[OSM-legal-talk] Software using open street map data and Licensing model / restrictions
Frederik Ramm wrote: Anything you produce from OSM data must be CC-BY-SA licensed (e.g. if you compile OSM data into some special compressed map format for your application then these special compressed files must by CC-BY-SA). If you mix OSM data with someting else into an end product then that end product must also be CC-BY-SA. If your application displays OSM data loaded from file 1 and proprietary data loaded from file 2, then you can keep the licenses separate. I have a similar question to the OP. I want to mix in OSM POI data in my (free) iphone app database, which also collects POI-like data from users and (if I import the OSM data), users can add ratings / descriptions / arbitrary tags based on the original OSM POI (so clearly 'derived'). My intention is for the data collected (entries, ratings, tags) to be open and CC-BY-SA in the same spirit as OSM and to make DB dumps etc available, minus identifying info for users. The question is does it matter which version of CC-BY-SA I pick, and indeed if every entry in my DB has to be under the same CC-BY-SA license, in order to be compatible with OSM. The reason for asking is that osm currently uses an older CC license and I'd prefer to use the latest version unless it causes problems. Reading the CC license, it says derived works must be under the 'same or similar' license, so the spirit certainly doesn't seem to be to tie to the exact same version. I'm not trying to restrict the use of the data in any commercial way, just want to use the latest CC license if I can. At the same time, I want any data collected by the app to be usable by OSM, so that it can be shared back in case it turns out to be useful (e.g. I collect new fixes for existing POIs, and I may potentially get new POIs that OSM hasn't got already). So I don't want to pick a license version that prevents that. The app is already out there, but initially I have been vague about the exact CC-BY-SA license version used. In any case, I don't use any OSM data yet, but would like to start importing it soon. For the collective DB I am using the open database license as it looks well thought out to me, and I also understand that is where OSM is headed - this also seems to potentially allow for using slightly different licenses per individual content. A description of the app and the mention of the data being open is here http://appshopper.com/travel/word-on-the-street or here on itunes http://itunes.com/apps/wordonthestreet Regards, Frank ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
Stephen Hope wrote: 2009/8/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: I believe the best way to solve this is to create a new top-level (that is, highway) value for all variants of conveyor transport. [...] Is this intended to be only for human transport? I know of some quite lengthy conveyors for goods - eg coal, grain etc. There's two main types, belt and screw, and I've seen a mix of both. Escalators and travelators are both belt conveyors. I don't know if we want to try and differentiate for goods use, or just lump them together under something like conveyor=goods, type = grain/coal/gravel/etc. We certainly want to make it easy for routing programs to differentiate between goods and human ones. Using the same top level tag (e.g. highway=conveyor) would only make sense if applications could use both the same way, and I don't believe there are apps that can. Routers don't need conveyors for goods for their calculations, and a rendered map displaying it like a pedestrian conveyor transport would certainly irritate users. So using the same tag would only result in making evaluating (and tagging) the conveyor=* tag required. Therefore, I'd prefer to restrict highway=conveyor to human transport (or human+bicycle or some kind of vehicle, if this exists somewhere, by using access tags) and use a separate top level tag for goods - for example man_made=conveyor. Maybe it would be better to use different values, too, such as goods_conveyor vs. human_conveyor*? Tobias Knerr * I'm not sure whether this is a name at all, maybe someone is more creative... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
--- On Sun, 23/8/09, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Using the same top level tag (e.g. highway=conveyor) would only make sense if applications could use both the same way, and I don't believe there are apps that can. Routers don't need conveyors for goods for their calculations, and a rendered map displaying it like a pedestrian conveyor transport would certainly irritate users. So using the same tag would only result in making evaluating (and tagging) the conveyor=* tag required. Which already happens with those pushing path tags instead of footway etc... highway=path, foot=designated... So I don't see that as a good enough reason to have multiple highway tags. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
John Smith wrote So using the same tag would only result in making evaluating (and tagging) the conveyor=* tag required. Which already happens with those pushing path tags instead of footway etc... highway=path, foot=designated... No, it doesn't happen there. Evaluating access tags is already necessary for highway=footway, too (bicycle=yes etc.), so path doesn't require evaluating additional tagging. So I don't see that as a good enough reason to have multiple highway tags. Nobody suggested multiple highway tags. The highway tag currently only contains features that are relevant for routing pedestrians or vehicles, and I prefer it to stay like that. Things like pipelines or goods conveyors don't belong into this category. What's the disadvantage of using highway=conveyor and man_made=conveyor for human vs goods conveyors? If there isn't any, then how can a reason not be good enough to do it? Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
