Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
Eugene and all, Are you proposing this scheme for admin_levels? (first row is Eugene's proposal as I understand it) 2 -- 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no 3 -- 4 - Regions 4 -- 6 - Provinces 5 -- Districts? 6 -- 8 - Cities and municipalities 8 -- 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila 10 -- Zones 12 -- all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*) The congressional district is very problematic in terms of level in the hierarchy. Some congressional districts covers several municipalities while others in my case, Marikina covers only barangays. I think the most critical that we agreed on is the level for barangay and cities/municipalities. The other levels can be aggregated to the above basic unit. What do others think? On 4/11/09, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Right now, in the mapping conventions page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions) we have the following: 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no changing of this value's meaning) 4 - Regions 6 - Provinces 8 - Cities and municipalities 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila I'd like to re-open the discussion on a few points. It's better we put these things down pat before adding more barangay borders. *I. Boundaries of Regions* Is it useful to *explicitly* indicate the boundaries for regions? If not, then we can bump up the admin_level for provinces to 4. If anyone really wants the regional boundaries, then only a small amount of post-processing is needed given the provincial boundaries (well, except for that weird business with Isabela City and Cotabato City). As an alternative, since the sort-of convention in OSM is to use the even numbers primarily and reserve the odd numbers for special cases, then maybe we can have regions as admin_level=3 and provinces as admin_level=4. Caveat: while regions are generally just groupings of local government units, ARMM *does* have a regional government. (And Metro Manila, the region, is somewhat a federation under the MMDA.) Here's how we can view regions: normal regions are simply groupings of provinces subject to the whim of the President (so that each executive department can have regional offices for better rendering and localization of services). ARMM is a *special* unique region having its own autonomous government and each city and municipality AFAIK can independently choose to be part of ARMM, not on a per province basis. This is why Isabela City is under Basilan, but outside ARMM, even though the rest of Basilan is in ARMM. *II. Hierarchy of Administrative Units* Here is the *administrative* (i.e., congressional/judicial/police/etc. districts are not included) hierarchy in the Philippines: - Regions* (no government except for ARMM, and quasi-government for Metro Manila) - Provinces (has a government) - Cities / municipalities (has a government) - Districts** (no executive government; e.g., Malate in Manila and Jaro in Iloilo City, but not Cubao, a vaguely-defined district, in Quezon City) - Zones (no government; cities and municipalities with zones include Manila, Pasay, Caloocan; zones are just defined groupings of barangays for administrative convenience) - Barangays (has a government) - Sitios / puroks (no government; boundaries are not always defined so maybe all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*) ** Some districts might need to be delineated. For example, Quezon City is divided into 4 districts (numbered 1-4) and while these correspond 1-is-to-1 with the congressional districts of Quezon City and would not normally fall under boundary=administrative (maybe, boundary=legislative/congressional?), each district has its own set of city councilors (which I think means that each district can have its own set of ordinances, though I'm not sure about the details). This makes these districts administrative in their own right and might merit their own boundary=administrative tagging. Which of these do we include and at what values of admin_level? *III. Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent Component Cities* How do we handle the case of Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent Component Cities? boundary=administrative implies an administration delineation of sorts (e.g., the area delineated by the boundaries of Rizal province is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government of Rizal). HUCs and ICCs are administratively independent of their provinces (save from unusual exceptions depending on the City Charter, like Mandaue City residents being able to vote for Cebu Provincial positions despite being an HUC). For example, Cebu City is a HUC and so the Cebu Provincial Government has no legal say over the territory of Cebu CIty (except for the limited case of paying costs to Cebu City for hosting the Cebu Provincial Capitol). (This has resulted in a lot of legal battle between Cebu
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
Hi maning, Actually, I mentioned in my e-mail that I have specifically excluded congressional districts[1] from the discussion since these do not specify administrative boundaries. Aside from the pork barrel, the representatives don't *administer* their territories. I think these should be tagged as boundary=legislative/congressional and not as boundary=administrative.[2] I've done a bit more research since my initial e-mail and here is my proposed values for admin_level: 2 - National border 3 - Regions 4 - Provinces 5 - Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts (if any) 6 - Cities/Municipalities 7 - Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan districts (if any) 8 - Other administrative districts[3] (if any) 9 - Zones (if any) 10 - Barangays 12 - Sitios/Puroks (if any, but only if boundaries are defined) The Sangguniang Lalawigan/Lungsod/Bayan districts are mentioned in Republic Act No. 7887[4]. These districts basically apportion the members of the LGU's Sanggunian. Since the Sanggunian is an administrative entity (it's the one that creates the local laws or ordinances), then it's proper that their districts also be given admin_levels. These proposed values have the proviso that admin_level=3 is *not* automatically an admin_level=4|5 due to the weird nature of Isabela City and the ARMM. (But, as long as all boundaries are grouped into relations, then there should be no problem with interpretations.) Eugene / seav - [1] The proper legal term is legislative district. [2] We can also have boundary=judicial (for the jurisdictions of the Regional and Metropolitan trial courts) and boundary=police (like Manila's Western Police District). Also, Catholic archdioceses and dioceses, anyone (boundary=catholic)? :-) [3] Examples of other non-Sanggunian districts: A. Manila has 6 Sangguniang districts (I to VI) co-terminous with the legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 17 geographical districts: Tondo 1, Tondo 2, Sta. Cruz, Sampaloc, Sta. Mesa, Quiapo, Binondo, San Miguel, San Nicolas, Port Area, Intramuros, Paco, Pandacan, Ermita, Malate, Sta. Ana, and San Andres. These districts are further subdivided into 100 zones. (Tondo 1 and Tondo 2 used to be one district, while San Andres used to be part of Sta. Ana and Sta. Mesa used to be part of Sampaloc.) B. Iloilo City has 6 districts: Arevalo, City Proper, Jaro, La Paz, Mandurriao, and Molo. (Iloilo City has only 1 legislative district.) C. Davao City has 3 Sangguniang districts (1 to 3) co-terminous with the legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 11 administrative districts: Poblacion, Talomo, Agdao, Buhangin, Bunawan, Paquibato, Baguio, Calinan, Marilog, Toril, and Tugbok. D. Pasay City has 7 districts (1 to 7) subdivided into 20 zones. (Pasay City has only 1 legislative district.) N.B. Quezon City districts like Cubao, Diliman, La Loma, San Francisco del Monte, Projects 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, etc. DO NOT have legally defined borders so they won't have a place in the admin_level scheme. [4] http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno7887.html On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Eugene and all, Are you proposing this scheme for admin_levels? (first row is Eugene's proposal as I understand it) 2 -- 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no 3 -- 4 - Regions 4 -- 6 - Provinces 5 -- Districts? 6 -- 8 - Cities and municipalities 8 -- 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila 10 -- Zones 12 -- all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*) The congressional district is very problematic in terms of level in the hierarchy. Some congressional districts covers several municipalities while others in my case, Marikina covers only barangays. I think the most critical that we agreed on is the level for barangay and cities/municipalities. The other levels can be aggregated to the above basic unit. What do others think? On 4/11/09, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Right now, in the mapping conventions page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions ) we have the following: 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no changing of this value's meaning) 4 - Regions 6 - Provinces 8 - Cities and municipalities 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila I'd like to re-open the discussion on a few points. It's better we put these things down pat before adding more barangay borders. *I. Boundaries of Regions* Is it useful to *explicitly* indicate the boundaries for regions? If not, then we can bump up the admin_level for provinces to 4. If anyone really wants the regional boundaries, then only a small amount of post-processing is needed given the provincial boundaries (well, except for that weird business with Isabela City and Cotabato City). As an alternative, since the sort-of convention in OSM is to use the
Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party
I'm good with May 16. On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I've posted the tagaytay mapping party announcement to several people, mailinglist and my blog. Please help in populating more information in the tagaytay mapping party page to help interested people join. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_Party/Tagaytay On 4/30/09, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Alright, sige lets post an announcement (blogs, OSM diary, mailinglist, yahoogroups). On 4/30/09, Nacario Neil nbnaca...@yahoo.com wrote: good to go - Original Message From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com To: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:10:05 PM Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party Last call for confirming the date: May 16 in Tagaytay Is the date OK with everybody joining? I want the group's approval so we can distribute the announcement to all those interested in participating in the mapping party. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it should be May 16 or 17? Sorry, I stand corrected so it's May 16 in Tagaytay maning eugene rally andre ianlopez (85%) murlwe (will try) neil Anymore? Rally proposes to carpool to share fuel costs. -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party
Hi, I will try my best to clear my schedules on the morning of May 16 so I can at least meet with you guys in person. Might not be able to map much as I will be on my way to Batangas by noon. Where is our meeting place? thanks ed On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I've posted the tagaytay mapping party announcement to several people, mailinglist and my blog. Please help in populating more information in the tagaytay mapping party page to help interested people join. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_Party/Tagaytay On 4/30/09, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Alright, sige lets post an announcement (blogs, OSM diary, mailinglist, yahoogroups). On 4/30/09, Nacario Neil nbnaca...@yahoo.com wrote: good to go - Original Message From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com To: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:10:05 PM Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party Last call for confirming the date: May 16 in Tagaytay Is the date OK with everybody joining? I want the group's approval so we can distribute the announcement to all those interested in participating in the mapping party. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it should be May 16 or 17? Sorry, I stand corrected so it's May 16 in Tagaytay maning eugene rally andre ianlopez (85%) murlwe (will try) neil Anymore? Rally proposes to carpool to share fuel costs. -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- website administrator: - www.waypoints.ph - reeflife.eppgarcia.com PADI Divemaster #491048 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party
Alright, sige lets post an announcement (blogs, OSM diary, mailinglist, yahoogroups). On 4/30/09, Nacario Neil nbnaca...@yahoo.com wrote: good to go - Original Message From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com To: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:10:05 PM Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party Last call for confirming the date: May 16 in Tagaytay Is the date OK with everybody joining? I want the group's approval so we can distribute the announcement to all those interested in participating in the mapping party. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it should be May 16 or 17? Sorry, I stand corrected so it's May 16 in Tagaytay maning eugene rally andre ianlopez (85%) murlwe (will try) neil Anymore? Rally proposes to carpool to share fuel costs. -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party
good to go - Original Message From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com To: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:10:05 PM Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party Last call for confirming the date: May 16 in Tagaytay Is the date OK with everybody joining? I want the group's approval so we can distribute the announcement to all those interested in participating in the mapping party. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it should be May 16 or 17? Sorry, I stand corrected so it's May 16 in Tagaytay maning eugene rally andre ianlopez (85%) murlwe (will try) neil Anymore? Rally proposes to carpool to share fuel costs. -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party
I suggest somewhere here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.102332lon=120.951185zoom=18layers=B000FTF We can choose among the restaurants there for the meeting place (one where there's beer and free wifi). Is it too crowded during weekends? @ ed: I posted the mapping party announcement in the waypoints.ph yahoogroup. I request that you follow-through with the announcement. It would give more weight/interest if the founder say it's a worthwhile event to participate :) On 4/30/09, Ed Garcia eppgar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I will try my best to clear my schedules on the morning of May 16 so I can at least meet with you guys in person. Might not be able to map much as I will be on my way to Batangas by noon. Where is our meeting place? thanks ed On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I've posted the tagaytay mapping party announcement to several people, mailinglist and my blog. Please help in populating more information in the tagaytay mapping party page to help interested people join. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_Party/Tagaytay On 4/30/09, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Alright, sige lets post an announcement (blogs, OSM diary, mailinglist, yahoogroups). On 4/30/09, Nacario Neil nbnaca...@yahoo.com wrote: good to go - Original Message From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com To: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:10:05 PM Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Reviving plan(s) for Tagaytay Mapping party Last call for confirming the date: May 16 in Tagaytay Is the date OK with everybody joining? I want the group's approval so we can distribute the announcement to all those interested in participating in the mapping party. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it should be May 16 or 17? Sorry, I stand corrected so it's May 16 in Tagaytay maning eugene rally andre ianlopez (85%) murlwe (will try) neil Anymore? Rally proposes to carpool to share fuel costs. -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- website administrator: - www.waypoints.ph - reeflife.eppgarcia.com PADI Divemaster #491048 -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values forboundary=administrative
Hi Marloue, Slightly off-topic question. Since you're from Davao City, are residents of the city adamant about insisting that Davao City is separate from Davao del Sur? *Some* people from Zamboanga City are positively vocal (and sometimes actually hostile!) whenever people say they are part of Zamboanga del Sur[1]. Many maps of the Philippines simplify the country's administrative situation by making ALL cities (except those in Metro Manila) be part of a province. The National Statistical Coordination Board actually groups Davao City under Davao del Sur[2], but only for statistical purposes. Eugene / seav -- [1] http://www.zamboanga.com/html/terrorism_attack_on_zamboanga_city.htm [2] http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/municipality.asp?muncode=112402000regcode=11provcode=24 On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Marloue Pidor mur...@mail2engineer.comwrote: I agree, it's the level in the hierarchy is confusing. In case of Davao City we have 3 districts that covers only Barangays (By the way, Davao City is not part of Davao del Sur as what others thought). In North Cotabato we have 4 districts with 18 municipalities. But classifying the different districts is doable. murlwe -Original Message- From: maning sambale [emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com] Sent: 4/30/2009 2:09:00 PM To: sea...@gmail.com Cc: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values forboundary=administrative Eugene and all, Are you proposing this scheme for admin_levels? (first row is Eugene's proposal as I understand it) 2 -- 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no 3 -- 4 - Regions 4 -- 6 - Provinces 5 -- Districts? 6 -- 8 - Cities and municipalities 8 -- 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila 10 -- Zones 12 -- all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*) The congressional district is very problematic in terms of level in the hierarchy. Some congressional districts covers several municipalities while others in my case, Marikina covers only barangays. I think the most critical that we agreed on is the level for barangay and cities/municipalities. The other levels can be aggregated to the above basic unit. What do others think? -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
Hi maning, For your second question, well Ian and I are already converting and implementing the borders in Metro Manila as relations (though the admin_levels are still not finalized). For example, see this relation for Brgy. Urdaneta in Makati: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/103686 Or this relation for Brgy. Ayala Alabang: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/110365 Eugene / seav On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Sounds like a good proposal to me. Do we vote? :) Let's wait for the others to look into it before we start implementing. I'm not really sure what is the extent of coverage of existing admin boundary data that we need to edit to follow this convention. Next question would be, will it be a relation or just regular node/way? cheers, maning who wants to go home already but still working because he needs to finish statistical processing of gigabytes of satellite data to meet work deadline! On 4/30/09, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Hi maning, Actually, I mentioned in my e-mail that I have specifically excluded congressional districts[1] from the discussion since these do not specify administrative boundaries. Aside from the pork barrel, the representatives don't *administer* their territories. I think these should be tagged as boundary=legislative/congressional and not as boundary=administrative.[2] I've done a bit more research since my initial e-mail and here is my proposed values for admin_level: 2 - National border 3 - Regions 4 - Provinces 5 - Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts (if any) 6 - Cities/Municipalities 7 - Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan districts (if any) 8 - Other administrative districts[3] (if any) 9 - Zones (if any) 10 - Barangays 12 - Sitios/Puroks (if any, but only if boundaries are defined) The Sangguniang Lalawigan/Lungsod/Bayan districts are mentioned in Republic Act No. 7887[4]. These districts basically apportion the members of the LGU's Sanggunian. Since the Sanggunian is an administrative entity (it's the one that creates the local laws or ordinances), then it's proper that their districts also be given admin_levels. These proposed values have the proviso that admin_level=3 is *not* automatically an admin_level=4|5 due to the weird nature of Isabela City and the ARMM. (But, as long as all boundaries are grouped into relations, then there should be no problem with interpretations.) Eugene / seav - [1] The proper legal term is legislative district. [2] We can also have boundary=judicial (for the jurisdictions of the Regional and Metropolitan trial courts) and boundary=police (like Manila's Western Police District). Also, Catholic archdioceses and dioceses, anyone (boundary=catholic)? :-) [3] Examples of other non-Sanggunian districts: A. Manila has 6 Sangguniang districts (I to VI) co-terminous with the legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 17 geographical districts: Tondo 1, Tondo 2, Sta. Cruz, Sampaloc, Sta. Mesa, Quiapo, Binondo, San Miguel, San Nicolas, Port Area, Intramuros, Paco, Pandacan, Ermita, Malate, Sta. Ana, and San Andres. These districts are further subdivided into 100 zones. (Tondo 1 and Tondo 2 used to be one district, while San Andres used to be part of Sta. Ana and Sta. Mesa used to be part of Sampaloc.) B. Iloilo City has 6 districts: Arevalo, City Proper, Jaro, La Paz, Mandurriao, and Molo. (Iloilo City has only 1 legislative district.) C. Davao City has 3 Sangguniang districts (1 to 3) co-terminous with the legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 11 administrative districts: Poblacion, Talomo, Agdao, Buhangin, Bunawan, Paquibato, Baguio, Calinan, Marilog, Toril, and Tugbok. D. Pasay City has 7 districts (1 to 7) subdivided into 20 zones. (Pasay City has only 1 legislative district.) N.B. Quezon City districts like Cubao, Diliman, La Loma, San Francisco del Monte, Projects 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, etc. DO NOT have legally defined borders so they won't have a place in the admin_level scheme. [4] http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno7887.html -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values for boundary=administrative
