that
a definition can be determined and the inconsistencies can be fixed?
Just saying “the definition is inconsistent so I’ll just use my own
interpretation” isn’t very constructive.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http
a duck, and walks like a duck, call it a duck.
It’s unfortunate then that footways, cycleways, and bridleways, and even
some tracks, all fall within the same range of appearance.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
I just saw this blog post yesterday, saying that OSM data will be used
for showing road networks in the terrain data for the X-Plane flight
simulator in version 10.
http://www.x-plane.com/blog/2011/04/openstreetmap-and-x-plane-10/
Cool stuff!
—Alex Mauer “hawke
-Plane. It doesn’t touch the roads. Integration of OSM roads
into X-Plane proper is new.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
routing engine could
create the route on the fly, so adding it to OSM is a waste of time and
would just add pointless complexity to the data-set.
No one? Really? Pretty sure that some people do in fact do this sort
of thing…
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
talk
On 01/31/2011 03:54 PM, Chris Moss wrote:
2. That page says issues include is it navigable by powered craft? but
I can't find the relevant tag. Key:boat only relates to access as far as
I can see, not to the type of boat. This could be canoe, rowing boat,
powered boat, ship, ... Is this
spike strips, or
bollards (rising or otherwise), or any number of other things which make
it unsuitable for routing.
So at best it could be routed with strong “use at your own risk”
warnings. But in general it’s probably best if routers do not send
people down them.
—Alex Mauer “hawke
and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=*
types too.
It’s still better to use highway=road even if it turns out to be a
bridleway, because highway=road is basically “we don’t know what it is,
only that there’s something there; this needs to be (re-)surveyed”.
—Alex Mauer
On 01/10/2011 11:27 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Alex Mauer wrote:
Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list:
highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=*
types too.
highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV.
Sounds
”
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
that the name was correctly “Elgin Belvidere”. Were
that the case, it would be wrong to replace “” with “and” on the
mistaken idea that “” is an abbreviation.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http
, or even just
beveling the corners of the black outline?
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
1. http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware010/us-040_eb_at_de-001_sb.jpg
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
both at equal frequency.
It also seems like there are way too many US-51 shields.
I assume it’s not expected to display state routes, at least not yet.
I’d give the shields a black outline rather than putting them on a solid
black box.
Other than that it looks great.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
1
.
Aerial photos on Google and Yahoo are both out of date, so I can’t map
them myself.
Is anyone in that area and able to update these interchanges?
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
1.
http://www.core77.com/blog/technology/video_visualization_of_a_new_type_of_traffic-improving_intersection_17734.asp
2
On 10/26/2010 10:50 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
The actual size of a circular 7 shield generated by Mapnik.
Yeah, but is it set in stone that it Cannot Be Larger Than It Is Now? I
doubt it. And I feel that gaining the ability to have state-specific
shields is worth giving up a tiny bit of
for
display in a limited number of pixels”. Thanks though.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
is also desired in Australia.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed to
be a requirement no matter what.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Highway_System#Usage
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
, and simply
inferring them from the highway=* type.)
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 10/25/2010 04:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I totally agree. My point is just that some people and some states
(Michigan, Kansas) feel that the prefix itself is an important part of the
reference number: “The M in the state highway numbers is an integral part of
the designation…Michigan
is sometimes used to denote any
public way used for travel, whether major highway, freeway, turnpike,
street, lane, alley, pathway, dirt track, footpaths, and trails, and
navigable waterways.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
talk mailing list
talk
order.
Huh? Why? What do you propose instead? Please don’t say “use the name
of the entity”, because we already have a key that does that
(border_type) and it would make it a nightmare to make a consistent
international map.
—Alex Mauer “hawke
/wiki/United_States_admin_level along with
some relevant references.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
on wikipedia]. You’ll still need to
use the CAPTCHA for other external links though.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_municipalities
Can someone please turn off my need to constantly enter a capatcha
(User:User_5528)?
Is it because you’re adding external references? That always triggers a
CAPTCHA…
—Alex Mauer “hawke
unincorporated
communities (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_area#United_States )
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 10/20/2010 05:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Why can't something with admin_level=x cross a border with admin_level
less than x? There are a lot of cities that are in more than one
county.
Agreed, though I think New York City is a special case since it actually
encompasses several counties
(lower number) admin_level. They’re just there to give an indication of
equivalence.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
for routes, which AFAIK is the only
current use of ref tags on ways). Only then do ref tags on ways becomes
*extraneous* as well as redundant, and they can reasonably be removed.