--- On Sun, 23/8/09, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: No, it doesn't happen there. Evaluating access tags is already necessary for highway=footway, too (bicycle=yes etc.), so path doesn't require evaluating additional tagging. Not according to the osm-template.xml... http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/rendering/mapnik/osm-template.xml Specifically: ([highway] = 'footway' or ([highway] = 'path' and [foot] = 'designated')) So I'd say it does... What's the disadvantage of using highway=conveyor and man_made=conveyor for human vs goods conveyors? If there isn't any, then how can a reason not be good enough to do it? Because someone, most likely more than just someone, some where will mix these up and you will end up with a mess just like some of the other ambiguous tags cause. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Awards
There are plenty of unnamed streets on the map - where in the real world no name has been assigned by the local authority. We could name those streets after top OSM contributors. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down
I am not an architect (!) and didn't know there was a convention for steps. So I expect 50% of my steps are wrong as I have always simply mapped them in the direction of (my) travel (:). If everyone agrees that the architects' convention should be adopted, could we document this? It seems to have been left open on the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Steps . Elevation-derived tagging is rarely possible on steps as the elevation difference is usually small compared with the typical GPS vertical error. But the existence of steps will be important for many users - cyclists, wheelchairs, etc. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 22 August 2009 13:22 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down 2009/8/22 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: I'm with Martin on this one - up/down is better than nothing and is useful in its own right on steps for example. actually I wrote that it's IMHO not needed for steps: I draw them from down to up, they already have their direction. This is IMHO the natural way of doing it (as it is done like this worldwide in architecture, and I'm an architect ;-) ). I don't see much of a benefit for ways either, but I agree that ele-nodes have their own problems, and therefore the incline-tag on ways could at least indicate some kind of inclination (probably you could use this in hilly city centres, where SRTM is not sufficient, to avoid inclinations on bike or something like this). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
Could I ask the architects whether their down-to-up convention applies to escalators as well (cf. current discussion on 'steps') - given that they are moving steps - or only to up-escalators (;) ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Peter Childs [mailto:pchi...@bcs.org] Sent: 22 August 2009 16:23 To: OSM-Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Escalator I'm trying to work out how to tag Escalators I'm not sure the current tagging it clear, or even partially useful. This ties in Greatly with the long running Path discussion.. There seams to be no clear way to tag Moving Walkways or Travelators these are Esclators without steps, so the current tagging steps with an extra tag just does not work, spouse you could tag a path, but that just makes it worse. one_way would seam to make as much sence as escalator_dir currently, and maybe this could be unified. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Awards
Hi, Am Sonntag 23 August 2009 schrieb Ed Avis: There are plenty of unnamed streets on the map - where in the real world no name has been assigned by the local authority. We could name those streets after top OSM contributors. Sounds like a perfect idea to cause confusion. The whole idea of maps is to represent the real worls a precise as possible. Till ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Awards
Nice idea, but I really wouldn't want to see OSM data polluted / innaccurate. It would set a precedent. Unless of course we force that user to stay on that street (then we would just be mapping what we see on the ground):P Regards, Brendan Barrett -- From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:13 AM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Awards There are plenty of unnamed streets on the map - where in the real world no name has been assigned by the local authority. We could name those streets after top OSM contributors. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ 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] Awards
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Till Harbaum / Lists wrote: Sounds like a perfect idea to cause confusion. The whole idea of maps is to represent the real world a precise as possible. I'd have to put another point of view here. Because I have spent a weekend without OSM, I've been reading books and it can be argued that the whole purpose of a map is to show what someone wants it to show, usually someone representing authority. You have to make compromises to put a (almost) spherical object on a flat plane, and 'precision' is not part of a Mercator projection. Mercator's projection was for the purpose of calculating direction of travel, in particular for seafarers. http://odtmaps.com/ will show you a few different projections quickly, to expand your horizons. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
Hello, I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop Unfortunately, when the page was first created, it was mistakenly put directly under the root namespace, instead of Proposed_features/. Before moving it and starting the usual Voting period, I'd like to trigger discussion here -- maybe it's ok for everyone and we can keep it where it is now ;-) The rationale for this is: there are different usages of highway=stop, and none of them are correct. The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) Consequent to this, I previously adopted the habit to put a highway=stop node *before* the junction, on a separate node (on the same way, obviously), for each of the streets having it. I believe this is a bit complicated for routing services -- let me give an example. Imagine we have Foo Road intersecting Bar Avenue -- and Foo Road has stops on both sides of the junction, on separate nodes. This is what routing softwares (I believe) will say: Go straight on Foo Road, then stop, continue on Foo Road, then pass the junction with Bar Avenue, go on Foo Road, stop, continue on Foo Road This is obviously wrong. Yes, we could link those stops with the junction in a relation -- but adopting a proper Key:stop stop seems *much* cleaner to me. Also, TagWatch shows some usage of this tag in Europe: http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/keystats_stop.html (not commits by me, I found this yesterday :-) -- I'm hijacking this proposal due to lack of time of the original maintainer) Ideas? Comments? Flames? :-) Please also tell me if I need to move the page into a proper template under Proposed_features. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Awards