Nice! I better start adding marikina boundaries then (well until we agree on the proposal) cheers, maning still at work! midway to finishing the image processing. For example, see this relation for Brgy. Urdaneta in Makati: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/103686 Or this relation for Brgy. Ayala Alabang: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/110365 Eugene / seav On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote: Sounds like a good proposal to me. Do we vote? :) Let's wait for the others to look into it before we start implementing. I'm not really sure what is the extent of coverage of existing admin boundary data that we need to edit to follow this convention. Next question would be, will it be a relation or just regular node/way? cheers, maning who wants to go home already but still working because he needs to finish statistical processing of gigabytes of satellite data to meet work deadline! On 4/30/09, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Hi maning, Actually, I mentioned in my e-mail that I have specifically excluded congressional districts[1] from the discussion since these do not specify administrative boundaries. Aside from the pork barrel, the representatives don't *administer* their territories. I think these should be tagged as boundary=legislative/congressional and not as boundary=administrative.[2] I've done a bit more research since my initial e-mail and here is my proposed values for admin_level: 2 - National border 3 - Regions 4 - Provinces 5 - Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts (if any) 6 - Cities/Municipalities 7 - Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan districts (if any) 8 - Other administrative districts[3] (if any) 9 - Zones (if any) 10 - Barangays 12 - Sitios/Puroks (if any, but only if boundaries are defined) The Sangguniang Lalawigan/Lungsod/Bayan districts are mentioned in Republic Act No. 7887[4]. These districts basically apportion the members of the LGU's Sanggunian. Since the Sanggunian is an administrative entity (it's the one that creates the local laws or ordinances), then it's proper that their districts also be given admin_levels. These proposed values have the proviso that admin_level=3 is *not* automatically an admin_level=4|5 due to the weird nature of Isabela City and the ARMM. (But, as long as all boundaries are grouped into relations, then there should be no problem with interpretations.) Eugene / seav - [1] The proper legal term is legislative district. [2] We can also have boundary=judicial (for the jurisdictions of the Regional and Metropolitan trial courts) and boundary=police (like Manila's Western Police District). Also, Catholic archdioceses and dioceses, anyone (boundary=catholic)? :-) [3] Examples of other non-Sanggunian districts: A. Manila has 6 Sangguniang districts (I to VI) co-terminous with the legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 17 geographical districts: Tondo 1, Tondo 2, Sta. Cruz, Sampaloc, Sta. Mesa, Quiapo, Binondo, San Miguel, San Nicolas, Port Area, Intramuros, Paco, Pandacan, Ermita, Malate, Sta. Ana, and San Andres. These districts are further subdivided into 100 zones. (Tondo 1 and Tondo 2 used to be one district, while San Andres used to be part of Sta. Ana and Sta. Mesa used to be part of Sampaloc.) B. Iloilo City has 6 districts: Arevalo, City Proper, Jaro, La Paz, Mandurriao, and Molo. (Iloilo City has only 1 legislative district.) C. Davao City has 3 Sangguniang districts (1 to 3) co-terminous with the legislative districts and these are further subdivided into 11 administrative districts: Poblacion, Talomo, Agdao, Buhangin, Bunawan, Paquibato, Baguio, Calinan, Marilog, Toril, and Tugbok. D. Pasay City has 7 districts (1 to 7) subdivided into 20 zones. (Pasay City has only 1 legislative district.) N.B. Quezon City districts like Cubao, Diliman, La Loma, San Francisco del Monte, Projects 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, etc. DO NOT have legally defined borders so they won't have a place in the admin_level scheme. [4] http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno7887.html -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-ph] Chartered Cities
I created a separate thread for this to give focus to the original topic. What I said is actually true, in March 1, 1937 (but Araw ng Dabaw is in March 16) Davao City is inaugurated by President Manuel L. Quezon as a chartered city by then Davao City is separated from Davao del Sur. Unlike Davao del Sur, Davao City doesn't have a Governor. Well, actually we are not insisting, in fact most of us does not know that Davao City is separate to any provinces it is already separate and that includes Zamboanga City and Puerto Princesa (correct me if I'm wrong). It is also correct that for statistical purposes DC is grouped under Davao del Sur. That is why the City Government announces before in tri-media not to fill in the Province part of any government forms. To separate the Davao City data from Davao del Sur. Here's some reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davao_City http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamboanga_City http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ru11/davao_city/default.htm murlwe -Original Message- From: Eugene Alvin Villar [sea...@gmail.com] Sent: 4/30/2009 8:28:19 PM To: mur...@mail2engineer.com Cc: emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com;talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values forboundary=administrative Hi Marloue, Slightly off-topic question. Since you're from Davao City, are residents of the city adamant about insisting that Davao City is separate from Davao del Sur? *Some* people from Zamboanga City are positively vocal (and sometimes actually hostile!) whenever people say they are part of Zamboanga del Sur[1]. Many maps of the Philippines simplify the country's administrative situation by making ALL cities (except those in Metro Manila) be part of a province. The National Statistical Coordination Board actually groups Davao City under Davao del Sur[2], but only for statistical purposes.. Eugene / seav -- [1] http://www.zamboanga.com/html/terrorism_attack_on_zamboanga_city.htm [2] http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/municipality.asp?muncode=112402 000regcode=11provcode=24 On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Marloue Pidor mur...@mail2engineer.com wrote: I agree, it's the level in the hierarchy is confusing. In case of Davao City we have 3 districts that covers only Barangays (By the way, Davao City is not part of Davao del Sur as what others thought). In North Cotabato we have 4 districts with 18 municipalities. But classifying the different districts is doable. murlwe -Original Message- From: maning sambale [emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com] Sent: 4/30/2009 2:09:00 PM To: sea...@gmail.com Cc: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values forboundary=administrative Eugene and all, Are you proposing this scheme for admin_levels? (first row is Eugene's proposal as I understand it) 2 -- 2 - National Border (this is a worldwide convention, so there will be no 3 -- 4 - Regions 4 -- 6 - Provinces 5 -- Districts? 6 -- 8 - Cities and municipalities 8 -- 9 - Barangays and Districts of Manila 10 -- Zones 12 -- all sitios/puroks can just simply be place=*) The congressional district is very problematic in terms of level in the hierarchy. Some congressional districts covers several municipalities while others in my case, Marikina covers only barangays. I think the most critical that we agreed on is the level for barangay and cities/municipalities. The other levels can be aggregated to the above basic unit. What do others think? -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com span id=m2wTlpfont face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif size=2 style=font-size:13.5px___BRGet the Free email that has everyone talking at a href=http://www.mail2world.com target=newhttp://www.mail2world.com/abr font color=#99Unlimited Email Storage #150; POP3 #150; Calendar #150; SMS #150; Translator #150; Much More!/font/font/span___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Manila East Road, Manila North Road, Manila South Road
I guess the DPWH is the agency that should know about these things? I'm not actually familiar with the Manila East,South,North road system. I'm just familiar (somewhat) with the Radial and Circumferential Road system of Metro Manila. As a bit of trivia, did you know that Republic Act No. 8224 ( http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno8224.html) is AN ACT RENAMING THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL ROUTE NO. 5 OR C-5 IN METRO MANILA, AS THE PRESIDENT GARCIA AVENUE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES? That's the reason why you can see MMDA putting up street signs along the length of C-5 labeling it as C.P. GARCIA AVE. even if the locals know the streets as Katipunan Ave. or E. Rodriguez Jr. Ave. On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Rally de Leon rall...@gmail.com wrote: Many years ago, I stopped by the road side (provincial road) of Pagsanjan and saw this local street sign that says Manila East Road. That gave me an idea that the Manila East Road I knew along, starting from Kay Tikling junction in Taytay Rizal, passing all the Diversion Roads of Angono, Binangonan, etc. which was supposed to end in Tanay, actually crosses the mountain in Pililla (zig-zags of Sitio Bugarin, Bgy Halayhayin, Pililla), then down to Mabitac and all the way to Pagsanjan, Laguna. Actually, I don't know where it ends in Laguna. A few weeks ago, I saw this DPWH construction signboard in Rosario, Pasig City that says something like Improvements of Manila East Road (portions of Rosario to Cainta)... so I was wrong all along. This can only mean that Ortigas Ave Extension in Pasig and Cainta (and I suspect that even the rest of Ortigas Avenue of San Juan) can also be part of the Manila East Road System (which practically most of the locals don't know, except for maybe DPWH). Anybody in this group knows somebody (who knows) when and what law or decree created Manila East Road; where it officially starts and where it ends? And while we're at it, maybe we can find out the same about Manila North Road and Manila South Road System. All I know is that MacArthur Highway is just a portion of long Manila North Road System, and Aguinaldo Highway is just a portion of the long Manila South Road. The info may not be of practical use to many, but it is still good to know. (it maybe the next milliondollar question in your favorite quiz/trivia show, who knows) The thing is, for decades, most LGU's / barangay officials use the word National Road on their provincial street sign instead of their actual local name (or at least the name of the Road System in which it's a part of) because of ignorance; and we waste a lot of paint and ink (on business stationaries) for a wrong/inappropriate address info that LGU themselves provided. I hope we can help do the research and correct this. Write the DPWH? ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Chartered Cities
Eugene / seav, Yes, the southern part of Davao City and the northern part of Davao del Sur is the boundary in the province of Sta. Cruz. If you notice here http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=6.9742lon=125.3851zoom=12layers=B000FTF there is no boundary between Sta. Cruz and Davao City yet, I am looking for the boundary data and if somebody has it, it will be great. If voting will be needed regarding your proposal, you have my vote. murlwe -Original Message- From: Eugene Alvin Villar [sea...@gmail.com] Sent: 5/1/2009 9:20:55 AM To: mur...@mail2engineer.com Cc: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: Chartered Cities Hi Marloue, Great that you brought this topic up since I mentioned in my old email the problem of representing chartered and independent cities.. I'll paste my original piece here for reference: III. Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent Component Cities How do we handle the case of Highly-urbanized Cities and Independent Component Cities? boundary=administrative implies an administration delineation of sorts (e.g., the area delineated by the boundaries of Rizal province is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government of Rizal). HUCs and ICCs are administratively independent of their provinces (save from unusual exceptions depending on the City Charter, like Mandaue City residents being able to vote for Cebu Provincial positions despite being an HUC). For example, Cebu City is a HUC and so the Cebu Provincial Government has no legal say over the territory of Cebu CIty (except for the limited case of paying costs to Cebu City for hosting the Cebu Provincial Capitol). (This has resulted in a lot of legal battle between Cebu City and Cebu Province, like the dispute on who has jurisdiction over Osmena Circle in Cebu City.) (See this Wikipedia article section regarding independent cities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_the_Philippines#Independent_citi es ) My proposal is that provincial boundaries should exclude these cities. So Benguet's borders will have Baguio City as an enclave while Cebu province's borders will exclude Cebu City, Mandaue City, and Lapu-Lapu City. So Davao del Sur's northern border will be Davao City's southern border. Eugene / seav On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Marloue Pidor mur...@mail2engineer.com wrote: I created a separate thread for this to give focus to the original topic. What I said is actually true, in March 1, 1937 (but Araw ng Dabaw is in March 16) Davao City is inaugurated by President Manuel L. Quezon as a chartered city by then Davao City is separated from Davao del Sur. Unlike Davao del Sur, Davao City doesn't have a Governor. Well, actually we are not insisting, in fact most of us does not know that Davao City is separate to any provinces it is already separate and that includes Zamboanga City and Puerto Princesa (correct me if I'm wrong). It is also correct that for statistical purposes DC is grouped under Davao del Sur. That is why the City Government announces before in tri-media not to fill in the Province part of any government forms. To separate the Davao City data from Davao del Sur. Here's some reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davao_City http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamboanga_City http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ru11/davao_city/default.htm murlwe -Original Message- From: Eugene Alvin Villar [sea...@gmail.com] Sent: 4/30/2009 8:28:19 PM To: mur...@mail2engineer.com Cc: emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com;talk-ph@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting the admin_level values forboundary=administrative Hi Marloue, Slightly off-topic question. Since you're from Davao City, are residents of the city adamant about insisting that Davao City is separate from Davao del Sur? *Some* people from Zamboanga City are positively vocal (and sometimes actually hostile!) whenever people say they are part of Zamboanga del Sur[1]. Many maps of the Philippines simplify the country's administrative situation by making ALL cities (except those in Metro Manila) be part of a province. The National Statistical Coordination Board actually groups Davao City under Davao del Sur[2], but only for statistical purposes.. Eugene / seav -- [1] http://www.zamboanga.com/html/terrorism_attack_on_zamboanga_city.htm [2] http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/municipality.asp?muncode=11240 2000regcode=11provcode=24 -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com span id=m2wTlpfont face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif size=2 style=font-size:13.5px___BRGet the Free email that has everyone talking at a href=http://www.mail2world.com target=newhttp://www.mail2world.com/abr font color=#99Unlimited Email Storage #150; POP3 #150; Calendar #150; SMS #150; Translator #150; Much More!/font/font/span___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
Re: [talk-ph] Manila East Road, Manila North Road, Manila South Road
This is interesting. Maybe we should compile these road (renaming) updates to get everybody informed (or at least understand the actions of MMDA as they don't tend to explain why they rename all those street signs). Does it mean that Katipunan Ave E.Rodriguez Ave (pasig) no longer exist? Are LGU's still entitled to use the local street names officially? Googling Manila East Road, I found a Supreme Court document (year 1964) talking about some bus company inssue... ...MANILA KM. 0.000 (Luneta) TO THE MUNICIPAL PLAZA OF PASIG, RIZAL, following the *Manila east road via Sta. Mesa and Shaw Blvd*., is 15.1 Kms. found at http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1964/sep1964/gr_l-14888_1964.html I don't know if this was talking about the same Manila East Road (via Sta. Mesa Manila and Shaw Blvd in Mandaluyong). So maybe it used to be connected to Manila. On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: I guess the DPWH is the agency that should know about these things? I'm not actually familiar with the Manila East,South,North road system. I'm just familiar (somewhat) with the Radial and Circumferential Road system of Metro Manila. As a bit of trivia, did you know that Republic Act No. 8224 ( http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno8224.html) is AN ACT RENAMING THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL ROUTE NO. 5 OR C-5 IN METRO MANILA, AS THE PRESIDENT GARCIA AVENUE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES? That's the reason why you can see MMDA putting up street signs along the length of C-5 labeling it as C.P. GARCIA AVE. even if the locals know the streets as Katipunan Ave. or E. Rodriguez Jr. Ave. On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Rally de Leon rall...@gmail.com wrote: Many years ago, I stopped by the road side (provincial road) of Pagsanjan and saw this local street sign that says Manila East Road. That gave me an idea that the Manila East Road I knew along, starting from Kay Tikling junction in Taytay Rizal, passing all the Diversion Roads of Angono, Binangonan, etc. which was supposed to end in Tanay, actually crosses the mountain in Pililla (zig-zags of Sitio Bugarin, Bgy Halayhayin, Pililla), then down to Mabitac and all the way to Pagsanjan, Laguna. Actually, I don't know where it ends in Laguna. A few weeks ago, I saw this DPWH construction signboard in Rosario, Pasig City that says something like Improvements of Manila East Road (portions of Rosario to Cainta)... so I was wrong all along. This can only mean that Ortigas Ave Extension in Pasig and Cainta (and I suspect that even the rest of Ortigas Avenue of San Juan) can also be part of the Manila East Road System (which practically most of the locals don't know, except for maybe DPWH). Anybody in this group knows somebody (who knows) when and what law or decree created Manila East Road; where it officially starts and where it ends? And while we're at it, maybe we can find out the same about Manila North Road and Manila South Road System. All I know is that MacArthur Highway is just a portion of long Manila North Road System, and Aguinaldo Highway is just a portion of the long Manila South Road. The info may not be of practical use to many, but it is still good to know. (it maybe the next milliondollar question in your favorite quiz/trivia show, who knows) The thing is, for decades, most LGU's / barangay officials use the word National Road on their provincial street sign instead of their actual local name (or at least the name of the Road System in which it's a part of) because of ignorance; and we waste a lot of paint and ink (on business stationaries) for a wrong/inappropriate address info that LGU themselves provided. I hope we can help do the research and correct this. Write the DPWH? ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Manila East Road, Manila North Road, Manila South Road
Well, you can actually see the MMDA signs side by side with Quezon City and Pasig City signs with conflicting names. In my experience, people will use whatever damned name they choose. So Katipunan Ave. will still be Katipunan Ave. no matter what the lawmakers say. And the LRT-1 station is still Vito Cruz Station even if the road has been renamed to Pablo Ocampo Sr. Ave. Similarly, the MRT-3 station is still Buendia Station even if the highway is now Sen. Gil Puyat Ave. (though curiously, the corresponding LRT-1 station is named Gil Puyat Station). As for the Manila East Road. I'm guessing this is a road from the American colonial period and I think it no longer has any usable meaning since R-4 (J.P. Rizal, etc.), R-5 (Shaw Blvd., Pasig Blvd, etc.), Ortigas Ave., and R-6 (Aurora Blvd., Sumulong, etc.) have supplanted the function of the Manila East Road whatever it is. But I'm just guessing and it's probably only the DPWH who can shed a light on this. On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Rally de Leon rall...@gmail.com wrote: This is interesting. Maybe we should compile these road (renaming) updates to get everybody informed (or at least understand the actions of MMDA as they don't tend to explain why they rename all those street signs). Does it mean that Katipunan Ave E.Rodriguez Ave (pasig) no longer exist? Are LGU's still entitled to use the local street names officially? Googling Manila East Road, I found a Supreme Court document (year 1964) talking about some bus company inssue... ...MANILA KM. 0.000 (Luneta) TO THE MUNICIPAL PLAZA OF PASIG, RIZAL, following the *Manila east road via Sta. Mesa and Shaw Blvd*., is 15.1 Kms. found at http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1964/sep1964/gr_l-14888_1964.html I don't know if this was talking about the same Manila East Road (via Sta. Mesa Manila and Shaw Blvd in Mandaluyong). So maybe it used to be connected to Manila. On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: I guess the DPWH is the agency that should know about these things? I'm not actually familiar with the Manila East,South,North road system. I'm just familiar (somewhat) with the Radial and Circumferential Road system of Metro Manila. As a bit of trivia, did you know that Republic Act No. 8224 ( http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno8224.html) is AN ACT RENAMING THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL ROUTE NO. 5 OR C-5 IN METRO MANILA, AS THE PRESIDENT GARCIA AVENUE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES? That's the reason why you can see MMDA putting up street signs along the length of C-5 labeling it as C.P. GARCIA AVE. even if the locals know the streets as Katipunan Ave. or E. Rodriguez Jr. Ave. On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Rally de Leon rall...@gmail.comwrote: Many years ago, I stopped by the road side (provincial road) of Pagsanjan and saw this local street sign that says Manila East Road. That gave me an idea that the Manila East Road I knew along, starting from Kay Tikling junction in Taytay Rizal, passing all the Diversion Roads of Angono, Binangonan, etc. which was supposed to end in Tanay, actually crosses the mountain in Pililla (zig-zags of Sitio Bugarin, Bgy Halayhayin, Pililla), then down to Mabitac and all the way to Pagsanjan, Laguna. Actually, I don't know where it ends in Laguna. A few weeks ago, I saw this DPWH construction signboard in Rosario, Pasig City that says something like Improvements of Manila East Road (portions of Rosario to Cainta)... so I was wrong all along. This can only mean that Ortigas Ave Extension in Pasig and Cainta (and I suspect that even the rest of Ortigas Avenue of San Juan) can also be part of the Manila East Road System (which practically most of the locals don't know, except for maybe DPWH). Anybody in this group knows somebody (who knows) when and what law or decree created Manila East Road; where it officially starts and where it ends? And while we're at it, maybe we can find out the same about Manila North Road and Manila South Road System. All I know is that MacArthur Highway is just a portion of long Manila North Road System, and Aguinaldo Highway is just a portion of the long Manila South Road. The info may not be of practical use to many, but it is still good to know. (it maybe the next milliondollar question in your favorite quiz/trivia show, who knows) The thing is, for decades, most LGU's / barangay officials use the word National Road on their provincial street sign instead of their actual local name (or at least the name of the Road System in which it's a part of) because of ignorance; and we waste a lot of paint and ink (on business stationaries) for a wrong/inappropriate address info that LGU themselves provided. I hope we can help do the research and correct this. Write the DPWH? ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph --
