Peter Wendorff wrote:
There are two big differences between CSS and the proposed relation stuff.
1) The inventors of CSS provided a working implementation for core CSS
features
2) For a considerably long time css was used only very sparse and most
of the time with a html4 styling fallback.
Am 02.08.2012 11:42, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
Peter Wendorff wrote:
There are two big differences between CSS and the proposed relation stuff.
1) The inventors of CSS provided a working implementation for core CSS
features
2) For a considerably long time css was used only very sparse
Hi,
On 08/01/12 19:41, 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
Hello Peter,
you have raised interesting question, so I'll try to address at least
some of the questions regarding editor support and describe it from my
point of view (as user of Merkaartor).
Peter Wendorff wrote:
The point is to keep the correct, even if deprecated work of local
mappers
Bridge ref highway ref: bridge ref should have a specific tag, such as
bridge:ref=whatever
Two roads meet at roundabouts: roundabout has higher-ranking (ie lower)
number, unless the higher-ranking road has a flyover or underpass. Or don't
have a ref.
None of the issues raised justify changing a
Even though the bridges were not the best example, I would not dismiss
their importance.
Maybe a better example is when two roads (numbers) run on the same
asphalt. It is not uncommon in my country and probably possible
elsewhere.
There is support for this - that is JOSM + RelationToolbox plugin.
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
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?
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] 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.
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
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 Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 23:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
No. We only create relations when the ref tag is not sufficient. We
don't recommend that relations be created for roads otherwise, and
anyone doing anything with the data should not expect relations to be
there.
How would you define
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
errors, that he found. Then someone comes and adds a ref tag to one of
the ways - why?
He drove by, and saw a different ref
Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
errors, that he found. Then someone comes and adds a ref tag to one of
the ways - why?
He drove
Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
If he knows for sure, that on that road from point A to point B is
ref=42 and not ref=56 as the OSM data says, then the user should fix
it as I wrote in previous email. Remove the ways from the current
relation and add the correct ref tag
2012/7/31 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de:
If you ever worked with mappers who do mapping in their spare time and are
not digital natives, programmers or database geeks, you will have seen some
who don't touch stuff as soon as it's too complex: Better keep the wrong
data than to break
Hi,
On 07/31/2012 09:31 AM, Paweł Paprota wrote:
No. We only create relations when the ref tag is not sufficient. We
don't recommend that relations be created for roads otherwise, and
anyone doing anything with the data should not expect relations to be
there.
How would you define sufficient
Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
2) A relation exists with member ways without ref tag. This means that
the route is essentially mapped and any further editor is correcting
errors, that he found. Then someone comes and
Paweł Paprota wrote:
The recommendation of using relations in this case is just to kick
off the whole thing and define some base line for collaboration -
not because I desperately am itching for fixing some technical
design problem in OSM.
In theory there is certainly a logic to using
Peter Wendorff wrote:
Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
If he knows for sure, that on that road from point A to point B is
ref=42 and not ref=56 as the OSM data says, then the user should fix
it as I wrote in previous email. Remove the ways from the current
relation and
Hello,
first of I'm sorry for a bit longer mail, but this is just another
example of what gets me worried about the future of OSM.
This thread is another one of those, where someone came to discuss a
specific problem and proposed a solution, a solution that changes a few
old things. I fear that
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote:
This is actually not an argument against any tagging proposal,
but argument for improving relation handling in editors.
I don't think anyone's arguing with that.
But are you offering to do the coding? Because someone has to.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
Actually almost any proposal containing relations is criticised from
this perspective (relations being too complex/complicated for
mappers).
You say someone has to do the coding, I disagree. It has already been
done. JOSM with RelationToolbox plugin and, as Petr says, Merkaartor
are handling
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Petr Morávek [Xificurk]
xific...@gmail.com wrote:
What worries me is that very often in threads like this, two arguments
and their variations against the change come up.