Hi, Am Sonntag 23 August 2009 schrieb Liz: plane, and 'precision' is not part of a Mercator projection. Mercator's projection was for the purpose of calculating direction of travel, in particular for seafarers. a) osm by itself does not have a projection. It's the maps that project the osm data b) mercartor is as precise as possible with repect to directions. Sure, a map cannot be perfect and you have to select those aspects that are important for your particular application (be it angles or distances or just the selection of objects you show). But that all doesn't give us a reason to add artificial, misleading and useless information to the osm maps. Till ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - incline up down
Mike Harris wrote: If everyone agrees that the architects' convention should be adopted, could we document this? Even if people on the mailing list agree, most mappers will still not know about the convention. There will be no way to distinguish the steps of those who do know it from those who don't. Is there any realistic chance of reaching a situation where almost all steps will point in the same direction? It would at least require every editor to unambiguously convey the directionality of steps and its meaning - an entry in the wiki will not be read by someone using that seemingly obvious steps preset. Personally, I still think adding that little incline=up tag would be worth the effort... Tobias Knerr PS: How about adopting inline quoting for your mails to the list? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Awards
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Till Harbaum / Lists wrote: But that all doesn't give us a reason to add artificial, misleading and useless information to the osm maps. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_Easter_Eggs -- BOFH excuse #233: TCP/IP UDP alarm threshold is set too low. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Awards
While there may be easter eggs in OSM added by some users... I was of the opinion that we do not do this in OSM. I've advised anyone i've ever spoken to on the topic not to put easter eggs into OSM. I was under the impression that the data itself was easy enough to compare to a copy. The use of easter eggs is also questionable. We seem to be going through great lengths to eradicate problems caused by easter eggs (I think there was a forum post relating to roads in Australian commercial maps), why put them into our database when their value is questionable? Either way, I don't think that easter eggs justify willfully adding fake data to the map. I couldn't be bothered if someone wanted to take a copy of the OSM data, and provide their own modifications in a rendered version, but to put this data into the main OSM database should be discouraged wherever possible. Also, is there not a risk of every newbie wanting their own road? Where do we draw the line? Regards, Brendan Barrett -- From: Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:18 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Awards On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Till Harbaum / Lists wrote: But that all doesn't give us a reason to add artificial, misleading and useless information to the osm maps. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_Easter_Eggs -- BOFH excuse #233: TCP/IP UDP alarm threshold is set too low. ___ 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] Awards
--- On Sun, 23/8/09, Till Harbaum / Lists li...@harbaum.org wrote: Am Sonntag 23 August 2009 schrieb Ed Avis: There are plenty of unnamed streets on the map - where in the real world no name has been assigned by the local authority. We could name those streets after top OSM contributors. Sounds like a perfect idea to cause confusion. The whole idea of maps is to represent the real worls a precise as possible. If the streets aren't named, you could put name suggestions forward to the local authority to get them named so then the map would match reality :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) They are countries where intersections have a stop sign to all ways. The sign is maybe not in the middle of the junction but the rule applies for all ways and I would say tagging the intersection node in this particular case is correct. It's not because you didn't see one of them to say it is incorrect usage. Imagine we have Foo Road intersecting Bar Avenue -- and Foo Road has stops on both sides of the junction, on separate nodes. This is what routing softwares (I believe) will say: Go straight on Foo Road, then stop, continue on Foo Road, then pass the junction with Bar Avenue, go on Foo Road, stop, continue on Foo Road This is obviously wrong. In your case, it's more a bug in the software that is not able to interpret the topology of the intersection. If the stop nodes are very closed to the intersection, it's easy to find out on which intersection the rule applies. In special cases or complex intersections, I would rather create a relation as it is already proposed on the wiki. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Awards
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:40 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: If the streets aren't named, you could put name suggestions forward to the local authority to get them named so then the map would match reality :) If streets aren't named, use one of the noname tags : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Noname Everything else is just spamming for reward. That's the risk about rewards, someone may choose quantity vs quality. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Max recommended size for multipolygon relation?