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
At the risk of reopening earlier very lengthy discussions - this suggestion
seems to me to be an unnecessary misuse of the tag highway=cycleway which
has an accepted and fairly well agreed meaning. It also seems to be a prima
facie case of tagging for the renderers! Surely it is the rendering that
needs to be adjusted - not the data!
Mike Harris
_
From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 29 April 2009 21:10
To: Marc Schütz
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is it
different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway?
Richard
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net wrote:
Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where riding
a bicycle is allowed with bicycle={yes,designated} are rendered as normal
footways, so there is no way to see that they are open for bikes.
Is there a chance this could be shown on Mapnik, or at least on the
cyclemap? Maybe a mixed blue-red line, or even dashes for the designated
vehicle type, and dots for the one with yes?
Regards, Marc
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
2009/4/30 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: At the risk of reopening earlier very lengthy discussions - this suggestion seems to me to be an unnecessary misuse of the tag highway=cycleway which has an accepted and fairly well agreed meaning. It also seems to be a prima facie case of tagging for the renderers! Surely it is the rendering that needs to be adjusted - not the data! Risk?! Misuse how? Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zonal restrictions.
On Wednesday 29 April 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote: Kurt Roeckx schrieb: I'm looking for a way to map restrictions for a zone. This includes things like maxspeed, maxweight and parking restriction. I want to avoid having to place those tags on all the roads inside the zone, specially for large zones, since it's very easy to forget one. Well, - if you use tags to mark a zone, you can forget them just as easily Tags are out. You need to combine the information, and a way to add more data. Unless you like adding the same set of tags on a lot of ways of course. - adding all ways to a relation isn't easier than tagging all of them Sure, but nothing problem checkers wouldn't be able to show. - if you mark the entrances of the zone, you (or someone adding a track leaving the zone) can forget an entrance, which is much worse than forgetting a single tag because this error might affect areas far outside the zone I think though that marking the boundaries with nodes could be used by some JOSM plugin to automatically create the zone relation. After that it's a matter of problem checking. - polygons indeed can save work, but suffer from problems e.g. with layered roads And the problem that you don't know how to draw the polygon in the first place, if say you've only mapped part of the zone. So will you then guess to where it extends? And if not, how do you know later on the polygon isn't correctly placed? And at what places it's not correctly placed. And what if someone draws a road not part of the zone which curves a bit into the polygon you drew but forgets to replace the zone polygon, or doesn't see it? Etc. The advantages of zonal mapping for quality are, however, only minor. I beg to differ. Zones often need something extra, like names or reference numbers. And if your zonal restriction is the equivalent of five tags on each way, I'd rather have that in one place instead of everywhere. Forgetting a tag on a single way isn't that much of a problem. It will either have only minor effects or be easily spotted by someone. This, in my opinion, isn't enough to compensate for the potential problems: - zonal mapping can be harder for newbies to understand, depending on editor support. Making simple road attributes hard to understand is a no-go. Just a matter of documentation. There are a few countries on the wiki that have their traffic signs listed and their translation to OSM. I also don't understand why it is harder for newbies in the first place. Is it because it might be solved with a relation? - zonal mapping makes it more difficult to write software evaluating the information, so less people will be able or willing to create cool stuff with OSM. Those who still do will have less time for other features. Let's assume that one day the incredible OSM library will appear that will solve things like I have vehicle type X, what are the access rules on this street? You now sound like it's trivial as it is now, but it's actually surprisingly difficult to interpret a lot of tags already, and all countries have their own interpretations and rules as well on top of that. - some options for zonal mappings (such as polygons) have performance disadvantages. This makes providing OSM services more expensive or causes slower software. You process the data before using it. You're not uploading OSM data in the xml format from the API directly into your gps either. When routers use the data it's also by processing the data first to make it usable to calculate routes. And that's the real issue here: you want the data instantly ready, but that's not how the data should be in OSM. We map the world, if there's a zonal restriction, we map it as such. Therefore, I suggest that you map zones _in addition_ to directly adding tags with the information to the streets. Duplicate tags are always a bad idea. This serves your stated purpose of avoiding errors: Zone information can be automatically compared with tag information to make sure that all streets in the zone have the required information. But what if a street in a certain zone overrides those zonal restrictions with some other signs? Just don't tag ways with the zonal restriction unless you specifically tell it's zonal. It would even be possible to create editor plugins for the task of adding the zone's tags to the streets inside it on demand. That's basically the worst thing you can do. If that happens I'll use it to tag all roads inside a country with is_in=country X, or rather with is_in=country X,continent Y. There's just no need for it, as it is tagged already, and the translation of tags to something a certain program can use should be done after getting the data from the API. But in OSM, the data should resemble what's on the ground. If your purpose is to make a program that shows the traffic signs on a little screen on your gps, this kind of data is important. Most of this
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Risk?! Misuse how? Dave My idea: highway=cycleway OR (highway=footway,bicycle=permissive) don't care which (so will be picked up by bike-orientated maps) *and* foot=designated designation=public_footpath so that foot orientated renderers like Freemap will pick it up as a public right of way, and it will be recorded as public right of way. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote: There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. Sure. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) So such foot path rendered as a foot path only is not a problem for you, as you know that means bicycles may go there. In Poland generally bicycles are forbidden on ways for pedestrians, with many exceptions (if you go with a child, if other way is too far, if it is a sidewalk of a street where cars may go over specific speed…). And pedestrians are welcome on designated cycle-only ways. But many cycle ways are designated for both bicycles and pedestrians. So there is difference between highway=footway, highway=footway,bicycle=yes, highway=cycleway and highway=cycleway,foot=yes and it would be really good if all those could be distinguished, at least on a cycle map. And I agree that marking a footway a bicycleway only because bicycles my go there is kind of abuse and tagging for renderers (which have the data in other tags anyway). Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny schrieb: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote: There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. Sure. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) So such foot path rendered as a foot path only is not a problem for you, as you know that means bicycles may go there. In Poland generally bicycles are forbidden on ways for pedestrians, with many exceptions (if you go with a child, if other way is too far, if it is a sidewalk of a street where cars may go over specific speed…). And pedestrians are welcome on designated cycle-only ways. But many cycle ways are designated for both bicycles and pedestrians. So there is difference between highway=footway, highway=footway,bicycle=yes, highway=cycleway and highway=cycleway,foot=yes and it would be really good if all those could be distinguished, at least on a cycle map. And I agree that marking a footway a bicycleway only because bicycles my go there is kind of abuse and tagging for renderers (which have the data in other tags anyway). Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) -- Mario ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Cloudmade Maps routing
According to http://maps.cloudmade.com/ it is not possible to drive by car from Stensättaregatan (58.41685269735186 15.595479011535645) to Skräddaregatan (58.41647059846362 15.597131252288818). Is there some problem in the tagging of the streets or is it because the routing is a little too good at following access rules? Grenadjärgatan (the only connection) is limited access, anyone is allowed to drive there but only if you have to to reach destination. I get this error: Error processing request, message:Cannot create endpoint, The way specified cannot locate the point on it If I select other streets closeby which still needs to route by Grenadjärgatan I get Cannot find the road between points. /Jonas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL 1.0 Release Candidate now available
The new text is available at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and includes diff versions so that you can see clearly what changes are made. A summary of changes and the Open Data Commons comment process lasting up until May 6th is described here: http://www.opendatacommons.org/2009/04/29/open-database-license-odbl-v10-release-candidate-available/ Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
Moved to Talk. Jochen Topf wrote Sent: 30 April 2009 8:41 AM To: d...@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't? The discussion on using Cloudmade routing on the OSM website points to a deeper question: What is the OpenStreetMap project and how do we want to present it on openstreetmap.org? When giving talks or generally talking to people about OpenStreetMap one of the questions I hear the most is: Is OpenStreetMap planning to do X? X beeing a routing service or a website where people can upload their hiking trails, photos, whatever or many other things people think can be done with the maps. And I try to explain people that OSM is providing the data and the maps and that its not the goal of OSM to provide every conceivable map or mapping web site or service. Thats the mindset people have gotten into: We wait for Google or Yahoo or Microsoft to come up with the service and thats it. I think we should encourage people to build their own, to build a whole eco-system of different websites and services, not try to get too many things inside the core OSM project. We should make clear what the OSM part in this eco-system is: providing the data. I think we should come up with an idea what the core of the OSM project ist and those things should be on the openstreetmap.org website and maintained by the community in an open fashion. Everything else can be done on different web sites and be linked to. Thats the power of the web. Once we start bringing in other services, where do we stop? There are already hundreds of web sites with OSM based maps, routing services etc. All of them could argue that they want to be on openstreetmap.org. Surely the ski lift map is useful when entering data for ski areas. So I think we should distinguish between the core, the open community project, on the one side and other projects (commercial or non-commercial) which build upon OSM. I agree, its good to have the discussion and I'm fully with Jochen here that OSM is currently (and personally I feel should remain) about the data; how it is put into the database and how maintained. For background, many moons ago we needed in a hurry to come up with the aims of the project and the little ditty that was produced ended up in the OSMF Articles of Association. It states: OpenStreetMap Foundation is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. It's right that these aims are debated by the community from time to time. Now is as good a time as any. The above breaks down into the following: 1. Encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial. 2. Providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. So anyone with strong views on whether these two aims are still appropriate or whether they feel we should have other aims as well please air them. From the Foundation point of view, any change in the Article of Association related to this or any other matters needs debate by members of the Foundation plus a vote at the next AGM (unless an EGM is called), so its not a simple process to change the guiding light but important to understand that we can and should where a vote agrees it with benefit. Cheers Andy Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721- 388298 ___ dev mailing list d...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Python API
Etienne Chové a écrit : Dears, I wrote a python class to communicate with OSM API (read, write, update). For interested users, informations are here [1]. May I put sources on the dev server ? Here it is : http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/src/modules/OsmApi.py -- Etienne ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. But cycle superhighways are pretty rare, and highway=cycleway is used much more widely than that. I've come to the view that cycleway should be used if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and nobody's obviously objecting. There are people who think calling it a cycleway is somehow anti-pedestrian. I would certainly suggest to renderers that cycleway may not be the best description - foot/cycleway might be better. Do we need to change the word we use for the tag - probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but maybe not a priority. Do we need some other way of tagging the cycle superhighways? Maybe. Personally I think it's more important to tag the cycle networks (lcn/rcn/ncn), so map-readers and routers will pick out those routes, and avoid the less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. It's also helpful to tag cycle barriers (barrier=cycle_barrier), which are widely used to discourage the use of less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. And yes I am weeks ovredue with writing all this up in a proposal... Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zonal restrictions.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Greg Troxel and you define the relation to say that all ways in some area of some type should be in the relation. You try to use relations to define a category but : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. The problem is that footway is always rendered the same, not matter if it is also tagged bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (though I am not sure about the latter), which is not a problem on a generic road map, but is quite a problem for cycle/tourist maps. So, I guess, this thread is about a feature request for renderers. Nothing to fight about :) Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
I feel like there's something slightly missing. Perhaps needs a mention of ever-more-accurate data, with the implication that it remains permanently and very-intentionally open to improvement by new people who see details that have been missed. I don't see OSM as providing data, more providing a home for data. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote: ... I've come to the view that cycleway should be used if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and nobody's obviously objecting. I'd agree with that. As a non-cyclist I don't feel somehow discriminated against because somewhere that I walk also permits cyclists (and horseriders*). It's also worth mention that outside of England and Wales cycle access on what we'd call in the vernacular a footpath is sometimes normal (e.g. fietspad in the Netherlands, which means Bicycle Path and is often used where we'd say there's a footpath between A and B). *Except when you're walking home in the dark and someone's emptied their horse all over the middle of the path and you didn't see it until too late... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
Hi Jochen Andy, There is however a danger in leaving interpretation of the data solely to closed source projects (e.g. Cloudmade) : Because there is no agreement in the community on the exact meaning of many of our tags, it is possible that people may tag for the closed source project. Even though data tagged for that closed source project will be in our database, it will effectively be closed data. Furthermore, if we do decide that some open projects are not considered core OSM projects, we should be careful how we treat them. Not because it will harm OSM, but because we may end up nuking a project from orbit, just like SteveC feared that Google may promote Google Map Maker to the point where OSM can't win. Lastly, IMHO basic routing should be a available on openstreetmap.org. The general public expects it to be there and they will keep on asking for it. Just like the public expects to find maps on wikipedia. Regards, Nic On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: Moved to Talk. Jochen Topf wrote Sent: 30 April 2009 8:41 AM To: d...@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't? The discussion on using Cloudmade routing on the OSM website points to a deeper question: What is the OpenStreetMap project and how do we want to present it on openstreetmap.org? When giving talks or generally talking to people about OpenStreetMap one of the questions I hear the most is: Is OpenStreetMap planning to do X? X beeing a routing service or a website where people can upload their hiking trails, photos, whatever or many other things people think can be done with the maps. And I try to explain people that OSM is providing the data and the maps and that its not the goal of OSM to provide every conceivable map or mapping web site or service. Thats the mindset people have gotten into: We wait for Google or Yahoo or Microsoft to come up with the service and thats it. I think we should encourage people to build their own, to build a whole eco-system of different websites and services, not try to get too many things inside the core OSM project. We should make clear what the OSM part in this eco-system is: providing the data. I think we should come up with an idea what the core of the OSM project ist and those things should be on the openstreetmap.org website and maintained by the community in an open fashion. Everything else can be done on different web sites and be linked to. Thats the power of the web. Once we start bringing in other services, where do we stop? There are already hundreds of web sites with OSM based maps, routing services etc. All of them could argue that they want to be on openstreetmap.org. Surely the ski lift map is useful when entering data for ski areas. So I think we should distinguish between the core, the open community project, on the one side and other projects (commercial or non-commercial) which build upon OSM. I agree, its good to have the discussion and I'm fully with Jochen here that OSM is currently (and personally I feel should remain) about the data; how it is put into the database and how maintained. For background, many moons ago we needed in a hurry to come up with the aims of the project and the little ditty that was produced ended up in the OSMF Articles of Association. It states: OpenStreetMap Foundation is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. It's right that these aims are debated by the community from time to time. Now is as good a time as any. The above breaks down into the following: 1. Encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial. 2. Providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. So anyone with strong views on whether these two aims are still appropriate or whether they feel we should have other aims as well please air them. From the Foundation point of view, any change in the Article of Association related to this or any other matters needs debate by members of the Foundation plus a vote at the next AGM (unless an EGM is called), so its not a simple process to change the guiding light but important to understand that we can and should where a vote agrees it with benefit. Cheers Andy Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721- 388298 ___ dev mailing list d...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zonal restrictions.