And at that time I’ll be happy to be among the first to start deleting them.
Fix the renderers first.
—Alex Mauer “hawke
=* to the ways which make up the route.
Once the route relation is better, I’m sure people will start using that
instead, and stop using the current system.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http
on this map we’re making, you kind
of need to add them to new ways until renderers support the new system.
If you don’t care whether or not they appear on the map, what’s the
point of adding them?
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us
support needs improvement.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
, one US:WI 66). It’s not
the end of the world, and I am quite certain that it’d get fixed PDQ.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
the rendering people over the head with. I think if we as
a US community come out with a solid plan and say we need this now
people will listen.
We’ve had one for a long time. What’s needed is for someone to do the
hard (“trivial” as Anthony would say) work of actually making use of the
plan.
—Alex
to start your own. That way it can always
be a perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with
the tools that you have in the present.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http
On 10/19/2010 03:58 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
For example, Kansas highway 18:
type = route
route = road
network = US:KS
ref = 18
(optional?) symbol=* tag
Also an optional wikipedia link.
There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
throw my vote in with something like
On 10/19/2010 05:24 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net writes:
You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into
the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed
in once place. (I know linking to such things is a little iffy
though)
to want to do.
I’ll take Ian’s advice and stop here.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
page documenting which states
and counties have “non-standard” signs?
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
doubt its
efficacy, as the maintainers of the renderers have no vested interest in
having relations render as we might like.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
patches would be welcome:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/667
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1666
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2610
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2864
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us
a new one?
You may want to have a look at the (much-maligned) smoothness tag:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness#Values
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
sometimes they are
actually named that by the local municipality as well, YMMV)
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 07/27/2010 08:00 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
We have those tags: lanes=*, width=*, etc. But there's no on the
ground definition of importance, and there's nothing wrong with
tagging correctly for the renderers. Classification has been
subjective from the beginning in the US, because there
of other stuff people have done with the
ref tags on state roads, including not having any network identifiers and
putting the number in parentheses.)
Yeah, if people put in bad data you can’t expect to get good data out.
It just means the bad data needs to be corrected.
—Alex Mauer “hawke
. In at
least one case that I’m aware of, the speed limit is defined in the law
as “on XXX street, from YYY street westerly to the city limits”. The
node where the speed limit-changing way split is located should also be
part of the polygon that describes the city limits.
—Alex Mauer “hawke
? Scroll far enough
West and the US shows up, sure enough.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 07/09/2010 04:42 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
Presumably because the data's not good enough in the US to market it to the
whole world.
Sure, but it’s beta anyway, so I think people wouldn’t be expecting too
much from it. Still nice that they render it at least.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
of course).
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
=* for
describing a highway=service...
-Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
to bring up a context menu; begin holding Ctrl
key; mouse over the way you’re trying to select; release mouse button;
release Ctrl.
-Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On 09/21/2009 09:20 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:21 AM, d f fac63te...@yahoo.com wrote:
amenity=bridge (or would it be landuse=bridge?), to be attached to a way or
polygon.
manmade=bridge?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
has bigger font than name of village or town.
Maybe, it's time for tag microsuburb? which can be used with place=town
and place=village?
Sounds to me like a renderer problem, not a case for a new tag.
-Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. If a suburb (node) is within a town (area), then
render it smaller than one which is within a city (area).
-Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
- highway:tertiary
Urban Local Street - highway:residential
I'd consider setting “Rural Local road” as highway=unclassified.
Otherwise, it looks great to me.
-Alex mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
,
not an absolute.
Obviously there are exceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DirtRoadCows.jpg should probably be
highway=unclassified, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seymour_Logging_Road.JPG should
probably be highway=track.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
differently.
-Alex Mauer “hawke”
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
.
And finally I would agree with you that regardless of their relative
numbers, true dirt roads (not gravel) as described at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_road should indeed be highway=track.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 09/03/2009 09:17 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
No tag should ever imply any other tag. It's always better to be more
verbose than not.
No it's not. Are you seriously putting oneway=no (just to name one
example) on every street you tag?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
the possibilities would be a better start.
Two things that I think would be the most helpful, would be the ability
to apply additional tags after the fact, and some sort of way of showing
common already-used tags (e.g. a completion dropdown while typing a tag
value)
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description
that the Edit this track button went to the same
place as all the edit links.
Perhaps this could be changed, so that it's more obvious what exactly is
being edited.