John Smith wrote: Apparently there is a 1000 member per relation limit. Not true. -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
[...] This is obviously wrong. Yes, we could link those stops with the junction in a relation -- but adopting a proper Key:stop stop seems *much* cleaner to me. [...] Yes, the highway=stop is not a good solution. However, I prefer the suggested relation instead. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop Konrad ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GSoC End: signFinder
Round here (south Nottingham, uk) black on white, with post codes and council name in red. In the city itself most are black on white, with some old ones white on black. On 8/20/09, Łukasz Jernaś deej...@srem.org wrote: Poland, Greater Poland : White on blue and black on white. It can be different even in the same city... Regards, -- Łukasz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Sent from my mobile device ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Awards
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote: http://odtmaps.com/ will show you a few different projections quickly, to expand your horizons. I prefer the Peter's projection. Cheers, Adam ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
2009/8/23 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com: Could I ask the architects whether their down-to-up convention applies to escalators as well (cf. current discussion on 'steps') - given that they are moving steps - or only to up-escalators (;) ... Also steps where a One-Way System applies (even on Steps) (Due to local regulations ie School Rules, Que etc) I think this is the perfect use of incline, (see other thread) Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GSoC End: signFinder
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Kev js1982 wrote: Round here (south Nottingham, uk) black on white, with post codes and council name in red. In the city itself most are black on white, with some old ones white on black. Could anyone that actually knows `localized' streetsigns maybe provide them lets say at least 20 of them, pushing them to openstreetphoto or in private mail to Tijs or me? Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:46:35 +0200, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) They are countries where intersections have a stop sign to all ways. Then just add stop=yes to all ways (or stop=both, or -1, whatever applies). However, I can't understand how a stop sign to all ways is in any way different from no sign at any way. Could you please explain this? The sign is maybe not in the middle of the junction but the rule applies for all ways and I would say tagging the intersection node in this particular case is correct. It's not because you didn't see one of them to say it is incorrect usage. Sure, but then highway=stop would only be useful in these kind of junctions! (and I've seen none yet) Imagine we have Foo Road intersecting Bar Avenue -- and Foo Road has stops on both sides of the junction, on separate nodes. This is what routing softwares (I believe) will say: Go straight on Foo Road, then stop, continue on Foo Road, then pass the junction with Bar Avenue, go on Foo Road, stop, continue on Foo Road This is obviously wrong. In your case, it's more a bug in the software that is not able to interpret the topology of the intersection. Fair enough. If the stop nodes are very closed to the intersection, it's easy to find out on which intersection the rule applies. How much close do you put the node to the intersection? That's arbitrary -- and I don't personally like that much :-) In special cases or complex intersections, I would rather create a relation as it is already proposed on the wiki. Still I believe a tag for involved ways would be much better than any kind of relation. Since junctions are composed of streets, tagging the streets on which you read a stop sign with stop=* doesn't add much complexity. Sure, it would then be software's duty to understand the tag. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: David Paleino wrote: I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. How about adding forward/backward information to each stop sign node instead? Would depend on way direction, of course, but as the stop nodes would be placed on single ways rather than intersections, it would be possible. Is there a reason why you didn't choose this approach? Read my reply to Pieren: how close you put the stop sign to the effective junction is pretty arbitrary, that's why I'm trying to abandon my established way of mapping those. Thanks for your reply, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:17:02 +0200, Konrad Skeri wrote: [...] This is obviously wrong. Yes, we could link those stops with the junction in a relation -- but adopting a proper Key:stop stop seems *much* cleaner to me. [...] Yes, the highway=stop is not a good solution. However, I prefer the suggested relation instead. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop I've read the both the wiki and the talk page, and saw no gain over simple tagging, while still adding the burden of maintaining yet-another-relation-type. The talk page also features a comment by Eimai, Easier method?, which is basically the same as Key:stop. As I wrote there, I still see no difference when talking about the right_of_way of the crossing road. Also, according to Tagwatch, it's less used than Key:stop. But since we're discussing it, I'm open to any comment :-) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: David Paleino wrote: I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. How about adding forward/backward information to each stop sign node instead? Would depend on way direction, of course, but as the stop nodes would be placed on single ways rather than intersections, it would be possible. Is there a reason why you didn't choose this approach? Read my reply to Pieren: how close you put the stop sign to the effective junction is pretty arbitrary, that's why I'm trying to abandon my established way of mapping those. Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is physically located? Nothing arbitrary about that. You can measure the distance from the stop line to the centre of the junction of you want. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: David Paleino wrote: I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. How about adding forward/backward information to each stop sign node instead? Would depend on way direction, of course, but as the stop nodes would be placed on single ways rather than intersections, it would be possible. Is there a reason why you didn't choose this approach? Read my reply to Pieren: how close you put the stop sign to the effective junction is pretty arbitrary, that's why I'm trying to abandon my established way of mapping those. Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is physically located? Nothing arbitrary about that. You can measure the distance from the stop line to the centre of the junction of you want. You'd still need some kind of relationship for that to be effective (i.e. to relate the highway=stop to the junction node) -- and AFAICT typical consumer GPS units aren't that precise. (btw, that's what I've done until now, taking waypoints where stop signs/lines physically were) David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 23/08/2009 17:15, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote: Read my reply to Pieren: how close you put the stop sign to the effective junction is pretty arbitrary, that's why I'm trying to abandon my established way of mapping those. Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is physically located? Nothing arbitrary about that. You can measure the distance from the stop line to the centre of the junction of you want. You'd still need some kind of relationship for that to be effective (i.e. to relate the highway=stop to the junction node) -- and AFAICT typical consumer GPS units aren't that precise. Why is it necessary to relate the highway=stop to the junction node? Isn't it obvious that if a highway=stop is within a few metres of a junction, then its part of the same junction. It shouldn't affect routing software etc anyway. And it doesn't have to be very precise. Its easy to estimate the width of a road, and how far away from the road edge the stop line is. (and on a related note, is there any of mapping advanced stop lines (for cyclists etc)?) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:48:58 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: On 23/08/2009 17:15, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is physically located? Nothing arbitrary about that. You can measure the distance from the stop line to the centre of the junction of you want. You'd still need some kind of relationship for that to be effective (i.e. to relate the highway=stop to the junction node) -- and AFAICT typical consumer GPS units aren't that precise. Why is it necessary to relate the highway=stop to the junction node? Isn't it obvious that if a highway=stop is within a few metres of a junction, then its part of the same junction. It shouldn't affect routing software etc anyway. Well, one thing I could think of is short roads ~10m long or so. I've seen quite of these, but fortunately none of them had a stop sign -- with the current GPS accuracy (3m for my unit, at least nominally) it would've been a problem taking a waypoint for a stop sign placed there. Am I totally wrong/biased? :-) (just out of curiosity: I've also seen roads 4-5m long) And it doesn't have to be very precise. Its easy to estimate the width of a road, and how far away from the road edge the stop line is. If we were to use highway=stop, it should be *on* the way (part of it), not on one side. (and on a related note, is there any of mapping advanced stop lines (for cyclists etc)?) I believe not, but we could easily adapt highway=stop for this. Still, if we deprecate it, we should think at something else :-) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On 23/08/2009 18:09, David Paleino wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:48:58 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: Why is it necessary to relate the highway=stop to the junction node? Isn't it obvious that if a highway=stop is within a few metres of a junction, then its part of the same junction. It shouldn't affect routing software etc anyway. Well, one thing I could think of is short roads ~10m long or so. I've seen quite of these, but fortunately none of them had a stop sign -- with the current GPS accuracy (3m for my unit, at least nominally) it would've been a problem taking a waypoint for a stop sign placed there. Am I totally wrong/biased? :-) (just out of curiosity: I've also seen roads 4-5m long) I think for things like this, the relative position is more important than the absolute accuracy. eg its more useful to know the stop sign is 5m away from the centre of the junction in this direction, than it is to know the its exact latitude and longitude. So instead of just marking a waypoint, you can measure/estimate the relative distances on the ground, and note them down. Or what I usually do is just take a photo (and geotag it), then I can estimate the distances from that later. And it doesn't have to be very precise. Its easy to estimate the width of a road, and how far away from the road edge the stop line is. If we were to use highway=stop, it should be *on* the way (part of it), not on one side. Sorry, I meant how far away from the edge of the 'other' road, ie the one going across the junction. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Maps-l] using default country name
Peter Körner wrote: Maarten Deen schrieb: They tell you that the translation in the given language is identical to the value of the name=* tag. If you see the name-Tag as a fallback for a missing name:xx-tag (what you should), those pseudo-translations are needless. I'm currently in a discussion with Marc Schütz (search through the mails of the last days) if deleting them is a good or a bad thing. I have read the above mentioned discussion[1] (unfortunately it is spread among two mailing lists) and I have two additional points to make: (1) Default tags can be changed. We should remember that default tags can be edited by somebody later and they will no longer be good for other languages. (2) There is some inconsistency in default tags. Sometimes it's the English name, sometimes it's written in the Latin alphabet, local alphabet (e.g. Arabic) or both. I think Iran is spelt in Arabic, Comoros are spelt in both. Some people say Burma, some say Myanmar for various reasons. I think having explicit name:xx tags even if *at the given moment of time* it's the same as the default. That's said, I have added name:pl to Polska even thought it is the default name, too. Therefore having name:de == Deutschland is perfectly fine. In this case it actually indicates that the local official language is Hochdeutsch (de or de_DE). Therefore I would propose to remove orange tags from the utility - such name will be either italic or orange and never normal. Both carry notion of something being wrong with the name. I actually wonder if the default tag is the right thing to have altogether. Probably better might be to use some fallback order (say, en,de,ru to be very European-centric) and displaying the name in italic in OSM (meaning fallback language applied). Some more intelligent fallback mechanism could be applied in the future (using user's browser preferences for example): - Browser says Accept-Language: zh;q=1.0, ja;q=0.2, en;q=0.1 - this means I understand Chinese (say Mandarin) and a bit of Japanese and some tiny English. For more details on that see RFC2616[2]. - The webserver sees that there is no name:zh but there are name:en and name:ja. This user indicates it prefers Japanese to English. Actually in this case Japanese is much better option for the users since there are chances that the kanji spelling will be the same as Chinese, like, for example, 中国 (same in the Japan language and simplified notation of Chinese). But this would require on-demand application of the negotiated labels on the map and this technically might not be easy to be done in a feasible name (it would be difficult to create pre-generated tiles for different sets of user preferences). [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap/39745/focus=39900 [2]http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html -- Marcin Cieslak // sa...@saper.info ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Maps-l] using default country name