I'll focus on the coexistence vs. zone-only aspect, because most of the other problems can indeed be solved or mitigated by choosing a decent zone representation and throwing in some editor support and documentation. Ben Laenen wrote: - zonal mapping makes it more difficult to write software evaluating the information, so less people will be able or willing to create cool stuff with OSM. Those who still do will have less time for other features. Let's assume that one day the incredible OSM library will appear that will solve things like I have vehicle type X, what are the access rules on this street? So you assume that well-designed, liberally licensed (!= GPL) Open Source libraries will exist for all major programming languages and platforms soon? Well, until then, I'll continue to assume that the goal of OSM data being used in creative and unexpected ways is better served by keeping complexity as low as possible instead of adding some more layers of code. - some options for zonal mappings (such as polygons) have performance disadvantages. This makes providing OSM services more expensive or causes slower software. You process the data before using it. You're not uploading OSM data in the xml format from the API directly into your gps either. When routers use the data it's also by processing the data first to make it usable to calculate routes. I'm fully aware of that. It's that very processing process that will be slowed down. It's hard to quantify with no real information available, but software that requires frequent updates (rendering, maybe even live rendering) surely won't get faster by adding more preprocessing. And that's the real issue here: you want the data instantly ready, but that's not how the data should be in OSM. We map the world, if there's a zonal restriction, we map it as such. You make it sound as if adding a maxspeed to the road in addition to mapping a maxspeed-limiting zone would somehow not be mapping the world, when it's really just a different (and more conveniently usable) way of representing reality. Therefore, I suggest that you map zones _in addition_ to directly adding tags with the information to the streets. Duplicate tags are always a bad idea. Redundancy are not necessarily a bad idea if it helps to avoid errors and make processing easier. Also, it's good practice in OSM to add detail _without_ making access to less detailed information harder. That's why we have things like highway=service + service=driveway. The redundant highway=service in this example serves the sole purpose of letting users of the data that don't care for details handle all service ways in a similar manner. Similarly, details about the reason for a restriction (e.g. a zone) should be added in a way that doesn't require additional effort by users of the data who don't care for that additional information. But in OSM, the data should resemble what's on the ground. If your purpose is to make a program that shows the traffic signs on a little screen on your gps, this kind of data is important. So your program wouldn't work if zone information were present in addition to, rather than instead of, traditional way tagging? Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] toposm gets my vote for image of the week
Man! This should be a featured image: http://toposm.com/ma/?zoom=15lat=42.26621lon=-71.02104layers=B000 -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zonal restrictions.
On Thursday 30 April 2009, you wrote: So you assume that well-designed, liberally licensed (!= GPL) Open Source libraries will exist for all major programming languages and platforms soon? Well, until then, I'll continue to assume that the goal of OSM data being used in creative and unexpected ways is better served by keeping complexity as low as possible instead of adding some more layers of code. Well, short answer: yes, I do assume that library will be made one day. Longer answer: currently we have such a thing in all software making use of OSM now, each with it's own interpretations, which aren't necessarily correct (and I'm sure it often isn't). So do we just let all those programs develop their own code (which may be incorrect, certainly not correct for the entire world concerning all different tagging methods in each country) or do we do what makes sense: make one library for all to use. And what the form of that library should be, I don't know. That's open for discussion. I'm fully aware of that. It's that very processing process that will be slowed down. It's hard to quantify with no real information available, but software that requires frequent updates (rendering, maybe even live rendering) surely won't get faster by adding more preprocessing. You're really making a problem out of nothing. I'll assure you that this will add practically no extra time. These are simple rules that take virtually no time. Perhaps the main calculation problem is that you need to go from country boundaries to the roads inside it since you need to know what set of rules apply. But that's not some specialty from this library, all programs should do that right now already (but don't) to know default speed limits and access rules. You make it sound as if adding a maxspeed to the road in addition to mapping a maxspeed-limiting zone would somehow not be mapping the world, when it's really just a different (and more conveniently usable) way of representing reality. Only in your definition of convenient and usable. IMHO it's much more convenient to tags zones as one entity since it can then refer to for example municipality decrees which in turn helps to maintain it later on. Redundancy are not necessarily a bad idea if it helps to avoid errors and make processing easier. No, redundancy is always a bad idea. Tags will eventually start to contradict each other, and removing redundancy will improve maintainability. Also, it's good practice in OSM to add detail _without_ making access to less detailed information harder. That's why we have things like highway=service + service=driveway. The redundant highway=service in this example serves the sole purpose of letting users of the data that don't care for details handle all service ways in a similar manner. Similarly, details about the reason for a restriction (e.g. a zone) should be added in a way that doesn't require additional effort by users of the data who don't care for that additional information. Granted, and I've added a few times a tag like maxspeed:zone=yes as well. But from the moment we're talking about slightly more complex zonal restrictions, we end up adding the same set of tags to a lot of ways, and then the only sensible thing to do is to remove duplication and put it together, which in this case is a good thing (and doesn't have anything to do with relations as categories) since the situation in real life combines it together as well in one zone. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
Hi everyone in my opinion OSM should not try to compete with mapping websites by offering more and more tools for using maps. This is because I think such an endeavour would have three problems: First, how to decide which of the hundreds of tools out there are integrated on the OSM website and which are not? People will surely have very different opinions about what an online map needs. Second, offering map services to the end-user will bind a lot of resources (humans computers) which could otherwise be used to improve the data. And third, I think, it can lead to a centralisation of the OSM ecosphere with projects not being on the main website not gaining much attention since they are not considered a real part of OSM anymore. However, OSM obviously needs some showcase to advertise what you can do with the data. But why not creating a real showcase then? A set of webpages which explain with some examples what it actually means to have open geo-data and not just a free-beer map. The showcase could show examples for common use cases like user-defined renderings, different routing services, etc and provide links to pages offering these services. The main website website could then just have a big link saying: See what you can do with OpenStreetMaps! A disadvantage of concentrating solely on the data is that normal website users will be unlikely to ever see the OSM website and thus never become aware that they can help to improve the map they are seeing on a website. I think this problem could be approached by encouraging users of OSM data to add links like Are things missing on this map? or Is there an error on this map? to their maps which link to a page explaining that the map used on the website is an open map and that users can easily add the missing data themselves if they want to (or they could at least create an Openstreetbug). Cheers, Christoph Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\) ajrli...@googlemail.com schrieb: Moved to Talk. Jochen Topf wrote Sent: 30 April 2009 8:41 AM To: d...@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't? The discussion on using Cloudmade routing on the OSM website points to a deeper question: What is the OpenStreetMap project and how do we want to present it on openstreetmap.org? When giving talks or generally talking to people about OpenStreetMap one of the questions I hear the most is: Is OpenStreetMap planning to do X? X beeing a routing service or a website where people can upload their hiking trails, photos, whatever or many other things people think can be done with the maps. And I try to explain people that OSM is providing the data and the maps and that its not the goal of OSM to provide every conceivable map or mapping web site or service. Thats the mindset people have gotten into: We wait for Google or Yahoo or Microsoft to come up with the service and thats it. I think we should encourage people to build their own, to build a whole eco-system of different websites and services, not try to get too many things inside the core OSM project. We should make clear what the OSM part in this eco-system is: providing the data. I think we should come up with an idea what the core of the OSM project ist and those things should be on the openstreetmap.org website and maintained by the community in an open fashion. Everything else can be done on different web sites and be linked to. Thats the power of the web. Once we start bringing in other services, where do we stop? There are already hundreds of web sites with OSM based maps, routing services etc. All of them could argue that they want to be on openstreetmap.org. Surely the ski lift map is useful when entering data for ski areas. So I think we should distinguish between the core, the open community project, on the one side and other projects (commercial or non-commercial) which build upon OSM. I agree, its good to have the discussion and I'm fully with Jochen here that OSM is currently (and personally I feel should remain) about the data; how it is put into the database and how maintained. For background, many moons ago we needed in a hurry to come up with the aims of the project and the little ditty that was produced ended up in the OSMF Articles of Association. It states: OpenStreetMap Foundation is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. It's right that these aims are debated by the community from time to time. Now is as good a time as any. The above breaks down into the following: 1. Encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial. 2. Providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share. So anyone with strong views on whether these two aims are still appropriate or whether they feel we should have other aims as well please air them. From the Foundation point of view, any change in the
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for raw paths as you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good starting point. If path was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use cycleway for good ways that are OK to cycle on, footway for good ways that are not OK to cycle on, and path for raw ways where access rights are unclear. That probably covers the bulk of situations. Richard On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jacek Konieczny jaj...@jajcus.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. The problem is that footway is always rendered the same, not matter if it is also tagged bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (though I am not sure about the latter), which is not a problem on a generic road map, but is quite a problem for cycle/tourist maps. So, I guess, this thread is about a feature request for renderers. Nothing to fight about :) Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
Christoph Böhme wrote: Hi everyone in my opinion OSM should not try to compete with mapping websites by offering more and more tools for using maps. This is because I think such an endeavour would have three problems: First, how to decide which of the hundreds of tools out there are integrated on the OSM website and which are not? People will surely have very different opinions about what an online map needs. Second, offering map services to the end-user will bind a lot of resources (humans computers) which could otherwise be used to improve the data. And third, I think, it can lead to a centralisation of the OSM ecosphere with projects not being on the main website not gaining much attention since they are not considered a real part of OSM anymore. However, OSM obviously needs some showcase to advertise what you can do with the data. But why not creating a real showcase then? A set of webpages which explain with some examples what it actually means to have open geo-data and not just a free-beer map. The showcase could show examples for common use cases like user-defined renderings, different routing services, etc and provide links to pages offering these services. The main website website could then just have a big link saying: See what you can do with OpenStreetMaps! A disadvantage of concentrating solely on the data is that normal website users will be unlikely to ever see the OSM website and thus never become aware that they can help to improve the map they are seeing on a website. I think this problem could be approached by encouraging users of OSM data to add links like Are things missing on this map? or Is there an error on this map? to their maps which link to a page explaining that the map used on the website is an open map and that users can easily add the missing data themselves if they want to (or they could at least create an Openstreetbug). Cheers, Christoph I agree with this... to a point. I think OpenStreetMap needs a shop window - perhaps a different website altogether. I can talk enthusiastically about OSM to all and sundry, but it'd be nice to point them somewhere where they can go and be blown away with what can be achieved using the power of OSM data. I'm not only thinking of the standard slippy-map, but contour layers, routing, poi's, etc, etc. I'd like people to see what OSM is capable of and perhaps encourage them to contribute themselves, or utilise OSM data in their own applications (which is ultimately what this project is all about). This separate website would have a different ethos compared to OSM.org - it would need to include everything that a professional mapping website would have, and contain very little technical (OSM) jargon. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that simply don't care about how the data is collected, stored and licenced - they just see that it looks pretty cool and they enjoy the experience of using it. I know that plenty of people link to and use Wikipedia without fully knowing (or caring) about the model it's built upon. This is just my opinion, and I know the work involved in setting up something like this would be significant, but the benefits in my opinion would be huge. Alan. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Alan Wright alanwright.a...@googlemail.com wrote: I think OpenStreetMap needs a shop window - perhaps a different website altogether. I disagree. OSM doesn't need a faked-up website to show what can be done. There's plenty of real places using the data for real applications, and that's waaay better than anything that is conceived just for showing-off. OSM needs two aspects - a place which is a hive of mapping activity (i.e. for mappers) and places of OSM consumption. IMnotveryHO the consumption stuff has been left to others, and rightfully so. If we want to show off OSM to consumers, then lets point them to awesome places that are using OSM data. And then on the other front, which boils down to what should openstreetmap.org be focussed on, that's everything that's needed for mapping activity. Like a ship's bridge or a surgical theatre or a well-stocked toolbench it should have everything close to hand that mappers need to get their jobs done, and do it well. Maps to see what's there. Tools to edit the data and inspect it. Ways to communicate with other mappers. Calendars to organise parties. Blogs to keep the community bound together. One small part of that (in the inspecting the data part) is routing. I don't want a journey planner on osm.org (unless it's for getting to the mapping parties :-) ) but I do need a way to check the connectivity and correctness of the mapping data. And not as some hidden extra in an editor I don't happen to use - it should be somewhere close to hand. We started with a map and then developed maplint, nonames, keepright et al, so we should start with point-to-point routing and then figure out how we can improve things - with the primary purpose being to help mappers. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
full ack some tags are too confusing ... on a lighter note: from tagwatch typo or protest against a very_horrible tag ;-) smoothmess horrible (4), impassable (1) On 30 Apr 2009, at 8:59 , Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. I've done a completely 180 turn on using cycleway/footway/path since the introduction of path. I used to tag any path where cyclists are allowed as cycleway (whether it was actually suitable or not didn't really matter). And bridleway was completely unused by me (in the end if horses would be allowed I'd tag them as cycleway as well if cyclists were allowed). Although it was a pretty consistent way tagging, it could well confuse people looking at the maps. So now I basically use highway=path everywhere, and add the restrictions as signed on it (vehicle=no, horse=no, bicycle=no, etc). Given the specific legal meaning of a word like cycleway I only tag those as such when the paths have a blue round sign with a bicycle/pedestrian/horse (so when they're legally defined as cycleway/footway/bridleway). Because a path where no vehicles are allowed except bicycles is just not a cycleway (which also implies different traffic rules). Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag oneway exceptions? Oneway except residents?
