates. So how should you become a mapper if there is no documentation. There is a lack of people who are willing to write something on the wiki, not too many. there have been occasions when real mappers have documented their tags on the wiki, only to have the wiki pages overwritten by someone else's better ideas. maybe this puts some people off? Yes that is very cumbersome but how often does this happen, and does it really warrant that flippant attitude? Having a better way to handle multiple meanings of tags might help. Often enough that I have stopped caring about what the wiki says. I've been hit by it a few times, and one specific case that annoys me greatly. I invented a tag by using it (OMG!!), and then even rendering it. Other people started using it. Then the wiki-types made up their own alternative tag without making any reference to the existing ones that were in the db and being rendered. So I realised it was about time to document the already-in-use, already-rendered tag, which triggered a virulent campaign by the wiki-types to repeatedly delete the information that I had put up, ignore the evidence from the database, claim voting was the be-all and end-all, and label tags that are (still) in use and (still) rendered as deprecated. I've given up almost all hope with the wiki, since there appears to be no place on it for honest documentation, unless you play by certain rules which are incompatible with the founding spirit of OSM. So there are now many features on the cycle map that are completely undocumented - I'm not stirring the hornets nest any more, I'd rather concentrate on productive stuff. Suggestions welcome. Cheers, Andy ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database (was: relations)
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:57:07AM +, Andy Allan wrote: [...], which triggered a virulent campaign by the wiki-types to repeatedly delete the information that I had put up, [...] Who exactly are the wiki-types you mention? IMO there shouldn't be the wiki-types and the mappers, those should be one and the same. Without defining what tags (=syntax) mean (=semantic), it's hard to use them properly. From reading the discussions regularly popping up on the mailing lists, I'm getting the impression there's a minority on the wiki disturbing the work of others. That's vandalism to me, nothing more and nothing less. So what about trying to get this minority to stop impeding our work, instead of splitting ourselves into the wiki-types (those defining the semantics) and the mappers (those using the syntax to enter data into the database)? Of course there are other ways of communicating the semantics of the tags you use (e.g. mailing lists), but the wiki is currently the best we have in terms of successful information retrieval. CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database (was: relations)
Andy Allan wrote: I've been hit by it a few times, and one specific case that annoys me greatly. I invented a tag by using it (OMG!!), and then even rendering it. Other people started using it. Then the wiki-types made up their own alternative tag without making any reference to the existing ones that were in the db and being rendered. So I realised it was about time to document the already-in-use, already-rendered tag, which triggered a virulent campaign by the wiki-types to repeatedly delete the information that I had put up, ignore the evidence from the database, claim voting was the be-all and end-all, and label tags that are (still) in use and (still) rendered as deprecated. If I read it rightly, too, Andy's usage for a foot-and-bike crossing was crossing=toucan which is what they're called in the UK (because two can cross) - concise and certainly no more idiomatic than trunk, say. Whereas the Official Wiki Way Of Doing Things is, apparently, highway=traffic_signals crossing=traffic_signals bicycle=yes segregated=no crossing_ref=toucan Five tags. Utterly insane. The only way for human beings to make sense of that is for the editors to offer shortcuts, and do I see the voting guys even submitting one teeny patch to the simple, public-svn text file (http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/sites/rails_port/config/potlatch/presets.txt) that would do this in Potlatch? Er, no. cheers Richard ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database (was: relations)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Erik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Matt Amos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there have been occasions when real mappers have documented their tags on the wiki, only to have the wiki pages overwritten by someone else's better ideas. maybe this puts some people off? Yes that is very cumbersome but how often does this happen Several hundred times recently? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributionslimit=500target=Circeus ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database (was: relations)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Sascha Silbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:57:07AM +, Andy Allan wrote: [...], which triggered a virulent campaign by the wiki-types to repeatedly delete the information that I had put up, [...] Who exactly are the wiki-types you mention? I don't want to make it personal or pick out individuals. It's pretty plain from the wiki-history who was doing what in the particular case I was referring to - but the point is way more general than just my one little illustration which is why I haven't even linked to it. IMO there shouldn't be the wiki-types and the mappers, those should be one and the same. Without defining what tags (=syntax) mean (=semantic), it's hard to use them properly. I agree with both your statements. From reading the discussions regularly popping up on the mailing lists, I'm getting the impression there's a minority on the wiki disturbing the work of others. That's vandalism to me, nothing more and nothing less. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a minority on the wiki, and that's one of the problems. It's a fairly large group of people now, probably outnumbering all the people who write editors, rendering software, and other stuff combined. It's a function of groupthink - people on the wiki see the way the wiki-fiddlers work and accept it as the norm. Battle-scarred veterans who have tried to straighten things out spend their time working elsewhere - by their very nature. How could the author of an OSM editor or renderer out-wiki a group of dedicated wiki-fiddlers? We have other stuff that simply doesn't get done if we aren't doing it. And for vandalism I would simply say (deeply) misguided - I don't think anyone appreciates their hard work being called vandalism, misguided or not. So what about trying to get this minority to stop impeding our work, instead of splitting ourselves into the wiki-types (those defining the semantics) and the mappers (those using the syntax to enter data into the database)? As they say, Good luck with that. Of course there are other ways of communicating the semantics of the tags you use (e.g. mailing lists), but the wiki is currently the best we have in terms of successful information retrieval. Absolutely. I've occasionally flirted with other ideas - bits on the opencyclemap.org website that are under strict editorial control, for example, documenting how things actually work and safe from uninformed opinions. But that is firstly time I could spend making the cycle map even better, and also not really in the spirit of community building. I'd rather that I could document stuff on the OSM wiki, but I've been there before and it wasn't a pleasant experience. Cheers, Andy ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database
Hi Y'all, I am a little bit concerned about what some of you all are saying, in particular its effect on new users. Having been working on OSM now for about 3 days (writing Wiki articles, processing map extracts, and fixing a few roads in my neighborhood for fun), this is my perspective as someone with no clue: Having a schism between the Wiki and ground reality (meaning what is in the database and what the tools promote) is problematic for a new user. As a new user, I went to the Wiki to look for answers to questions... - What tags do I need to use. - What is the best way to tag. - What does this existing tag mean. As a new user, my source for answers is going to be: 1. What the tools do/make easy. If potlatch gave me a red flag and said you must add tag X before continuing, I would have done it. :-) 2. What is in the map _locally_ (in the spatial sense). 3. What the Wiki says. 4. What is in the map globally. To put it simply: to me it seems crazy to not have emerging data standards from the map documented on the Wiki. In an attempt to provide a useful suggestion... Perhaps there could be integration between the Wiki and some of the DB analysis tools (like the tag-finders) and the editing tools? My thought is that if the Wiki engine could use the same preset format as JOSM or Potlatch, then the Wiki could automatically indicate whether a tag is going to be part of an editor, which to me is a very important endorsement of a tag (and provides a more sane place to create a schema, if I dare use the word). Similarly, if the Wiki page for a tag included its usage statistics, then a user could easily see that tag=fluffernut has 8 pages of discussion but has been used only once. In other words, tie the Wiki to ground reality by feeding it from the toolset, rather than accept that the Wiki is going to be an alternate reality. As a new user, I think I only want a few things, and they seem like reasonable things to want (to me): - Answers to the question What tag do I use. - Only one possible choice of tag. - The answer to be in a place that's easy to find. If a command-line tool had a thousand switches and the man page documented a whole bunch of them wrong, we'd all go what's up with that, let's fix the man page! Okay - sorry, I'm done...I'll go finish my coffee. cheers Ben -- Scenery Home Page: http://scenery.x-plane.com/ Scenery blog: http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/ Plugin SDK: http://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/ X-Plane Wiki: http://wiki.x-plane.com/ Scenery mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] source code for josm ewmsplugin?
Hi, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: where's the source code of ewmsplugin.jar? I see svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/editors/josm/plugins/wmsplugin but grep -r ewms ../ finds nothing. Yes that's misleading; the wmsplugin source is actually what makes the ewmsplugin! We just didn't remove the old wmsplugin binary yet so that the new one can be thoroughly tested, eventually the ewmsplugin will be renamed wmsplugin. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database
Ben Supnik wrote: As a new user, my source for answers is going to be: 1. What the tools do/make easy. If potlatch gave me a red flag and said you must add tag X before continuing, I would have done it. :-) 2. What is in the map _locally_ (in the spatial sense). 3. What the Wiki says. 4. What is in the map globally. To put it simply: to me it seems crazy to not have emerging data standards from the map documented on the Wiki. I don't think anybody disagrees with that - the problem comes when the standards are created on the wiki rather than emerging from the map and being documented on the wiki. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database
Erik Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can agree that people changing already used standards on the wiki can be interesting. But if someone documents something on the wiki and says that is a standard is that really a problem, as long as there is nothing there at the moment? Just one occurrence in the database with a good doc is 10 times better than 1400 tags in the db and no doc. Yes, especially if the key/value is not 100% self-explanatory to every potencial user. This is the only way to give other people a chance to find it (besides asking someone who knows about it). It is a waste of recources if people are inventing new tags for the same thing just because they didn't know about the existing one. Matthias ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] source code for josm ewmsplugin?
Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes that's misleading; the wmsplugin source is actually what makes the ewmsplugin! We just didn't remove the old wmsplugin binary yet so that Oh! Where are the scripts I need to create ewmsplugin.jar from those sources? I think if I run ant I will get wmsplugin.jar. ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] source code for josm ewmsplugin?
Hi, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: Oh! Where are the scripts I need to create ewmsplugin.jar from those sources? I think if I run ant I will get wmsplugin.jar. Yes, and currently whoever checks in the ewmsplugin.jar does a rename beforehand. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] source code for josm ewmsplugin?
Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, and currently whoever checks in the ewmsplugin.jar does a rename beforehand. Thanks for confirming this. So the binary ewmsplugin.jar in SVN has been compiled from current head of plugins/wmsplugin/ and the binary wmsplugin.jar in SVN has been compiled from some older revision of that directory? I have svn account so I could add a note that explains this to the directory so that other people can find it when they grep -r ewmsplugin. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Accounts#SVN_access_.28OSM_software.29 says that JOSM is maintained in a separate SVN repository -- is this also out-of-date information? ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] Relation bounding boxes
Hi, Matt Amos wrote: what is the bounding box of a relation? I like your idea 1 best: 1) adding or removing nodes or ways from a relation causes them to be added to the changeset bounding box. adding a relation member or changing tag values causes all node and way members to be added to the bounding box. this is similar to how the map call does things and is reasonable on the assumption that adding or removing members doesn't materially change the rest of the relation. One could of course put in arbitrary amounts of magic and handle this differently based on the type of relation but I don't think we want to go there; the API has never looked at the semantics of data until now and it should probably stay that way. People will use bounding boxes to monitor changes in an area. The question we must ask is: What constitutes a change to an area, and on which side do we want to err? We'll never be perfect; there will alway be things that change the map in an area but are not noticed by simple bbox tracking. (Example: Imagine you're tracking a bounding box sized 5x5 miles on an insland. Someone breaks the coastline just outside your bounding box: Your area gets flooded without having changed.) Your concept adding or removing nodes or ways from a relation causes them to be added to the changeset bounding box boils down to viewing relation membership as a quality of the way/node, much like Potlatch presents it to the viewer. As you correctly say, this will only cause trouble if adding something to a relation in location A will somehow change the quality of another relation member in location B. I am struggling to find an example of that; it would be far fetched at the very least. I suggest that we make it possible for the client to *extend* (not reduce!) the bounding box, perhaps through a POST request to the changeset object. If we have that functionality and if we should ever encounter relation types where the above is true, then a well-behaved editor could use this method to increase the bbox in that special case. The bit adding a relation member or changing tag values causes all node and way members to be added to the bounding box sounds sensible too. Make sure that your code does not blindly assume each relation to have a bounding box though; it is possible to have relations with ONLY tags and no members. This is rarely used but there are use cases for it, e.g. creating a placeholder member of another relation or complex tagging. It's not supported by any clients but it might come in handy one day. 2) any change to a relation causes all its members' bounding boxes to be added to the changeset, recursively. this might be the case if we consider tag values to cascade onto members recursively (superways). One-deep superways are already adequately covered by your proposal 1; I'd say we tackle nested relations once they start to get widely used. It is not something that desperately needs to be done now, it would not require waiting for 0.7 should we decide to change the logic some time later. Here, too, we could count on client support. Remember that the server-side bounding box code is only there as some sort of minimum that works even for clients that don't know about bounding boxes. A cooperative client could have detailed information about what kinds of relations it works with and whether or not a change in a certain relation warrants the extension of the bounding box. I'm for erring on the side of too small bounding box rather than making them too large, and then allowing the client to increase it. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
[OSM-dev] Last Login