I have read the above mentioned discussion[1] (unfortunately it is spread among two mailing lists) Sorry for that. (1) Default tags can be changed. We should remember that default tags can be edited by somebody later and they will no longer be good for other languages. This will mark all all uses of the default name as not ok (in any language) (2) There is some inconsistency in default tags. Sometimes it's the English name, sometimes it's written in the Latin alphabet, local alphabet (e.g. Arabic) or both. I think Iran is spelt in Arabic, Comoros are spelt in both. Some people say Burma, some say Myanmar for various reasons. Yes, that's true. The default name should be how the name is spelled in this country (just as it is with city- and street-names). If there are two major languages in this country, both should be supplied. I think having explicit name:xx tags even if *at the given moment of time* it's the same as the default. That's said, I have added name:pl to Polska even thought it is the default name, too. Therefore having name:de == Deutschland is perfectly fine. In this case it actually indicates that the local official language is Hochdeutsch (de or de_DE). There is afaik no difference of in the spilling of Deutschland within all de_*-languages, only in pronunciation, but if there would be on, it would be adequate to add them as de_DE, de_XX, .. Therefore I would propose to remove orange tags from the utility - such name will be either italic or orange and never normal. Both carry notion of something being wrong with the name. This is a long-going discussion. In my eyes, duplication of data is *always* a bad thing, just as having different rules for similar things (see discussion on the list for that point). having the value of the name-Tag duplicated in a name:xx-tag is, in my eyes not a bad thing, bus it is also unnecessary. So removing them is ok, even if it is not specially recommended. If the case changed (e.g. the default name get's changed) it's up to an external tool / the user, to clean this up (this is easy with the mentioned tool). I actually wonder if the default tag is the right thing to have altogether. Probably better might be to use some fallback order (say, en,de,ru to be very European-centric) and displaying the name in italic in OSM (meaning fallback language applied). I don't think this should/could be applied to a world-wide system. Some more intelligent fallback mechanism could be applied in the future (using user's browser preferences for example): You're talking about the maps now, right? Not about the tool, are you? - Browser says Accept-Language: zh;q=1.0, ja;q=0.2, en;q=0.1 - this means I understand Chinese (say Mandarin) and a bit of Japanese and some tiny English. For more details on that see RFC2616[2]. - The webserver sees that there is no name:zh but there are name:en and name:ja. This user indicates it prefers Japanese to English. Actually in this case Japanese is much better option for the users since there are chances that the kanji spelling will be the same as Chinese, like, for example, 中国 (same in the Japan language and simplified notation of Chinese). But this would require on-demand application of the negotiated labels on the map and this technically might not be easy to be done in a feasible name (it would be difficult to create pre-generated tiles for different sets of user preferences). We could have a map, deciding which language to display by the Accept-Language-header. But this decision would then be for the whole map as one. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Tobias Knerro...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Nobody suggested multiple highway tags. The highway tag currently only contains features that are relevant for routing pedestrians or vehicles, and I prefer it to stay like that. Things like pipelines or goods conveyors don't belong into this category. +1 What's the disadvantage of using highway=conveyor and man_made=conveyor for human vs goods conveyors? If there isn't any, then how can a reason not be good enough to do it? Sounds good to me. Not sure what John means - I think this is less ambiguous than having the same tag (highway=conveyor) mean two different things. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging continuous flow intersections
Hello, I'm having some issues with the tagging of the so-called CFI -- continuous flow intersections. These are junctions, often (if not always!) regulated by traffic signals, where vehicles in a particular lane can freely go into one specified direction, disregarding the indication of the traffic signals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_flow_intersection http://imagebin.ca/view/SjGkG4.html (sorry for the second link, don't blame me for my talent :-P) Surely I'd put an highway=traffic_signals on the junction node, but how to tag continuous flows? Sorry for not being clearer, please ask if you want/need more details. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. First impression: the value of the tag is extremely ambiguous, and in no way self-explanatory. I don't like it at all. The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) I don't see a problem with this. As far as I'm concerned, highway=stop does not represent a particular stop *sign*, but rather the effect of the stop sign - i.e. the fact that vehicles must stop before proceeding through the intersecting node. Consequent to this, I previously adopted the habit to put a highway=stop node *before* the junction, on a separate node (on the same way, obviously), for each of the streets having it. I don't like this, because before is arbitrary. If the stop requirement applies to the intersection, I think it should be applied to the intersection itself (either directly or as a member of a relation). Overall, I admire the attempt to avoid having a use a relation - but to convince me, the meaning of the tag must be self-explanatory. How about stop=at_last_node, stop=at_first_node and stop=at_first_and_last_node? More verbose, but a lot clearer than yes/-1/both. Also, I would remove the references to stop signs - replace with references to the requirement to stop - this is, after all, the characteristic of the way that is being tagged, not the fact that there is a sign near the way. In Australia, for example, I believe a stop line (solid white line) has the same legal effect as a stop sign. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging continuous flow intersections