Eddy Petrișor wrote: Paul Johnson a scris: Ben Laenen wrote: On Sunday 26 April 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote: Renaud MICHEL schrieb: I didn't find an answer in the wiki, how should I tag roads that are one way for motorized vehicles but two way for bicycle? The documented and established way to do so is oneway=yes + cycleway=opposite, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway The proposal Conditions for access tags allows to alternatively use oneway=yes + oneway:bicycle=no which is a bit more flexible because it is not limited to bicycles, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_a ccess_tags But bicycle:oneway=no is much more logical of course since you're defining the access rights of bicycles... I hope oneway:bicycle=-1 also works, if so, this is a much cleaner and more precise way of tagging the rare street that is actually two way, but prohibits cyclists in one direction and motorists in the other (and perhaps provide automated warning for those who ride with a GPS). Extrapolating, should I use oneway:residents=no on a one way road which has this exception for people living on that street? That *sounds* about right, but I'm curious how that works...is it honor system, or is there some kind of local permit system? Are visitors able to negotiate restrictions like residents, or do they have to go around? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
2009/4/30, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com: Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. If you read the proposal on the wiki, you should be able to get an idea of what highway=path was *meant* to be. (an thats not a very narrow or rough way in the forest, worse than footway) Btw how clear is the current usage of highway=cycleway to you? It ranges from officially designated cycleway, way that is comfortably usable by bike to some way you *could* physically use with a bicycle (and wake up in hospital). ;-) -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
Hi, Alan Wright wrote: I'm not only thinking of the standard slippy-map, but contour layers, routing, poi's, etc, etc. Contrary to what some people make you believe, OSM does not have contour layers or elevation data. There's much talk about a possible sister project (open elevation map? open digital terrain model?) but nothing has been done in that direction yet. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] German Shapefile, federal states?
Ouch, that's bad. i thought they'd contain some actual data, size implied that. I wonder if anybody knows a way to render the 16 German federal states (Bundesländer)? Actually that's what i want to do in the end.. Is there a way to find out what is in a Shapefile? Like that i can write filters like Filter[CNTRY_NAME] = 'Germany'/Filter in world_boundaries_m? Is there a way to find this out from a Shapefile? Thanks for any hints, Torsten. Am Mittwoch, 29. April 2009 23:06:18 schrieb Frederik Ramm: Hi, Torsten Mohr wrote: has anybody got some experience with the Shapefiles at: http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/metadetails.asp?id=760 All I can see are shapefiles that contain a reference grid - no actual geodata? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] German Shapefile, federal states?
Hi, Torsten Mohr wrote: Is there a way to find out what is in a Shapefile? Use a GIS program like QGIS to open and display the shapefile and you can see what's there! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Fully agree - and this seems to be in the spirit of most current practice ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: James Stewart [mailto:j.k.stew...@ed.ac.uk] Sent: 30 April 2009 11:37 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Mario - perhaps inadvertently, but importantly - raises a separate issue for those of us who like the tag designation= . This tag is afaik a more recent introduction than designated= . Although the intention was much the same in each case the wiki descriptions are subtly different. My personal preference is for the definitions and examples shown under designation= and this is what I am now using. It doesn't matter at all in the English language which word is used for the key (designated or designation) but wouldn't it be a lot clearer if we could all agree on one word or the other to avoid possible future confusion? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Mario Salvini [mailto:salv...@t-online.de] Sent: 30 April 2009 12:10 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes Jacek Konieczny schrieb: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote: There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. Sure. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) So such foot path rendered as a foot path only is not a problem for you, as you know that means bicycles may go there. In Poland generally bicycles are forbidden on ways for pedestrians, with many exceptions (if you go with a child, if other way is too far, if it is a sidewalk of a street where cars may go over specific speed…). And pedestrians are welcome on designated cycle-only ways. But many cycle ways are designated for both bicycles and pedestrians. So there is difference between highway=footway, highway=footway,bicycle=yes, highway=cycleway and highway=cycleway,foot=yes and it would be really good if all those could be distinguished, at least on a cycle map. And I agree that marking a footway a bicycleway only because bicycles my go there is kind of abuse and tagging for renderers (which have the data in other tags anyway). Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) -- Mario ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
... Part way with James but recognising Jacek's point it would need adding bicycle=permissive or bicycle=yes as appropriate so that the cycle renderers pick up. Where appropriate (e.g. often in the UK) the use of designation=public_footpath (meaning that the default is bicycle=no unless otherwise modified with bicycle= ) or designation=public_bridleway (meaning that the default is bicycle=yes unless otherwise modified with bicycle= ). The adoption of the designation= tag in the UK seems to be a good solution to the dilemmas otherwise created by trying to compromise between tagging what is there on the ground and tagging for legal access status (with both purposes being valid objectives for at least a subset of users). Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Jacek Konieczny [mailto:jaj...@jajcus.net] Sent: 30 April 2009 12:00 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote: There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. Sure. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) So such foot path rendered as a foot path only is not a problem for you, as you know that means bicycles may go there. In Poland generally bicycles are forbidden on ways for pedestrians, with many exceptions (if you go with a child, if other way is too far, if it is a sidewalk of a street where cars may go over specific speed…). And pedestrians are welcome on designated cycle-only ways. But many cycle ways are designated for both bicycles and pedestrians. So there is difference between highway=footway, highway=footway,bicycle=yes, highway=cycleway and highway=cycleway,foot=yes and it would be really good if all those could be distinguished, at least on a cycle map. And I agree that marking a footway a bicycleway only because bicycles my go there is kind of abuse and tagging for renderers (which have the data in other tags anyway). Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 April 2009 17:00 To: Richard Mann Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy I had hoped we were approaching some clarity and consensus - don't let's despair (yet!) ... Sorry about the other 14,990 - but we can't force people to contribute to a chat (!) and nothing much is likely to change in a dramatic way without a bit of a vote or summat on the wiki (?) - and this is all probably a bit specialist and esoteric so perhaps the other 14,990 don't really care? After all it's their privilege! Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I could more or less go with this too - but perhaps only if we could adopt more widely the use of designation= (or designated= - see earlier post!) to allow the definition of legal status (mostly in the UK admittedly) for those of us who are public rights of way workers. Is there a case for adding highway=track to the mix? Personally I find it useful to use highway=track for ways that are (mostly) not paved but physically wide enough for four-wheeled traffic - regardless of whether the designation would be as a public footpath, public bridleway or whatever; tracktype= can be added to further define surface and foot/bicycle/horse/etc. = can also be added. I would also think that a clear-cut highway=cycleway would automatically take priority over highway=track as it is more informative. By the same token I find it quite useful to use highway=path for a way that it is not wide enough for four-wheel traffic, is not a 'designated' public right of way or permissive path and is rural (as highway=footway seems a bit strange in these cases but fine in an urban context). Mike Harris _ From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] Sent: 30 April 2009 15:10 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for raw paths as you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good starting point. If path was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use cycleway for good ways that are OK to cycle on, footway for good ways that are not OK to cycle on, and path for raw ways where access rights are unclear. That probably covers the bulk of situations. Richard On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jacek Konieczny jaj...@jajcus.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. The problem is that footway is always rendered the same, not matter if it is also tagged bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (though I am not sure about the latter), which is not a problem on a generic road map, but is quite a problem for cycle/tourist maps. So, I guess, this thread is about a feature request for renderers. Nothing to fight about :) Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
... Hmm! Interesting alternative approach ... Not sure what I think ... Worth discussing ... By now everyone who cares knows that I like the designation= tag as it solves a lot of problems for me but that is equally compatible with Ben's approach as with any other. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ben Laenen [mailto:benlae...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 April 2009 17:21 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. I've done a completely 180 turn on using cycleway/footway/path since the introduction of path. I used to tag any path where cyclists are allowed as cycleway (whether it was actually suitable or not didn't really matter). And bridleway was completely unused by me (in the end if horses would be allowed I'd tag them as cycleway as well if cyclists were allowed). Although it was a pretty consistent way tagging, it could well confuse people looking at the maps. So now I basically use highway=path everywhere, and add the restrictions as signed on it (vehicle=no, horse=no, bicycle=no, etc). Given the specific legal meaning of a word like cycleway I only tag those as such when the paths have a blue round sign with a bicycle/pedestrian/horse (so when they're legally defined as cycleway/footway/bridleway). Because a path where no vehicles are allowed except bicycles is just not a cycleway (which also implies different traffic rules). Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I'm one of the people mapping paths (since March) who scans this list, and I have to say that I'm confused. Although part of that may be because I'm new to OSM and not just to the matter of how to deal with tagging and rendering things. And part of that may because a lot of the tagging conventions developed in Europe, where the cycling infrastructure is often much better than in most of the United States. I got into OSM because I think it and its associated community of spin-off applications provide the best opportunity for most communities in the US to enable citizens to generate routes so that they can plan trips by bicycle. The cycling infrastructure in most parts of the US is discontinuous, poorly mapped by public agencies, and consists of a mix of types: shoulders along roads designated as bike lanes (no curb to the outside); similar but undesignated shoulders that cyclists discover but are not official; lanes marked within streets, often adjacent to outside curbs, but sometimes between lanes of motor-vehicle traffic; sidewalks (footways) parallel to major streets, which were built with the intent of being used by cyclists; traditional sidewalks that were not but which may be used by cyclists except where prohibited; dedicated paths/trails built separate from the road right-of-way, which may be used for utilitarian travel but which often are located where they are used primarily for recreation rather than real trips (most of which are designated multi-use and are used by cyclists and pedestrians); and the majority of roads, which cyclists are legally entitled to use, but which are not specially marked, and which may or may not be unsafe to ride. It is common to have cycling infrastructure on one side of a street but not the other; some types may be safe for two-way cycling, but others, such as shoulders and most in-street lanes, definitely are not. Where the street is divided by a median, as in a boulevard, it is easy to code the street as two one-way paths, code the cycling infrastructure separately on each, and let the oneway=yes tag take care of this. Where the street is a two-lane, two-way street with a shoulder or lane on one side, clearly intended to be used in one direction and not the other and no cycling infrastructure on the other side of the street, there is a problem. This is common in Tampa, and I welcome guidance. Some questions about coding: I assume that highway=cycleway is a path developed outside a road right-of-way, primarily for cycling (and the topic that you have been discussing in this thread). The illustration on the Map Features page lacks enough surrounding context to indicate whether the tag might be suitable for other kinds of cycling infrastructure. If I am correct, then what would be the difference between this and cycleway=track? Cycleway=lane, the illustration shows what could either be a bicycle shoulder or an in-street bicycle lane. These have very different perceptual feel to cyclists, depending on the character of the main road, the motor traffic on it, the volume and speed of the motor traffic, and the geometry of the lane or shoulder. On one street here, there is a lane (officially, excellent cycling infrastructure) which most cyclists veer out of to use the shoulder instead, which at that point is not designated as a bike shoulder, because there is a lane. If you saw the section of street, you would understand why. Cycleway=track would cover the multi-use, largely recreational, infrastructure. It might or might not be intended for the sidewalks intended to be used by cyclists. Cycleway=opposite_lane is rare here, and in the US is probably only suitable for low-volume streets except in areas with large numbers of cyclists, such as Portland, Davis, or Boulder. See below. Cycleway=opposite_track again might or might not be intended for the sidewalks intended to be used by cyclists, which often are on just one side of the street. Unfortunately, research has demonstrated these to be dangerous when cyclists who use them against the flow of motor traffic must cross an intersection (because drivers are not looking for them there). I have attempted to tag some of the multi-use paths as highway=footway and as highway=cycleway, but only the most recently entered survives. Most of the multi-use paths with which I am familiar have been entered by others and tagged as highway=footway. What is the best way to designate their multipurpose character? I assume add bicycle=yes. Thinking ahead toward the objective of having routing algorithm available to use this to generate bicycle routes, how can we code these various types in ways that someone can eventually make usable routes out of them? If you are aware of anyone developing such a routing facility to run using data from OSM, could you refer me to him/her? At the moment, many large cities in the US have no OSM mapping activity at all, and in most of those which do, it is
[OSM-talk] Mapping Sundderland - Venue confirmed!
Hi all, Andy has sorted out a venue for the Sunderland Mapping Party this weekend. It's a couple of miles North on the seafront of Seaburn. Saturday 2nd Sunday 4th May Approx. 10am to 5pm each day Marriott Hotel, Queens Parade, Sunderland, SR6 8DB Phone: 44 191 5292041. Map http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=54.9331mlon=-1.3685zoom=12 Nearest Railway Station: Seaburn (frequent trains/metro from Newcastle Central which is on the North East Main Line) Full details at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sunderland/Mapping_Party It would be great to see a good few people, so hopefully you can make it. -- Gregory nomoregra...@gmail.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] German Shapefile, federal states?
