These are all good arguments but I think we should give more credit to
mappers. Sorry if I'm being boring but I will again come back to
OSMonitor reports that Polish community is now using for fixing roads -
since I started publishing the reports every day I am shocked by how
quickly people fix
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:22 -0400, David ``Smith'' wrote:
I think access=fee, or access=yes + fee=yes would be appropriate. How
do access=fee compare with access=customers in existing usage? (I
tried to look it up myself on tagwatch, but my phone didn't like it
much)
The entry barriers were
2012/7/31 LM_1 flukas.robot+...@gmail.com:
When you search wiki for grass, you get landuse=grass. When you type
grass in JOSM's preset search box, you get landuse=grass. Potlatch
does not offer any direct way to tag grass. landuse=grass was probably
used before anyone thought about the
Hello,
I've summarized [1] the ideas that were recently discussed in talk@
regarding the names, their different language mutations, ...
I would like to hear some comments, additional pros/cons I could not
think of myself, etc.
Although I was arguing for the don't repeat yourself solution, I can
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Names_localization
+1, generally; but I'm not keen on deprecating the bare name=* tag,
because for many (perhaps most) named features, there is only one
name. For example, a minor rural road in England will probably have a
name (in
2012/7/31 Apollinaris Schöll ascho...@gmail.com
Instead of saying don't impose your views on others, you should
provide an argument why the proposal is bad and ideally, propose
alternative solution to the presented problem. This way, I can react
with counter-argument, or admit that the
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
On the other side of the spectrum is Potlach, which
makes anything involving relations overly
complicated. I've fixed my share of relation bugs, that I dare to say
came from these poor editing capabilities.
Wow. When was the last time you used Potlatch? 1873?
Am 01.08.2012 um 17:09 schrieb John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com:
I think it's a good idea to fix this, but it may have gone too far to
be fixable.
Oh come on! Be a little bit optimistic! ;-)
I started an overview on my user page of the current usage of
landuse/natural and how it might look
2012/8/1 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
Am 01.08.2012 16:01, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
Do you know how many editors are out there? and there are bots all kinds
of scripts with API upload support ... Feel free to fix all of them. As far
as I know not a single editor for mobile
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
On the other side of
the spectrum is Potlach, which makes anything involving relations overly
complicated. I've fixed my share of relation bugs, that I dare to say
came from these poor editing capabilities.
I've resurrected about half a dozen relations since
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xificurk@... writes:
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Names_localization
OK, so if I understand this right
lang=language_code is supposed to tell what languages that are used in the
tag name=place_name
May I propose to use
Johan Jönsson wrote:
lang=language_code is supposed to tell what languages that are used in the
tag name=place_name
May I propose to use lang:name=language_code instead of lang=language_code
(or is it name:lang=language_code)
I don't like name:lang simply because it conflicts with the
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
I apologize if my words sounded harsh or offending. I admit that I'm
not regular user of Potlach, so my knowledge of it is kind of limited.
I can tell... you can't even spell it. ;) (Sorry, cheap shot. But it's
PotlaTch.)
1) Pointless members of relations, e.g.
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xificurk@... writes:
Johan Jönsson wrote:
By the way, is it only meant as an internal OSM-thing or is it supposed to
also be a mapping of official languages in the place (or official
languages
expected on road signs)?
Could you provide an example, where
Am 01.08.2012 17:24, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
2012/8/1 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
mailto:wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
Am 01.08.2012 16:01, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
Do you know how many editors are out there? and there are bots
all kinds of scripts with API upload support
Hi,
On 08/01/2012 04:01 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
What would consumers' assumptions be, reasonably?
I think that we are talking too much about consumers here.
OpenStreetMap mappers are *already* providing a tremendous value to many
consumers around the world, no matter how limited and
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.comwrote:
Obviously you haven't used it enough otherwise you would know better.
It had so many bugs over time the list of broken relations is endless.
Read the archives and you will see.
It has been improved over the years
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Tools must serve mappers. Everything in OSM must be geared towards
making contribution easy for mappers. Anything else is secondary;
consumers are totally unimportant.
I think, this is the point on which we fundamentally disagree.
Consumers and data usability is important
Paul Johnson wrote:
So fix the other editors. Potlatch is notoriously painful when it
comes to relations, and it really shouldn't be.
Sigh. Are you going to quantify that and offer some suggestions (or, hey,
some code), or just throw around unsubstantiated assertions?
Richard
--
View
On 01/08/12 18:41, Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Tools must serve mappers. Everything in OSM must be geared towards
making contribution easy for mappers. Anything else is secondary;
consumers are totally unimportant.
I think, this is the point on which we fundamentally
Chill guys.
Refs and street names on ways are OK in most countries. So leave well
alone. Data consumers can and do cope.
If you're one of the few places that use multiple refs on a single street,
then code them by local agreement - probably using relations.
Yes, relation support should improve.
Am 01.08.2012 19:41, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Tools must serve mappers. Everything in OSM must be geared towards
making contribution easy for mappers. Anything else is secondary;
consumers are totally unimportant.
I think, this is the point on which we
On 8/1/2012 2:51 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Bing I think provided the imagery, but I don't think we really got much
mappers through bing. Apart from the news we got due to that in the
press, I don't even believe many bing users REALIZE that they use an
open project where they could contribute.
Am 01.08.2012 21:02, schrieb Mike N:
On 8/1/2012 2:51 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Bing I think provided the imagery, but I don't think we really got much
mappers through bing. Apart from the news we got due to that in the
press, I don't even believe many bing users REALIZE that they use an
open
Hello Chris,
please, do not put words into my mouth. I did not call you or any other
OSM contributor a monkey. And I did not call any consumer super
important. If you think, I did, I kindly ask you to read my email again
and more carefully.
Chris Hill wrote:
most people who make grand
Peter Wendorff wrote:
If you rise a flag for the consumers side and decrease the mapping
useability with that, these mappers will go away - and afterwards most
probably the data consumers will follow, because there's no (updated)
data any more in a reasonable quality and quantity.
I did not
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:48:37 John Sturdy wrote:
[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Names_localization
+1, generally; but I'm not keen on deprecating the bare name=* tag,
because for many (perhaps most) named features, there is only one
name. For example, a minor
Am 01.08.2012 22:56, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
Peter Wendorff wrote:
If you rise a flag for the consumers side and decrease the mapping
useability with that, these mappers will go away - and afterwards most
probably the data consumers will follow, because there's no (updated)
data any
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:48:37 John Sturdy wrote:
It's also not true that in a 'monolingual' country that there is only one name
for something. For example, London is 'London' to a British person,
but 'Londres' to a
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
*ahem* It's Llundain in one of Britain's two official languages.
Two? You could make a case for both Irish and Ulster-Scots as well,
based on the Anglo-Irish Agreement:
http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf
:)
___
30 matches
Mail list logo