I suspect that I'd end up creating a set of ways that look something like this, plus a whole bunch of oneway tags and turn restrictions: http://dl1050.dyndns.org:/images/osm/cfi.png On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 17:33, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'm having some issues with the tagging of the so-called CFI -- continuous flow intersections. These are junctions, often (if not always!) regulated by traffic signals, where vehicles in a particular lane can freely go into one specified direction, disregarding the indication of the traffic signals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_flow_intersection http://imagebin.ca/view/SjGkG4.html (sorry for the second link, don't blame me for my talent :-P) Surely I'd put an highway=traffic_signals on the junction node, but how to tag continuous flows? Sorry for not being clearer, please ask if you want/need more details. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changes to Key:access wiki page
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote: Christiaan Welvaart wrote: Added a separate tag for cars, because AFAICT any routing app computing routes for cars uses this transportation mode. If routing would be done for 'motorcar', ways tagged as hazmat=no, for example, could not be used because the motorcar *could* be a hazmat vehicle. This reasoning is not quite valid. The restrictions for a vehicle category are affected by categories higher up in the hierarchy, not by those below. At least this is the idea behind current documentation such as http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Computing_access_restrictions , and I don't see why we should be restricted to leaves of the category tree. I made mistake in the position of motorcar compared to the last version of the hierarchy picture, which I now fixed. ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Access_modes.png ) I did not know the Computing_access_restrictions wiki page, maybe the text about evaluation I added to Key:access should be replaced by a link to that page. * Direction specific restrictions I listed :backward and :forward postfixes for access keys What you are doing here seems like picking raisins from conditional tagging and trying to handle it as a special case. I'm not sure whether you are aware of my proposal? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_access_tags This proposal does not seem specific enough. Shouldn't it list exactly which simple keys can be modified this way, especially for the :transport mode extension? For example, with this proposal it is possible to create both bicycle:backward and oneway:bicycle, while I would really prefer to only have the former. While direction may be considered as something special when constructing a routing graph (unlike most other parameters it will have different values during creation of the same routing graph; unless you are really sophisticated and use changing time, it will be the only parameter like this), it's not a special case for *evaluation*: It's just another parameter needed to get the value of a base tag for the current situation. In the model I used, there is no base tag wich a value: each way direction has completely separate access restrictions. It only applies to the data in OSM, not a routing graph. As evaluation is the aspect that needs to be documented (routing graph creation is up to the application), I believe forward/backward shouldn't be introduced or documented separately but instead as a part of conditional tagging. Is it really a problem if work is one in this respect as long as it does not contradict the conditional tagging proposal? * Evaluating access tags Your use of category and (transport) mode confuses me, especially as they both seem to be things that can be a key. I did not invent these names, but as I understand it, a transport mode is a distinct way of physically moving around, in other words a class of traffic participants. Differences within a class are not relevant for access to a road, while differences between classes are, in some cases. A (transport mode) category is simply a group of transport modes and/or other categories that are sometimes treated similarly regarding road access (by law). So such a category is used to limit the number of tags needed to describe access for a particular way. Christiaan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
2009/8/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Therefore, I'd prefer to restrict highway=conveyor to human transport (or human+bicycle or some kind of vehicle, if this exists somewhere, by using access tags) and use a separate top level tag for goods - for example man_made=conveyor. I don't have a problem with that, the question came up because when I see the word conveyor it's not escalators or travelators that come to mind for me. Can I suggest that the documentation for the human conveyor has a section that states clearly that it is not for goods, and pointing to the goods tagging. And maybe the reverse in the other tag. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changes to Key:access wiki page
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Craig Wallace wrote: On 22/08/2009 20:33, Christiaan Welvaart wrote: I changed some things on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access - only to document current (best) practices. Added a separate tag for cars, because AFAICT any routing app computing routes for cars uses this transportation mode. If routing would be done for 'motorcar', ways tagged as hazmat=no, for example, could not be used because the motorcar *could* be a hazmat vehicle. Maybe the actual tag is not needed, in which case the description can stay but the tag removed. There already is a separate tag for cars: key:motorcar. I think trying to define this as different from an automobile is confusing. Have a look at Wikipedia for example, which says they are different terms for the same thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile I think your definition of motorcar (category: motor vehicles with more than 2 wheels / more than 1 track) is confusing / wrong. goods/ hgv / psv / hazmat etc should be in the hierarchy directly below motor vehicle, not below motorcar. Finally figured out what was going on: I did not look closely enough at the picture apparently - fixed. BTW what is a hov? I assume it's high occupancy vehicle, ie a vehicle with more than a certain number of passengers in it. In some places they are allowed to use bus lanes etc. Sure, but is this not a bit too complicated to put between the regular access tags? For tagging, hov= can be used although it makes me wonder what the exact qualifications are. But a routing engine supporting this should also allow specifying that at some point the number of passengers drops below the limit. With hov in the hierarcy this would mean the remaining passengers are suddenly sitting in a different kind of vehicle. That seems strange at least (: Christiaan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changes to Key:access wiki page