Hello, Torsten. I think the 16 german federal states (lander) are available as a shapefile in lots of different places. Here is one example: http://wetnet.net/~we7u/xastir/maps/shapefile/Germany/ That is a shapefile (compressed) with 16 polygons, and you also have the population and extension of each one. You have to open it with some GIS application. Where do you want to draw that map? Regards, Juan Lucas De: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org en nombre de Torsten Mohr Enviado el: jue 30/04/2009 19:20 Para: OSM Talk Asunto: Re: [OSM-talk] German Shapefile, federal states? Ouch, that's bad. i thought they'd contain some actual data, size implied that. I wonder if anybody knows a way to render the 16 German federal states (Bundesländer)? Actually that's what i want to do in the end.. Is there a way to find out what is in a Shapefile? Like that i can write filters like Filter[CNTRY_NAME] = 'Germany'/Filter in world_boundaries_m? Is there a way to find this out from a Shapefile? Thanks for any hints, Torsten. Am Mittwoch, 29. April 2009 23:06:18 schrieb Frederik Ramm: Hi, Torsten Mohr wrote: has anybody got some experience with the Shapefiles at: http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/metadetails.asp?id=760 All I can see are shapefiles that contain a reference grid - no actual geodata? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Alan Wright alanwright.a...@googlemail.com wrote: I think OpenStreetMap needs a shop window - perhaps a different website altogether. I disagree. OSM doesn't need a faked-up website to show what can be done. There's plenty of real places using the data for real applications, and that's waaay better than anything that is conceived just for showing-off. OSM needs two aspects - a place which is a hive of mapping activity (i.e. for mappers) and places of OSM consumption. IMnotveryHO the consumption stuff has been left to others, and rightfully so. If we want to show off OSM to consumers, then lets point them to awesome places that are using OSM data. And then on the other front, which boils down to what should openstreetmap.org be focussed on, that's everything that's needed for mapping activity. Like a ship's bridge or a surgical theatre or a well-stocked toolbench it should have everything close to hand that mappers need to get their jobs done, and do it well. Maps to see what's there. Tools to edit the data and inspect it. Ways to communicate with other mappers. Calendars to organise parties. Blogs to keep the community bound together. One small part of that (in the inspecting the data part) is routing. I don't want a journey planner on osm.org (unless it's for getting to the mapping parties :-) ) but I do need a way to check the connectivity and correctness of the mapping data. And not as some hidden extra in an editor I don't happen to use - it should be somewhere close to hand. We started with a map and then developed maplint, nonames, keepright et al, so we should start with point-to-point routing and then figure out how we can improve things - with the primary purpose being to help mappers. Cheers, Andy Ok you disagree and that's fine - it is a community after all :) However I'd like you to perhaps think about some of the conversations I'm having... Take a look at this... It's call OpenStreetMap and it's the Wikipedia of Maps... it has a really strong backing from a huge community and it really looks promising ... ...Yeah, that looks cool I see you get some fantastic detail in those maps... What else can it do? ...Oh a bunch of stuff - it's all free to use... you can do what you like with it Like what? Routing, geocoding... all sorts of stuff... Great, where can I see this? Hmmm... not sure, try hunting around a bit... check their wiki... there's stuff announced on their mailing list all the time... ...hmmm, right. Apologies if this sounds trite, and I'm certainly not trying to sound like a spoilt child, but these are the types of conversations I'm having regularly. Now you could argue that I simply don't know enough about what's going on, but I've read enough User Diaries and mailing list comments to know that a lot of people are having real difficulty in identifying a central place where stuff can be found. The only place we have right now (that could be considered a front door) is osm.org and in my opinion it doesn't have enough of a wow factor to attract the attention I think it deserves. As a website, osm.org serves it's mapper audience very well - it's the casual browser, or company boss that perhaps need something a little more polished and less wiki-like in nature. Alan. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] toposm gets my vote for image of the week
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_image_proposals#TopOSM On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Man! This should be a featured image: http://toposm.com/ma/?zoom=15lat=42.26621lon=-71.02104layers=B000 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
Alan Wright wrote: Sent: 30 April 2009 9:43 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't? On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Alan Wright alanwright.a...@googlemail.com wrote: I think OpenStreetMap needs a shop window - perhaps a different website altogether. I disagree. OSM doesn't need a faked-up website to show what can be done. There's plenty of real places using the data for real applications, and that's waaay better than anything that is conceived just for showing-off. OSM needs two aspects - a place which is a hive of mapping activity (i.e. for mappers) and places of OSM consumption. IMnotveryHO the consumption stuff has been left to others, and rightfully so. If we want to show off OSM to consumers, then lets point them to awesome places that are using OSM data. And then on the other front, which boils down to what should openstreetmap.org be focussed on, that's everything that's needed for mapping activity. Like a ship's bridge or a surgical theatre or a well-stocked toolbench it should have everything close to hand that mappers need to get their jobs done, and do it well. Maps to see what's there. Tools to edit the data and inspect it. Ways to communicate with other mappers. Calendars to organise parties. Blogs to keep the community bound together. One small part of that (in the inspecting the data part) is routing. I don't want a journey planner on osm.org (unless it's for getting to the mapping parties :-) ) but I do need a way to check the connectivity and correctness of the mapping data. And not as some hidden extra in an editor I don't happen to use - it should be somewhere close to hand. We started with a map and then developed maplint, nonames, keepright et al, so we should start with point-to-point routing and then figure out how we can improve things - with the primary purpose being to help mappers. Cheers, Andy Ok you disagree and that's fine - it is a community after all :) However I'd like you to perhaps think about some of the conversations I'm having... Take a look at this... It's call OpenStreetMap and it's the Wikipedia of Maps... it has a really strong backing from a huge community and it really looks promising ... ...Yeah, that looks cool I see you get some fantastic detail in those maps... What else can it do? ...Oh a bunch of stuff - it's all free to use... you can do what you like with it Like what? Routing, geocoding... all sorts of stuff... Great, where can I see this? Hmmm... not sure, try hunting around a bit... check their wiki... there's stuff announced on their mailing list all the time... ...hmmm, right. Apologies if this sounds trite, and I'm certainly not trying to sound like a spoilt child, but these are the types of conversations I'm having regularly. Now you could argue that I simply don't know enough about what's going on, but I've read enough User Diaries and mailing list comments to know that a lot of people are having real difficulty in identifying a central place where stuff can be found. The only place we have right now (that could be considered a front door) is osm.org and in my opinion it doesn't have enough of a wow factor to attract the attention I think it deserves. As a website, osm.org serves it's mapper audience very well - it's the casual browser, or company boss that perhaps need something a little more polished and less wiki-like in nature. Alan. The reason for the struggle is quite simple. The project is still relatively young so developers haven't yet filled your browser with rich pickings that use OSM data. Consider this, the Ordnance survey started collecting geodata 200 years ago. It's only in the last few years that any of its data has been used for routing, displaying maps on websites (via Google or others) etc etc. OSM is today what the OS was 200 years ago, breaking new ground and collecting geodata to make maps. Back then the OS did it all by hand and hand drew maps. OSM doesn't have to draw the maps by hand any more but it still has to gather the data, that's its role here. In future I'm sure we will see all manner of companies and individuals using, displaying and doing clever things with OSM data, but Rome wasn't built in a day. So to answer your friends you need to explain about what makes Google and all the other guys able to deliver their services. It's the data that drives them. The front end is just window dressing. (and yes I bow to all the software developers who make very clever and nice window displays). Cheers Andy (another one) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Sundderland - Venue confirmed!
Just a small correction to Gregory's note, Sunday is of course May 3rd. Hope to see some of you on Sat or Sun. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Sent: 30 April 2009 7:56 PM To: Talk Openstreetmap; talk-gb-theno...@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Mapping Sundderland - Venue confirmed! Hi all, Andy has sorted out a venue for the Sunderland Mapping Party this weekend. It's a couple of miles North on the seafront of Seaburn. Saturday 2nd Sunday 4th May Approx. 10am to 5pm each day Marriott Hotel, Queens Parade, Sunderland, SR6 8DB Phone: 44 191 5292041. Map http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=54.9331mlon=-1.3685zoom=12 Nearest Railway Station: Seaburn (frequent trains/metro from Newcastle Central which is on the North East Main Line) Full details at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sunderland/Mapping_Party It would be great to see a good few people, so hopefully you can make it. -- Gregory nomoregra...@gmail.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote: Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is it different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway? At least when I'm trying to decide, I ask two questions: 1) Does it allow bicycles, and 2) Is it wide enough for two cyclists going in opposite directions at a substantial rate of speed to pass each other without hitting, swerving or slowing down, assuming each is keeping to the legally required side of the path (ie, right in most countries, left in the commonwealths)? If the answer to either question is no, then it's a footway, weather or not bicycle=yes. My assumption being that odds are someone wants to know whether a cyclist can pass knowing that taking a bicycle that direction isn't the best idea if you tend to pedal faster than jogging speed. Obviously, there's a few exceptions, such as one-way cycleways where it's obvious the intended use is not pedestrian, and pedestrian malls where the use is primarily pedestrian, but cyclists may be able to traverse the mall on select footpaths without dismounting (ie, cyclists will probably have to slow down dramatically and keep eyes peeled for Kamikaze pedestrians not expecting vehicular traffic). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote: It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. Depends on jurisdiction, of course. One problem OSM has with handling Oregon and Washington State properly is people are bad about tagging foot=yes and bicycle=yes to highway types that default to no for those vehicle classes (since /all/ ways, including motorways, are open to bicycles and pedestrians unless otherwise posted, in Oregon and Washington State, and the only ways that commonly disallow pedestrians and bicycles are narrow tunnels with an alternate route, and ways with no amenities traversing the desert outback (why would you bike or hike that anyway?)). Though this particular access restriction peculiarity makes me wonder if there's hitchhiking= access tags in common use yet, since Washington prohibits the practice on motorways, but Oregon lets you hitchhike and stop for hitchhikers anywhere except within about 2km of a prison. But cycle superhighways are pretty rare, and highway=cycleway is used much more widely than that. I've come to the view that cycleway should be used if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and nobody's obviously objecting. I'll grant that... and highway=cycleway, pedestrian=no is an oddball enough combination that even where it /is/ a common situation (Interstate NCNs around Portland), there's still a good chance for bicycle/pedestrian traffic conflicts because some dork decided a pedestrians-prohibited 14-foot-wide cycleway hemmed in by two 10-foot-high fences next to a freeway is a nice, pleasant place to go dogging with a 20-foot-long leash (when it's obviously a commuter corridor where pedestrians present a real safety hazard to themselves and others). There are people who think calling it a cycleway is somehow anti-pedestrian. I would certainly suggest to renderers that cycleway may not be the best description - foot/cycleway might be better. Do we need to change the word we use for the tag - probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but maybe not a priority. I'm not sure that's quite the best description, because the designations aren't interchangeable (some cycleways prohibit pedestrians, most footways don't allow bicycles). Do we need some other way of tagging the cycle superhighways? Maybe. Personally I think it's more important to tag the cycle networks (lcn/rcn/ncn), so map-readers and routers will pick out those routes, and avoid the less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. It's also helpful to tag cycle barriers (barrier=cycle_barrier), which are widely used to discourage the use of less-suitable (but still accessible) routes. Indeed. Maximum widths and lengths would be extremely useful at these barriers as well, in any location where the cycle lane is narrower than the legally prescribed minimum cycle lane width, or where particularly long human-powered vehicle combinations (tandem, bike towing trailer, third wheel pusher kid seats, surreys) would have difficulty negotiating the obstacle. I can think of a number of spots on cycleways in Beaverton that prohibit pedestrians, but have overzealous anti-motorist measures, the most common of which being gaps in fences at school boundaries intended to get cyclists down to walking speed (as the gap is barely wider than handlebars) but do a better job at hamstringing inexperienced riders, surreys and bicycle trailers. The most extreme of which appear at some intersections built in the late 1960s, which feature an offset gap around shin high with entry and exit turns that are frequently too sharp for an unencumbered bicycle longer than 4 feet to make the turns without having to get up and just carry it over the barrier (equal call in that area whether it was NIMBYs annoyed about the prospect of having bicycle traffic on their back fencelines, or simply the work of a civil engineer who hasn't seen a bicycle since grade school at play here). At least in Beaverton, unless you plan your trip well and you know the obstacles really well, these barriers can make pulling a bike trailer or driving a surrey impossible, and getting around on a bicycle larger than you would expect a pre-teen to ride difficult. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you tag them both as designated? highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using path for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. Could someone clarify the difference between path and bridleway? AFAICT, the only obvious difference is path is access=no, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes, whereas the bridleway is only access=no, foot=yes, horse=yes. The former is commonly a former railroad, and is not paved (though is usually graded and surfaced in peat), the latter tends to be in yuppie neighborhoods around major cities (like around the fringes of Los Angeles County where the rich go pretend to be cowboy riding in a manicured bridleway next to a boulevard...). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - surface_unification
Proposal page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/surface_unification Proposal discussion http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/surface_unification Please read the talk-page before commenting on this! Introduction: This proposal should improve the current usage of the surface=*-key. It is needed because surface is currently a mix of fastness and material types. The fastness should go to surface:paved=* and the materials should go to surface:material=*. With surface:condition=* we are trying to describe the status of the surface with less subjective values than smoothness=* does. It should extract the best of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:surface , http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/surface_values and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/more_surface_values . If it gets widely used by the community it could later replace things like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Smoothness and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/grade1-5. surface:paved=* and surface:material=* can be filled by values currently used in surface=*. Also see the already used keys surface_material and surface_state on tagwatch! Sincerely Per ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] mapof / osmarender export broken