Hi, on talk-de someone just asked whether we could have some sort of last login for OSM users, so you get a chance to see if they're still active. If that's not available already, a method for querying changesets by user and time would be great. Even if we don't expose it on the API we could still list it on the user detail web page (last modification by this user: ...). I reckon it is far cheaper in database resource terms to make such a query against the changeset table than making it against the node/way/relation tables which would currently be required to get the same info. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The genius of a good crowd sourced project (and OSM is very good) is that the data being sourced AND the encoding model itself are BOTH crowd sourced. It is true that not every crowd-sourced project has this; some just have a fixed structure and expect contributors to fill that in. There's no clear line between the two however; you can start out with a free-for-all crowdsourced project and then at first have informal rules, then watch these become more formal, with the organisation drifting from a do-ocratic to a democratic structure, up to a point where the structure is really fixed and the crowdsourcing process limited to the data. (Of course the structure is not fixed as in cannot be changed, but it is just as fixed as a structure given by an organisation, such as Google with their map maker - this can change to, and might even change in response to user requests, but still it is fixed as opposed to crowdsourced.) Out of interest, I'd like to know where Wikipedia currently is on that scale, and what their internal discussions about this are like. As a Wikipedia user I see that many articles are drifting towards a fixed structure, for example; can I still create articles that don't use the structure or will there immediately be a flurry of people telling me what I did wrong, where I did not adhere to rules, and how things should be done differently because this has been decided then-and-then by so-and-so? The interesting question is, can you sustainably uphold the crowdsourcing principle on both fronts, or will you sooner or later gave to give in to calls for democratic structures, votes, elections and so on because it is the least evil? I tend to think that wherever you have to mediate between conflicting interests you will (at some point) just give up and implement democracy. (Can't agree? But of course we need to all do it the same way. Ok let's vote and whoever loses has to do what the winners say.) Many, many people in OSM believe that this cannot be avoided and that we might as well do democracy right away. Many also seem to be unwilling or unable to question whether democracy is really best for everything. However, I have the hope that we might just manage to *avoid* conflicting interests altogether, or at least to a very large degree, by being all things to all people. If we manage to keep the database open for as many things, ideas, and concepts as possible, then instead of fighting (or voting) over the right (one true) way to arrange things in the data base, people could just extract those things they want in the form they want them. The same could be done, and is done, in other areas in the project: Don't like the editor? Use another; don't like the map? Make one yourself, etc. - Still there are areas where we're more centralistic than necessary, leading to discussions about the one true way, but wherever we can get out of that and say have it both ways, that's a victory for freedom in my opinion. The belief that there can only be one true way causes a lot of grief on many levels around the world. I'm sure there really are areas where you have to do something one way or another. But until now, OSM has worked quite well without having one true way. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
[OSM-dev] osm2pgsql make failing
Hi from a new user. osm2pgsql is failing on make: /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' What dependency am I missing? Thanks, Richard ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Re: [OSM-dev] osm2pgsql make failing
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:21:47PM +1100, Richard Chirgwin wrote: Hi from a new user. osm2pgsql is failing on make: /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' /usr/lib/libpq.so: undefined reference to [EMAIL PROTECTED]' What dependency am I missing? # apt-cache search krb5 - libkrb5-dev - Headers and development libraries for MIT Kerberos (So there are more hits, but this is most likely, I would assume) greetings, Stephan -- Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich ,-. | Stephan Plepelits, | | Technische Universität Wien -Studium Informatik Raumplanung | | fsinf.at tubasis.at rudolfsheim-fuenfhaus.gruene.at | | couchsurfing.org beutelland.mud.at | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - My Blog: http://plepe.twoday.net | `-' ___ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
[josm-dev] help for building JOSM with Eclipse
Hello everyone. Could anyone give me a help for setting up the JOSM development environment in Eclipse? I've right checked out the source code, and then I've simply created an Eclipse project using the JOSM root (with source, test, images, etc., subfolders), as indicated in [1]. The build process raises about a hundred of errors inside the test classes. I've tried to launch it anyway, but I receive this: java.lang.NullPointerException: /images/logo.png not found at org.openstreetmap.josm.tools.ImageProvider.get(ImageProvider.java:62) at org.openstreetmap.josm.tools.ImageProvider.get(ImageProvider.java:170) at org.openstreetmap.josm.gui.SplashScreen.init(SplashScreen.java:54) at org.openstreetmap.josm.gui.MainApplication.main(MainApplication.java:124) It seems it can't find the images folder... What's the best way to set all up? Thanks, Giovanni [1] http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/InstallNotes ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
Re: [josm-dev] help for building JOSM with Eclipse
Hi, G. Allegri wrote: Could anyone give me a help for setting up the JOSM development environment in Eclipse? Here's a screenshot of my setup. Does it help? http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/eclipse.png Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ josm-dev mailing list josm-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