Thanks
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing
treating them as space-delimited instead of
comma-delimited. Is something wrong with the tag interpreter?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
of the highway values has ever described the physical
characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very limited sense.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
always tagged these as simply highway=service
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
surface=unpaved/dirt/mud/etc., while small would require the width tag,
I think.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 08/20/2009 03:12 PM, Cameron Adamez wrote:
I was unsure what to use as a tag so some plots are tagged by
landuse=community_garden but I'm not sure if that is the best tag to
use.
That sounds like a good tag to me.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
-- at least some, probably most or
all, states in the US allow learner drivers to use the
motorway/freeway/interstate.
-Alex mauer Hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
the lack of it needs a sign in
the wiki for access=designated.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
of suitability, which people are keen
to remove from the access=* tags.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
/bridleway/cycleway), so they were corrected. Seems like a good
practice to me, and a large part of the purpose of the whole voting system.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface -- or am I missing something?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface -- or am I missing something?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
it among the huge number of documents. And if it is on
one of those abandonment notices, then you have to somehow figure out if
the abandonment was approved.
Do I have it right?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
. I agree that it's
redundant -- it seems like it's just a combination of
travelmode=designated and access=no.
Not sure how you think path was forced though. It had 34 votes, 22
for and 9 against (3 abstain). Nobody forced anything, we just used the
standard procedure.
-Alex Mauer hawke
with a majority approval
It seems to me that we have one.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
created the proposal Trail which was also not like
you describe. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Trail
From the very beginning, it did not mean what you say it did. Maybe
you're thinking of something else?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/infrastructure removed
Is there somewhere that describes the difference between abandoned and
out of service railways, preferably something which is verifiable (in
the OSM sense, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability)?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On 08/04/2009 07:17 PM, David Lynch wrote:
The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have
no motorways?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-95.svg
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
that clearance always
refers to free space below -- meaning that it's the bridge's clearance
that is marked. This does not contradict that it is also the loading
gauge of the vehicles passing underneath it...
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
.
highway=cycleway+foot=designated would also make sense, IMO.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
is walking down the motorway, motorists
shouldn't just casually run them down; the cycleway situation is similar)
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
interpretation!
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
to disagree on that one.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/8/84/Designatedsigns.jpeg is an
example I keep coming back to for this kind of thing. It's quite
clearly not a cycleway, a footway, or a bridleway.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Alex Mauer wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that
are mainly/exclusively for bicycles.
Map Features is wrong. :)
So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways
which are for bicycles
.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Note that Richard's is not a definitive answer (not that this one is
either). My own interpretation is:
1. path: a route, 2-4 meters wide, possibly paved, possibly with a
slightly wider shoulder. Too confined or narrow for a car to navigate
safely, especially if there are other people using it
than cyclists, pedestrians or
equestrians, or any path intended for more than one of those. One guess
as to which is more common and easier to map on the ground.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing
, but nothing says
that a cyclefootway will be 4m wide, nor that a cycleway or footway
will not be 4m wide. Especially around the world, there is no
consistency in this regard.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk
highway value which only has different access rights.
2) divorcing the legal status from the highway tag
Sounds good to me. Isn't this exactly what highway=path does, since it
doesn't carry any access implications?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
of cake ;)
To be fair, it wouldn't really be that hard. It's convincing those who
care, and then educating the mappers, that is the hard part.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB
managed to get a few islands to render correctly by loading and
then saving them without making any actual changes.
Is there something weird with mapnik where the order in which the ways
are stored in the database would matter?
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
label conflicts.
-Alex Mauer hawke
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Matt Maxon wrote:
Spencer Riddile wrote:
I'm working on figuring out what tags to use for the fields/columns
that are included in the USFS GIS trail data that I am going to import
into OSM. Has anyone set a precedent for this already? Would it make
sense for me to add a section to the
/Highway_administrative_and_physical_descriptions
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
An article about OpenStreetMap was included on this week's Linux Weekly
News front page. It's primarily about the relatively recent influx of
large amounts of imported data.
The article can be read here:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/318801/9860286043a9f77c/
-Alex Mauer hawke
for
that (or contribute to the existing proposed usability key or surface
unification)
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
kinds of
features. Tacking it onto an unrelated tag would be a mistake.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
=* just doesn't cut it.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
on what
vehicles can handle it), and can judge from there whether they're
willing to take their vehicle down it. I think the smoothness key is
currently based around the latter, and that the objections come from the
former.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