MapOf [1], which is called from the export tab on the main map page, currently only produces an error instead of nice, big Osmarender maps. Stefan [1] http://tah.openstreetmap.org/MapOf/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] What is OSM and what isn't?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 08:22:42PM +0200, Colin Marquardt wrote: 2009/4/30 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Stephan Plepelits wrote: In my opionion we should produce a page with featured applications, with a link from the mainpage (before Help Wiki i would propose). Last year I registered openstreetmapdirectory.org with the intention of doing exactly that - a site cataloguing sites and companies that work with OSM data. I haven't had chance to do anything on it but would be delighted to work with others who would find such an idea interesting. In the meantime, http://openstreetmapdirectory.org could link to these sites: http://osmtools.de/osmlinks/?page=mainlang=en http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services Wow, I didn't know them (and I'm active for quite some time). Why not link from the mainpage to one of these sites (with a link called Applications or Funky Stuff or See how OSM rocks! or something like this)? I prefer the second link for some reasons: - Everybody can edit the Wiki - There's a short description of the service - It's hosted by OSM, which is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data (OSM Foundation) greetings, Stephan -- Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich ,-. | Stephan Plepelits, | | Technische Universität Wien -Studium Informatik Raumplanung | | openstreetbrowser.org couchsurfing.com tubasis.at bl.mud.at | | sk...@xover.htu.tuwien.ac.at - My Blog: http://plepe.at | `-' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] dorpscentrum verzopen
Lennard schreef: YRS wrote: Weet iemand waarom Mapnik ons dorpcentrum ineens laat onderlopen? Het is door een soort eiland doordat de omsluitenden vaarten op elkaar uit Het is waarschijnlijk een van de verschijnselen van het proces van snel updaten van de kaart. Een van de mankementen is nog dat dit met multipolygonrelaties nog niet helemaal goed gaat. Jouw dorpscentrum zal na de volledige import van komende nacht wel weer terug zijn. Ik was erg onder de indruk (lees: enthousiast) van de mogelijkheden die relaties bieden. De oude invoermethode van eilanden e.d. leek mij in te gaan tegen het principe van de data is leidend en niet de renderer. Het lijkt ook vooral een probleem van de Mapnik renderer. Ik neem jouw advies aan en wacht het rustig af. Dank voor der reacties. ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[talk-au] Copyright ruling on compiled lists
While this may not change to much in AU for OSM, it's still an interesting ruling - particuarly the possible future review of the Telstra v Desktop Marketing decision. IceTV won their appeal against Channel 9 over the reuse of 9's TV guide. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25389042-17044,00.html Matt ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-de] Maxspeed map
Hallo Allerseits, bin neu hier und lese jetzt erst ein paar Tage mit. Mario Salvini schrieb, am 29.04.2009 2:55 Uhr: [...] außerdem gibts in Zone-30 Bereichen eigentlich keine extra ausgeführten benutzungspflichtigen Radwege ;) Das stimmt so in keinem Fall pauschal. In HH gibt eine eine Vielzahl an Tempo 30-Zonen und genau so viele Straßen, mit eigenen Radwegen innerhalb der Zonen. Zum Teil sind es auf die Straße gemalte Spuren oder noch die älteren eigenen Radwege im Fußwegbereich. Cheers ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Maxspeed map
Guenther Meyer schrieb, am 29.04.2009 0:00 Uhr: Am Dienstag 28 April 2009 schrieb Florian Lohoff: was spricht dagegen, das gleich entsprechend mit z.B. maxspeed=50 oder maxspeed=100 zu taggen? wozu ein zusaetzlicher key? Der punkt ist das ein maxspeed=100 auf der Landstraße von einem Keine geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung nicht zu unterscheiden ist. ja und? keine geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung heisst in deutschland nunmal 100. Wo steht denn das? Das stimmt aber nun wirklich nicht. Schau mal, was dür ein Schild bei der Einreise nach Deutschland an den Grenzen steht. Da ist ganz klar runtergebrochen: Innerörtlich, hinter dem orangen Schild 50, Landstraßen 100, Autobahnen Richtgeschwindigkeit 130. Die Maximalgeschwindigkeit ist in Deutschland zunächst, wenn nichts anderes geregelt ist, abhängig von der Straßenform bzw. Örtlichkeit. Ich finde diese Diskussion hier ziemlich überflüssig, ob Tempo 30-Zonen nun eine Daseinsberechtigung haben oder nicht. Man sollte sich noch einmal ins Gedächtnis rufen, für wen die Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkung, egal, ob Zone oder nicht, relevant ist. Da sind ganz klar die Kraftfahrzeuge. Und dem ist es herzlich uninteressant, ob er eine Zonenstraße ;) oder nicht befährt. Für den ist (lediglich) die Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung wichtig und für die Routingsysteme ist mit Sicherheit auch völlig uninteressant, ob da eine Zone oder nicht kommt. Den Routingalgorithmen ist das völlig egal. Und mal ganz direkt. Mir gehen die Autofahrer, die permanent von den Navigationssystemen nicht wegschauen können ganz kräftig auf die Hutschnur. Ich habe izwischen als Rad-,Motorrad-,Autofahrer und Fußgänger Navigestörte erleben müssen, daß ich am liebsten keine Geschwindigkeitsinformationen in Karten und Plänen haben möchte. Es kann nicht sein, daß man von Autofahrern/LKW Dinge hört, wie: Mein Navi erlaubt hier aber 180. Wir sollten Vermeiden, daß hierdurch KFZ-Fahrer nicht mehr auf die Schilder schauen und sich nur noch auf die Navigation verlassen. Cheers, Stefan ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release can didate veröffentlicht
Am Donnerstag, 30. April 2009 01:12:17 schrieb Frederik Ramm: Aus der Frage was ist mit der internationalen Gueltigkeit besonders in Laendern ohne Datenbank-Direktive haben sich die ODC-Leute etwas herausgewunden, siehe http://www.opendatacommons.org/faq/licenses/ - das Argument geht etwa so: Mag ja sein, dass diese Lizenz in bestimmten Laendern nicht gilt, aber es ist doch besser als nix, wenn sie in anderen Laendern wenigstens funktioniert. Hier bin ich anderer Ansicht; ich finde, das fuehrt zu einer Ungleichbehandlung von Nutzern in verschiedenen Laendern und zu einer Rechtsunsicherheit, und mir waere keine Lizenz (PD, BSD o.ae.) lieber als eine Lizenz, die nur in einem Teil der Welt verbindlich ist. Ist denn z.B. die GPL in allen Teilen der Welt verbindlich? Ich denke das ist vielleicht gar nicht hin zu bekommen? Führt vielleicht zu weit: Kann ich nicht eine ausgediente Bohrinsel irgendwo im Atlantik kaufen und dort mein eigenes Land mit eigenen Gesetzen ausrufen? Wichtig ist IMHO ein Satz der Klarstellt, das dann die Benutzung von Daten unter dieser Lizenz verboten ist. Gruß Sven ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Autobahnauffahrt
Garry schrieb: Was bitte spricht dagegen,*eine* Fahrbahn [1] auch als *einen* way zu mappen, wie es bei Openstreetmap schon seit Ewigkeiten üblich ist? Es ist bei OSM genauso auch schon seit Ewigkeiten üblich Autobahnaufahrten getrennt zu erfassen! Und das kommt doch genau daher, weil sich hier Leute hinstellen und sagen: ist mir doch egal was ihr bisher gemacht habt, das gefällt mir nicht ich mache das jetzt mal ganz anders - und ob es da irgendeinen konsens gibt ist mir auch egal. Es hat nämlich durchaus mal den konsens gegeben, nur baulich getrennte Fahrspuren auch getrennt zu mappen - und eine durchgezogene Mittellinie war bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt keine bauliche Trennung (und ist es in meiner kleinen Welt bis heute nicht). Und dann kamen einige hier auf der deutschen Liste, die lauthals gesagt haben: ist mir doch egal was bislang gemacht wurde, ich weiß das besser. Gruß, ULFL ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Interview für Zeit-Online
Moin, hab vor kurzen eine Interview für Zeit Online gegeben. Ihr findet es unter: http://www.zeit.de/online/2009/18/openstreetmap-anders Hoffe ich hab nicht zuviel blödsinn erzählt. Insbesondere ist das mit dem Fossgis nicht ganz so rübergekommen wie ich es mir gewünscht (= Der Fossgis ist die Deutsche Vertretung für Mapper und nicht Wir gründen später einen deutschen Verein). Feedback nehme ich gerne entgegen. Ich denke es wird immer wichtiger das wir das mit der Lizenz auch mal für die Presse darstellen. Spätestens wenn es eine Abstimmung gibt und einige Leute in die eine oder andere Richtung polarisieren, wünsche ich mir ein paar Fakten zur alten und neuen Lizenz. Gruß Sven Anders ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Autobahnauffahrt
Am 30.04.09 schrieb Garry garr...@gmx.de: Darin dass man dafür sorge tragen muss dass nicht gleich wieder am Berührungspunkt von der Auffahrt auf die Einfahrt geroutet werden kann, die optische Kontrolle ist aufwendiger, in den Anwendungen muss mehr Aufwand getrieben werden für eine geeignete Darstellung,... Ich kenne keine Anwendung, die das nicht geeignet darstellt. Optische Kontrolle aufwändiger? Das habe ich mal bei _allen_ highway=motorway_link in Deutschland per JOSM gemacht - kein Unterschied im Aufwand zwischen getrennter und gemeinsamer Führung. Keine Anwendung sollte derart scharfes Abbiegen von motorway_link auf motorway_link erlauben - allein schon um fehlerhafte Daten abzufangen. Deine Funktionssicherheit ist in diesem Falle in etwa dasselbe, wie einen Poller auf einer Straße als ein kurzes Stück Fußweg zu mappen, weil openrouteservice und mkgmap noch keine Punkt-Hindernisse beachten. Noch ein Beispiel dafür vernünftigen Vereinfachungen zielführender sind als auf superdetailgetreue Abbildungen zu pochen. OSM lebt von den Anwendbarkeit, nicht davon dass alles was möglich ist in eine Datenbank gestopft wird aber zu komplex wird um es Anwenden zu können. Bitte? Einen Punkt zu setzen, wo ein Punkt ist, und ihn als das zu bezeichnen, was er ist, ist Superdetailgetreu? mkgmap wir in nicht allzu langer Zeit kein Problem damit haben, an solchen Stellen einfach selbst einen fake-fußweg zu erzeugen oder eine Abbiegebeschränkung für Kfz. Auf welche anderen Programme wartest du dann noch, bevor du deine falschen Fußwege wieder zurückdrehst? OSM ist eine Geodatenbank, wenn jemandem etwas an den gesammelten Daten nicht passt, kann er sie manipulieren, *nachdem* er sie vom Server erhalten hat. Wie Frederik einmal schrieb: Bei OpenStreetMap wird an der Ausgabeseite gefiltert, nicht an der Eingabeseite. Der Satz trifft es ganz gut. -Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] OePNV-Workshop in Karlsruhe
Tobias Wendorff wrote: Frederik Ramm schrieb: Wenn sich jemand fuer das Thema besonders interessiert, lohnt sich sicher auch die Anreise von etwas weiter weg - ggf. helfen wir gern bei der Vermittlung einer Uebernachtungsmoeglichkeit. Wäre eventuell auch ein LiveStream mit Webcam und Chat möglich, damit man aktiv an den Ideen teilhaben kann, wenn die Anreise zu kostenintensiv ist? Würde ich auch sehr begrüßen. Anreise kommt leider nicht in Frage, würde mich aber trotzdem interessieren, was bei dem Workshop rumkommt. Muss ja kein Livestream sein, aber danach das Material (idealerweise mit Video/Ton) im Internet verfügbar zu machen, wäre klasse. Gerrit ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Wanderkarte tot?
Hallo! Die Wanderkarte ist vorübergehend offline. Wird wohl ein paar Tage dauern bis sie auf ein neues Webhosting umgezogen ist. bye Nop ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Autobahnauffahrt
Martin Simon schrieb: Keine Anwendung sollte derart scharfes Abbiegen von motorway_link auf motorway_link erlauben - allein schon um fehlerhafte Daten abzufangen. Die hellsehende Anwendung als Lösung aller Probleme, prima. Einfacher wäre es vielleicht, das existierende Abbiegeverbot auch einzutragen. Dann gibts nämlich kein Gerate mehr, sondern eine klare Aussage: hier nicht reinfahren. Sogar dann, wenn jemand für die subjektive Verbesserung der optischen Darstellung einen Node etwas verschiebt und damit unbewusst eine winkelbasierende Abbiegebeschränkung aufgehoben hätte. Natürlich kann jeder Anwendungsprogrammierer noch Sicherheitsvorkehrungen gegen kritische Fehler einbauen, wenn er OSM-Daten nicht traut (was vermutlich berechtigt ist). Das aber nicht allein schon um fehlerhafte Daten abzufangen sondern ausschließlich, um fehlerhafte Daten abzufangen. Korrekte Daten sollten sich nie auf solche Sicherungen verlassen. Nicht-kritische Anwendungen sollten sie deshalb auch nicht erst abfangen, so dass dsa Problem bemerkt werden kann. Wie Frederik einmal schrieb: Bei OpenStreetMap wird an der Ausgabeseite gefiltert, nicht an der Eingabeseite. Der Satz trifft es ganz gut. Bei einer Filterung (hier ist mehr Information, als ich brauche) stimme ich voll und ganz zu. Das ist aber was ganz anderes als hier fehlt Information, lasst uns raten -- in so einem Fall sollten einfach die fehlenden Infos explizit in die Daten rein. Tobias Knerr ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release can didate veröffentlicht
Hallo, Sven Anders wrote: Ist denn z.B. die GPL in allen Teilen der Welt verbindlich? Vermutlich nicht. Aber die GPL hat (soweit ich weiss) uns gegenueber den Vorteil, dass sie in grossen Teilen der Welt auf Copyright gestuetzt sein kann. Wenn jemand in Nordkorea die GPL verletzt und ein eigenes Betriebssystem namens Lunix baut und dies einem Kunden in den USA verkauft (und beteuert, dass alle Rechte in Nordkorea liegen), dann koennen die Rechteinhaber - Nordkorea hin oder her - Ansprueche gegen den Kunden in den USA durchsetzen, weil das Copyright nicht dadurch ausgehebelt wird, dass die Koreaner irgendwas draufschreiben. Hat man hingegen eine Situation, die von Copyright nicht gedeckt ist, und macht stattdessen einen Vertrag: Durch Oeffnen der Verpackung verpflichten Sie sich, dies und jenes zu tun, sonst verklagen wir Sie wegen Vertragsverletzung, dann kann ein faules Ei in der Mitte - Nordkorea - die Verpackung oeffnen und die Regel missachten (nach dem Motto verklagt mich doch, wenn ihr mich kriegt) und das Produkt in neuer Verpackung in die USA weiterverkaufen. Da auf diesem Umweg keine Vertragsbeziehung zwischen dem Produkthersteller und dem Kaeufer zustande kommt, kann der Produkthersteller dem Kaeufer auch kein durch Oeffnen der Verpackung verpflichten Sie sich... vorschreiben. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Maxspeed map
Guenther Meyer schrieb: Am Mittwoch 29 April 2009 schrieb Mario Salvini: Guenther Meyer schrieb: Am Mittwoch 29 April 2009 schrieb André Reichelt: Stefan Dettenhofer (StefanDausR) schrieb: maxspeed=motorway:DE Ist die angabe des Straßentypes denn überhaupt notwendig? Es ergibt sich ja aus dem Highway-Typ. Ich denke, man sollte das nur taggen, wenn es eine Abweichung gibt. ich wuerde das schon mit angeben, weil sich glaub ich die highway-typen doch ein bisschen ueberschneiden. eine primary oder secondary koennte z.B. sowohl als landstrasse als auch innerhalb einer ortschaft vorkommen. es gibt (zumindest in deutschland) die drei geschwindigkeitsdefaults: motorway:DE auf autobahnen und autobahnaehnlich ausgebauten strassen city:DE in geschlossenen ortschaften default:DE fuer alles andere wirklich nötig ist nur city:DE (oder etwas ähnliches was genau das aussagt). motorway:DE könnte auch mit default:DE abgedeckt werden, aber eigenltich bräuchte man wenn man in Kauf nimmt nicht zu wissen ob schon einer da war motorway:DE und default:DE auch ganz streichen und einfach kein maxspeed setzen. (Unter der Maxime dass die Applikation weiß in welchem Land es sich befindet. Dann könnte man aber auch dass :DE bei maxspeed=city oder maxspeed=city_limits weglassen) eins reicht eben nicht, das habe ich doch oben geschrieben! motorway-geschwindigkeit gibt es eben nicht nur auf motorways... Sind die gelben Autobahnen nicht auch klar/eindeutig über highway=trunk + motorroad=yes zu erkennen? Könnte man auch als eindeutiges Kriterium deklarieren. Überall da wo highway=motorway ODER highway=trunk + motorroad=yes UND kein maxspeed-Tag gilt -- maxspeed=unlimited=no=none -- Mario ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Maxspeed map
SteMo schrieb: Hallo Allerseits, bin neu hier und lese jetzt erst ein paar Tage mit. Mario Salvini schrieb, am 29.04.2009 2:55 Uhr: [...] außerdem gibts in Zone-30 Bereichen eigentlich keine extra ausgeführten benutzungspflichtigen Radwege ;) Das stimmt so in keinem Fall pauschal. In HH gibt eine eine Vielzahl an Tempo 30-Zonen und genau so viele Straßen, mit eigenen Radwegen innerhalb der Zonen. Zum Teil sind es auf die Straße gemalte Spuren oder noch die älteren eigenen Radwege im Fußwegbereich. Cheers Möglich, dass das so gewachsen ist weil die 30er-Zone erst nachträglich installiert wurde, dann bleibt der Weg vermutlich stehen. Aber in frisch gewachsenen Strukturen schließt das eine eigentlich das andere aus. Auch gibt es in 30-Zonen auch eigentlich keine Zebrastreifen. -- Mario ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Maxspeed map
Mario Salvini schrieb: Sind die gelben Autobahnen nicht auch klar/eindeutig über highway=trunk + motorroad=yes zu erkennen? Könnte man auch als eindeutiges Kriterium deklarieren. Überall da wo highway=motorway ODER highway=trunk + motorroad=yes UND kein maxspeed-Tag gilt -- maxspeed=unlimited=no=none ODER highway=primary UND lanes=2 (2 oder mehr Spuren) ODER highway=primary UND onway=true (baulich getrennte Fahrbahnen) Aber eine Kraftfahrstraße (highway=trunk + motorroad=yes) erfüllt nicht per se o.g. Bedingungen Ich denke bei so vielen Ausnahmen ist es besser ein Klares tag zu setzten! Gruß, Stefan ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] os bugs
Gary68 wrote: aber: trotz des letzten rekords ein neuer höchststand bei den offenen bugs... Wobei anzumerken wäre dass es sich bei einem großen Teil davon gar nicht um bugs im eigentlichen Sinne handelt. Hier in meiner Gegend handelt es sich oft nur um Kommentare ala hier wird Ende 2009 umgebaut, siehe Zeitungsartikel soundso. Ich fände es sinnvoll wenn echte bugs von Kommentaren zukünftig unterschieden werden würden. Jens ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release candidat e veröffentlicht