1) You are a bad, because you try to impose your preferences on others.
no you are not
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:41 PM, LM_1 flukas.robot+...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually almost any proposal containing relations is criticised from
this perspective (relations being too complex/complicated for
mappers).
If you explain OSM to an average newcomer, not a geek or a s/w dev:
- yes,
Nobody suggests that all information is immediately transferred to
relations.But in this particular case where one real-world linear
objects is represented by many OSM primitives (better yet if these
primitives are common for more objects), relations seem to be the
clearly right way to go.
Hi all,
As part of the Poland remapping effort I have implemented a reporting
system called OSMonitor which analyzes road network in Poland in OSM
data and produces reports. Recently one user requested additional
validation - checking if ways in a relation for a specific road contain
proper ref
From a practical point of view, I have always considered this a two stage
approach.
My concern are cycle and walking routes, not too much the road network.
Especially for hiking networks, as a mapper you encounter the white and red
labels, often with signposts and numbers, but you are unaware of
Am 30.07.2012 18:58, schrieb Paweł Paprota:
Hi Peter,
I understand what you're saying about ease of use but at the same time I
am very concerned about the quality of data - it is clear from reports
that there are just so many errors that the ref data is virtually
useless for navigation or
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 19:44, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
this logic is completely flawed. humans are not robots working on a list
of problems to solve. As you learned from your experiment there is a
inconsistency and now you can work to fix it. This is how osm works and
it is great that
Hi Peter,
Peter Wendorff wrote:
I think, this would lead to a situation where the error count doesn't
decrease, but the remaining errors aren't detectable any more.
Having refs only on relations means for a data consumer: I have to use
this data and I have no idea if it's correct - I have to
Route relations are good because they offer a structured format to identify
and describe a route, such as US Bike Route 25, or Fairfield County Highway
177. Ref tags on ways now are a good place to use shorthand, like USBR 25
or CR 177. When multiple routes overlap, the ref tag on the way is an
David,
As I wrote - I am only producing reports for Poland and for my country
there are very few complex situations and it really is straightforward
to clearly see data duplication - having ref on ways has no value
because everything is expressed in relations.
If you have a tool that says US
Tobias Knerr wrote:
If two instances are created at least somewhat independently*
This is a really bold assumption. I'm having a hard time to imagine a
real-life scenario, where this is true.
On the other hand, I can imagine scenarios where the cross-check will
fail simply, because someone who
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Paweł Paprota ppa...@fastmail.fm wrote:
the more redundancy the more
automated checks can be done to find errors.
Sorry if I am being too harsh, I am not trying to be mean or anything
but... I don't understand how this sentence would be true in any
there are different types of errors and you focus on one only. I am not
going to argue with examples or explanations. If you don't want to see it
you won't see it.
I'll try to give another example, which may or may not help Pawel to see
what you mean:
I'm gathering information about bus
Am 30.07.2012 20:11, schrieb Petr Morávek [Xificurk]:
Hi Peter,
Peter Wendorff wrote:
I think, this would lead to a situation where the error count doesn't
decrease, but the remaining errors aren't detectable any more.
Having refs only on relations means for a data consumer: I have to use
As I wrote before in this thread in response to the hiking trail example
- this is great, I myself love mapping forest tracks for mountain biking
and stuff.
But maybe I should have made it clearer in the first place that I'm
talking about major roads - this stuff really should be in tip top shape
Hi,
On 30.07.2012 23:41, Paweł Paprota wrote:
But maybe I should have made it clearer in the first place that I'm
talking about major roads - this stuff really should be in tip top shape
(relations created, no discrepancy with ref on ways/relations etc.)
No. We only create relations when the
Peter Wendorff wrote:
I'm not talking about data duplication in the meaning of I add my data
twice in different ways, but about redundant (not duplicate) data in
the meaning of Sven added his data there not nowing that it's possible
here too; I add the data here - and you can check if we both
54 matches
Mail list logo