Hallo! Am 30. April 2009 01:12 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Aus der Frage was ist mit der internationalen Gueltigkeit besonders in Laendern ohne Datenbank-Direktive haben sich die ODC-Leute etwas herausgewunden, siehe http://www.opendatacommons.org/faq/licenses/ - das Argument geht etwa so: Mag ja sein, dass diese Lizenz in bestimmten Laendern nicht gilt, aber es ist doch besser als nix, wenn sie in anderen Laendern wenigstens funktioniert. Naja, vielleicht eher: Wenn es in Ländern weder Copyright, noch Datenbank-Direktive gibt, dann kann man keine Lizenz (weder diese noch eine andere) durchsetzen Hier bin ich anderer Ansicht; ich finde, das fuehrt zu einer Ungleichbehandlung von Nutzern in verschiedenen Laendern und zu einer Rechtsunsicherheit, und mir waere keine Lizenz (PD, BSD o.ae.) lieber als eine Lizenz, die nur in einem Teil der Welt verbindlich ist. Eine Ungleichbehandlung kann nur vorliegen, wenn etwas wesentlich Gleiches ungleich behandelt wird. Wenn es weder Copyright, noch DB-Direktive gibt, dann ist es um den Rechtsstaat eines Landes offenbar nicht sonderlich gut bestellt. Staaten mit und ohne Rechtsstaat sind nicht wesentlich Gleich - obwohl es sich bei beiden um Staaten handelt. If this is of concern to you your only real alternative is to not make the database available ..ist dann schlüssig (und kein herumwinden) wenn man zum einen bejaht das man eine Lizenz (also kein PD) möchte, und zum anderen einsieht, dass es Ecken auf dieser Welt ohne Recht und Ordnung gibt, wo man ungestraft viel schlimmere Sachen treiben kann, als Datenbanken lizenzwidrig zu vermarkten. Gruß, Stefan ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Maxspeed map
So verkommt der maxspeed - tag zur Bedeutungslosigkeit weil jeder was neues dazu erfindet und die Anwendungen gar nicht so schnell hinterherkommen die neuen Tags zu erlernen um noch was sinnvolles damit anfangen zu können... Um so besser - dann entsteht wenigsten gar nicht erst der Eindruck, dass es in diesem Stadium des Projekts irgendwelche Kompatibilitätsgarantien bezüglich unseres Datenmodells gibt. Wenn man mit Beta-Software und -Daten arbeitet, muss man halt immer damit rechnen, dass sich was wichtiges ändert. Hast Du vor einen grossteil der Mapper die OSM gewonnen hat wieder zu vergraulen? Die meisten davon dürdten dabei sein um die Daten einsatzfähig zu machen und nicht um sie als programmiertechnische Spielwiese zu benutzen die man regelmässig platt macht um sie wieder anderst aufzubauen. Mapper werden dadurch nicht unbedingt verkrault, höchstens Datennutzer, die nicht damit leben können, ab und zu mal was ändern zu müssen. Und es ist ja auch nicht das gesamte Taggingschema, das sich ändert. Letztendlich sehe ich nur drei Möglichkeiten: - Man definiert von Anfang an ein gut durchdachtes Taggingschema und Datenmodell, dass möglichst schon alle Sonderfälle abdeckt und das rückwärtskompatibel erweiterbar ist. - Man lässt das Schema sich mit der Zeit entwickeln, besteht aber darauf, dass einmal eingeführte Features für immer gültig bleiben. - Man lässt das Schema sich mit der Zeit entwickeln, verbessert aber Fehler und nicht ganz ausgegorene Teile, und erklärt auch mal nicht benötigte Tags für obsolet. Das erste trifft bei uns offensichtlich nicht zu, das zweite führt letztendlich zu einem Chaos, das keiner mehr überblickt. -- Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release candidat e veröffentlicht
Hi, Stefan Schwan wrote: If this is of concern to you your only real alternative is to not make the database available ..ist dann schlüssig (und kein herumwinden) wenn man zum einen bejaht das man eine Lizenz (also kein PD) möchte, und zum anderen einsieht, dass es Ecken auf dieser Welt ohne Recht und Ordnung gibt, wo man ungestraft viel schlimmere Sachen treiben kann, als Datenbanken lizenzwidrig zu vermarkten. Ich habe halt den Eindruck, dass unsere Daten so durch die Hintertuer in reingewaschener Form auf sehr grosse Maerkte - z.B. die USA - gelangen koennen und dort lizenzfrei und ohne rechtliche Probleme beliebig weiterverwendet werden duerfen. Wenn es so waere, dass nur die Laender betroffen waeren, die sowieso Schurkenstaaten ohne funktionierendes Rechtssystem sind, waere es mir egal. Um die Tatsache, dass es mit dem Vertragskonstrukt - im Gegensatz zum Copyright-/DB-Recht-Konstrukt - moeglich sein koennte, unsere Lizenz beim Transit durch einen Schurkenstaat (*) wegzuwaschen und danach ein lizenzfreies, rechtlich einwandfreies Produkt in einem Land wie den USA zu haben, winden sich die ODC-Leute meiner Ansicht nach herum (mit den Worten naja, dann ist die Lizenz wenigstens noch Ausdruck dessen, was man gerne gehabt haette). Bye Frederik (*) Es braucht dazu nicht einmal einen Schurkenstaat. Es gibt bereits OSMer, die aus Protest angekuendigt haben, das Planetfile Vertragsabschluss-Klausel weiterzuverteilen. Dies waere zwar ein Lizenzverstoss, aber jeder Empfaenger eines solchen Planetfiles in einem Land ohne Datenbankrecht hat faktisch eine PD-Datei vor sich. Selbst wenn der, der gegen die Lizenz verstossen hat, deswegen vor Gericht gezerrt wird. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release candidat e veröffentlicht
Hallo, Frederik Ramm wrote: (*) Es braucht dazu nicht einmal einen Schurkenstaat. Es gibt bereits OSMer, die aus Protest angekuendigt haben, das Planetfile Vertragsabschluss-Klausel weiterzuverteilen. Dies waere zwar ein ^--- ohne Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] os bugs
hi. tja, die bugs bekomme ich ja von einer anderen quelle. mitja baut das aber gerade neu, evtl. kann er sowas noch einbauen. ciao gerhard On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 12:44 +0200, Jens Herrmann wrote: Gary68 wrote: aber: trotz des letzten rekords ein neuer höchststand bei den offenen bugs... Wobei anzumerken wäre dass es sich bei einem großen Teil davon gar nicht um bugs im eigentlichen Sinne handelt. Hier in meiner Gegend handelt es sich oft nur um Kommentare ala hier wird Ende 2009 umgebaut, siehe Zeitungsartikel soundso. Ich fände es sinnvoll wenn echte bugs von Kommentaren zukünftig unterschieden werden würden. Jens ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Maxspeed map
Am 30. April 2009 12:26 schrieb Mario Salvini salv...@t-online.de: Überall da wo highway=motorway ODER highway=trunk + motorroad=yes UND kein maxspeed-Tag gilt -- maxspeed=unlimited=no=none das gilt weiterhin auch überall dort, wo Du ausserorts baulich getrennte Spuren und keine explizite Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung hast, es muss sich dabei nicht um eine Kraftfahrstraße (und auch keine trunk in OSM) handeln. Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release candidat e veröffentlicht
Hallo, Am 30. April 2009 13:31 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Um die Tatsache, dass es mit dem Vertragskonstrukt - im Gegensatz zum Copyright-/DB-Recht-Konstrukt - moeglich sein koennte, unsere Lizenz beim Transit durch einen Schurkenstaat (*) wegzuwaschen und danach ein lizenzfreies, rechtlich einwandfreies Produkt in einem Land wie den USA zu haben, winden sich die ODC-Leute meiner Ansicht nach herum (mit den Worten naja, dann ist die Lizenz wenigstens noch Ausdruck dessen, was man gerne gehabt haette). Wenn ich morgen jemand auf meinem Fahrrad durch die Stadt fahren sehe, dann verlange ich das zurück - auch wenn der Fahrer nachweisen kann, dass er es aus dem Urlaub im Schurkenstaat mitgebracht, oder auf dem Flohmarkt gekauft hat. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass ein Datensatz, der auf diese Art reingewaschen wäre, wirklich ein rechlich einwandfreies Produkt darstellen würde, noch dazu in den USA - die viel beschworene Rechtssicherheit hätte man sicher nicht, wenn man sein Geschäft auf Hehlerware aufbaut. Gruß, Stefan ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] jOSM: java.lang.NullPointException
Moin, mit JOSM 1565 unter WinXP (und auch MacOSX) bekommt ich beim Hochladen einer größeren Bearbeitung einen Abbruch mit dem Fehler java.lang.NullPointException. Kleine Bearbeitungen kann ich nach wie vor hochladen. Ein Versuch mit der letzte JOSM Stable 1529 brachte auch einen Abbruch, aber diesmal als Serverfehler. Habe ich Bockmist beim Editieren gemacht, spinnt mein Java oder JOSM oder der Server? Danke für eure Hilfe. Raymond. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release candidat e veröffentlicht
Am 30. April 2009 09:02 schrieb Sven Anders s...@anders-hamburg.de: Führt vielleicht zu weit: Kann ich nicht eine ausgediente Bohrinsel irgendwo im Atlantik kaufen und dort mein eigenes Land mit eigenen Gesetzen ausrufen? im Prinzip ja, praktisch aber nicht so relevant, da Du für echte Souveränität ja auch von anderen Staaten anerkannt werden musst. Dafür könnte Dir z.B. Bevölkerung, Militär, wirtschaftliche Selbständigkeit usw. fehlen Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release candidat e veröffentlicht
Am 30. April 2009 13:11 schrieb Stefan Schwan stefan.sch...@googlemail.com: Wenn es weder Copyright, noch DB-Direktive gibt, dann ist es um den Rechtsstaat eines Landes offenbar nicht sonderlich gut bestellt. Das ist eine Ideologiefrage, die obige Aussage kann man m.E. so nicht stehen lassen. Weder das copyright noch irgendwelche DB-Direktiven sind naturgegebene Gesetze, und es ist nicht gesagt, dass die Welt mit diesen Gesetzen besser lebt als ohne. Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] jOSM: java.lang.NullPointException
Raimond Spekking schrieb: Moin, mit JOSM 1565 unter WinXP (und auch MacOSX) bekommt ich beim Hochladen einer größeren Bearbeitung einen Abbruch mit dem Fehler java.lang.NullPointException. Kleine Bearbeitungen kann ich nach wie vor hochladen. Ein Versuch mit der letzte JOSM Stable 1529 brachte auch einen Abbruch, aber diesmal als Serverfehler. Habe ich Bockmist beim Editieren gemacht, spinnt mein Java oder JOSM oder der Server? Danke für eure Hilfe. Raymond. kann es sein, dass der Fehler kommt wenn man Nodes gelöscht hat? ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] web stat www.gary68.de
hi, mal ein paar daten, wen's interessiert: - die web site hat diesen monat ~10GB transfer gehabt - unangefochten interessieren sich die meisten leute für die slippy mit den unmapped places (246 hits) - danach kommen diesen monat die relation checks (215) - relation diffs (170) - oberpfalz stat (160 hits mit 60% traffic, aha!) - dann kommen die bug sammlung als gpx bzw. als extrakt (79, 67, 54) - und das perl modul osm.pm kommt auf 60 hits - ob's doch jemand gebrauchen kann? :-) naja, und dann geht es eben so weiter. ps: hier geht es zu den ganzen daten: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Gary68 viel spaß weiterhin! gerhard gary68 ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Aufkleber?
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: das stimmt nicht. Siebdruck ist nicht nur schöner, sondern auch deutlich aufwendiger (man braucht ein Sieb für jede Farbe), man kann dafür aber richtig gute Farbe benutzen, die perfekt wasserfest und UV-resistent ist und daher weder ausbleicht noch verwäscht etc. Bei größeren Stückzahlen relativiert sich der Preis für die Herstellung der Siebe, allerdings bleibt nach wie vor der Aufwand, dass man die Farben alle hintereinander drucken muss. Die meisten Dienstleister bieten Oberflächenversiegelung für wasserfest und UV-Resistenz an, heutzutage muss das nicht immer in der Farbe stecken, sondern kann auch draufgepappt werden. Es ist halt eine Frage des Sinnes, ob man einen TOP-Aufkleber oder 5 NAJA-Aufkleber für 50 Cent kaufen will. Für 50 Cent pro Aufkleber nehme ich mir Hochglanz-Aufkleberfolie und drucke mir die Dinger selber. Da habe ich einen Stückpreis von 3-5 Cent mit Druck und haue dann Permanent-Spray drüber. Wenn ein Dienstleister sagt, dass zwei verschiedene Designs mit gleicher Größer unterschiedlich teuer sind (und die Farbigkeit nicht komplett unterschiedlich ist), dann sollte man ihn wechseln. m.E. ist das eher ein Argument dafür, dass er sorgfältig arbeit und den Mehraufwand daher auch hat. Kommt wie gesagt aufs Druckverfahren an. Klar, Mehraufwand ... er muss zwei Dateien laden. Supi. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release candidat e veröffentlicht
Hallo, Stefan Schwan wrote: Wenn ich morgen jemand auf meinem Fahrrad durch die Stadt fahren sehe, dann verlange ich das zurück - auch wenn der Fahrer nachweisen kann, dass er es aus dem Urlaub im Schurkenstaat mitgebracht, oder auf dem Flohmarkt gekauft hat. Da hast Du das Gesetz auf Deiner Seite, denn man kann kein Eigentum an Diebesgut erwerben (BGB §935). Waere das nicht gesetzlich so geregelt, dann waere es von Dir auch nicht rechtmaessig, Dein Fahrrad vom jetzigen Fahrer zurueckzuverlangen - Du muesstest den Mittelsmann auf Ersatz verklagen. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass ein Datensatz, der auf diese Art reingewaschen wäre, wirklich ein rechlich einwandfreies Produkt darstellen würde, noch dazu in den USA - die viel beschworene Rechtssicherheit hätte man sicher nicht, wenn man sein Geschäft auf Hehlerware aufbaut. Wie gesagt, das mit der Hehlerware ist extra gesetzlich so geregelt. Ich sehe in unserem Fall eher eine Parallele zu den sogenannten Grauimporten: Da ist ein Hersteller, der verkauft ein Produkt an einen Grosshaendler unter bestimmten vertraglichen Auflagen (nur fuer den Vertrieb in der Mongolei). Dieser Grosshaendler verstoesst gegen seinen Vertrag und verkauft die Ware hier in Deutschland. Wenn ich als Kunde die Ware hier kaufe, dann habe vor dem Gesetz ich genau die gleichen Rechte, als haette ich eine vom Hersteller fuer Deutschland vorgesehene Ware gekauft. Wenn Sony ploetzlich zu mir kommt und sagt: Sorry, dieser Fernseher war nur fuer die Mongolei, geben Sie den wieder her, dann sage ich: Euer Problem, ich habe den legal erworben. - Und das Gesetz ist auf meiner Seite. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release can didate veröffentlicht
Moin Frederik, * Die Sache mit dem oder eine neuere Version der Lizenz wurde insofern praezisiert, als dass da nun steht eine neuere Version, die dem Geiste dieser Lizenz entspricht; warum macht man dort denselben Fehler wie in der gfdl? Diese any- later-Klausel ist im deutschen (auch CH und A) Rechtsraum böse umstritten, da hierzulande vermutlich sittenwidrig. Siehe diverse Diskussionen im Zusammenhang mit der geplanten Lizenzumstellung in der Wikipedia. anderer Ansicht; ich finde, das fuehrt zu einer Ungleichbehandlung von Nutzern in verschiedenen Laendern und zu einer Rechtsunsicherheit, und mir waere keine Lizenz (PD, BSD o.ae.) lieber als eine Lizenz, die nur in einem Teil der Welt verbindlich ist. ack Rainer (der die Originaldiskussionen mangels ausreichender Englischkenntnisse nicht verfolgen kann) -- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release can didate veröffentlicht
Hallo, Rainer Knaepper wrote: * Die Sache mit dem oder eine neuere Version der Lizenz wurde insofern praezisiert, als dass da nun steht eine neuere Version, die dem Geiste dieser Lizenz entspricht; warum macht man dort denselben Fehler wie in der gfdl? Diese any- later-Klausel ist im deutschen (auch CH und A) Rechtsraum böse umstritten, da hierzulande vermutlich sittenwidrig. Siehe diverse Diskussionen im Zusammenhang mit der geplanten Lizenzumstellung in der Wikipedia. Ich denke mal, man wird sich gedacht haben, ohne geht's nicht. OSM und ueberhaupt der ganze Bereich Geodaten und Open Data entwickeln sich sehr schnell; es gibt keine existierende, verlaessliche Lizenz, die man einfach nehmen koennte. Man bastelt also eine eigene. Aber es kann als sicher gelten, dass es keine zwei Jahre dauert, bis man irgendeinen Fehler findet, oder bis sich die technische oder rechtliche Umgebung so veraendert hat, dass man reagieren muss. Es waere illusorisch (und un-OSM-like), dies alles voraussehen zu wollen. Daher muss man sich eine Hintertuer auflassen, oder man hat den ganzen Relizensierungs-Aerger (bei dem man die Daten von allen verliert, die nicht mehr erreichbar sind usw.) alle paar Jahre aufs neue! Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Autobahnauffahrt
Am 30. April 2009 10:23 schrieb Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Die hellsehende Anwendung als Lösung aller Probleme, prima. Einfacher wäre es vielleicht, das existierende Abbiegeverbot auch einzutragen. Dann gibts nämlich kein Gerate mehr, sondern eine klare Aussage: hier nicht reinfahren. Sogar dann, wenn jemand für die subjektive Verbesserung der optischen Darstellung einen Node etwas verschiebt und damit unbewusst eine winkelbasierende Abbiegebeschränkung aufgehoben hätte. Ja, natürlich ist es besser, es explizit per restriction anzugeben - nur schein das Gary dann wieder zu aufwändig zu sein. Wie alles außer dem doppelt zeichnen einer Fahrbahn. Gruß, Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: ODbL 1.0 release can didate veröffentlicht
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Alles in allem scheint mir diese 1.0-Version eine vernuenftige Weiterentwicklung auf dem ODbL-Weg zu sein - wenn man den Weg denn ueberhaupt insgesamt fuer den richtigen haelt. Ich finde das alles komplett überbewertet, solange nicht klar ist, ob unsere Daten überhaupt urheberrechtlich geschützt sind. a) Sie sind geschütztm dann darf derjenige Anwender bei dem die ODbL nicht gilt, eh nicht machen was er will. Die Nutzung der Daten sowie die Vervielfältigung wurde nämlich nur dem Herausgeber bzw. Betreiber der OSM-Datenbank unter ODbL erteilt - nicht direkt dem Anwender. b) Sie sind nicht geschützt, dann ist es für uns Anwender wurscht. Wir haben keinerlei Rechte an den Daten und schenken sie freiwillig an den Betreiber der Datenbank. Diese Datenbank kann dann unter der Lizenz einer Wahl stehen, nehmen wir ruhig die ODbL. Wir haben keinerlei Mitspracherecht, außer natürlich auf Kulanzbasis. Bislang wurde ja immer von a ausgegangen, von dem ich ja auch ein Vertreter bin. Allerdings sehe ich hier kein Problem, wenn die ODbL irgendwo ungültig werden sollte. Wenn man ein Urheberrecht darauf habe, gilt es weltweit (Welturh.abkommen, WTC, WIPO etc.). ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