2009/8/22 Christiaan Welvaart c...@daneel.dyndns.org: hi, I changed some things on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access - Added a tag for low performance mopeds, because in some countries they are by law neither a bicycle nor a true moped. currently there is no more mofa (I guess this is not English, as it is an abbreviation of Motorfahrrad = motor-assisted bicycle) on the page and no definition for moped (until which ccm it is considered to be such, or what else is the criteria). IMHO motor_vehicle should not include mofa, lawn-mowers and other stuff like this. AFAIK mofas (below 50 ccm) are in many countries considered as bicycles, at least outside town. The general sign to exclude motorcars and motorcycles often don't exclude mofas. And yes, some discussion _before_ changing the features would IMHO have been better. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Duplicate TIGER ways along county lines
Good evening, I have been editing the map around Denver, CO, but so far have avoided fixing duplicate ways straddling county lines. I.e., one physical way is represented by two ways, one for each county. For a correct and visually pleasing map, ease in joining intersecting ways, etc., I think it would be better to have only a single merged way on the map corresponding to the lone physical way. Will that agree with OSM standards? If it will, some tags and values may have to be modified. Assuming merging the ways in this manner is acceptable: How necessary is it to preserve left and right county names (the county line is present and should have this information)? How necessary is it to preserve left and right zip codes in the way data? (These are frequently inaccurate, and I would prefer not to have to research them). Should the two different TLIDs be combined in the TLID tag and separated with a semi-colon? Some county lines are conveniently located along divided highways. In these cases, I have been simply migrating each of the two ways to the correct side of the median while paying careful attention to the way’s direction and the various left and right tags. Thanks for any input. Dave J ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate TIGER ways along county lines
don't waste too much time trying to make sense of broken data. fix it in the best possible way and delete tags which don't make sense anymore. time of mappers is better spent on fixing the data instead of fiddle around with nearly useless tags. osm data is dynamic everyone can edit everything and simply for this reason even the tlid tag is useless as an anchor. as soon as a significant amount of changes has been done any application or new import must work on the coordinates of nodes and ways. this essentially what is done in canada imports with roadmatcher. just my 2 ct -- apollinaris On 23 Aug 2009, at 19:51 , dasdje...@comcast.net wrote: Good evening, I have been editing the map around Denver, CO, but so far have avoided fixing duplicate ways straddling county lines. I.e., one physical way is represented by two ways, one for each county. For a correct and visually pleasing map, ease in joining intersecting ways, etc., I think it would be better to have only a single merged way on the map corresponding to the lone physical way. Will that agree with OSM standards? If it will, some tags and values may have to be modified. Assuming merging the ways in this manner is acceptable: How necessary is it to preserve left and right county names (the county line is present and should have this information)? How necessary is it to preserve left and right zip codes in the way data? (These are frequently inaccurate, and I would prefer not to have to research them). Should the two different TLIDs be combined in the TLID tag and separated with a semi-colon? Some county lines are conveniently located along divided highways. In these cases, I have been simply migrating each of the two ways to the correct side of the median while paying careful attention to the way’s direction and the various left and right tags. Thanks for any input. Dave J ___ 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] Duplicate TIGER ways along county lines
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, dasdje...@comcast.net dasdje...@comcast.net wrote: How necessary is it to preserve left and right zip codes in the way data? (These are frequently inaccurate, and I would prefer not to have to research them). It shouldn't be necessary to keep county, state, country or zip/post codes in any ways. This sort of meta information is best described by boundary=administrative relations instead, all the nodes and ways inside that area can then be derived from the boundary information. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds good to me. Not sure what John means - I think this is less ambiguous than having the same tag (highway=conveyor) mean two different things. Because they are both man made it's ambiguous, it's a very bad idea to use tags that can be confused if the descriptions aren't read, or aren't read properly. Someone somewhere will use the wrong tags, and most likely it won't be just some one and then you'll end up with another endless pointless debate over this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Escalators and Travalators
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have a problem with that, the question came up because when I see the word conveyor it's not escalators or travelators that come to mind for me. Can I suggest that the documentation for I've seen some very very long conveyors in places for transporting coal, some shorter ones for grain, and perhaps as a result I don't think of escalators etc as a conveyor either. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in favour of using stop=yes/both/-1. First impression: the value of the tag is extremely ambiguous, and in no way self-explanatory. I don't like it at all. It has the same values as oneway=*. If you use Key:oneway, you know how to use Key:stop. The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a junction ;-) I don't see a problem with this. As far as I'm concerned, highway=stop does not represent a particular stop *sign*, but rather the effect of the stop sign - i.e. the fact that vehicles must stop before proceeding through the intersecting node. Aren't we tagging what we see in the real world? I'm of the opposite opinion, we tag stop *signs* (horizontal or vertical signs), and we're trying to relate those signs to the junction they have effect on. [..] Overall, I admire the attempt to avoid having a use a relation - but to convince me, the meaning of the tag must be self-explanatory. Read above :-) How about stop=at_last_node, stop=at_first_node and stop=at_first_and_last_node? More verbose, but a lot clearer than yes/-1/both. That can be done too. More concise: stop=first (-1) stop=last (yes) stop=both (both) Also, I would remove the references to stop signs - replace with references to the requirement to stop - this is, after all, the characteristic of the way that is being tagged, not the fact that there is a sign near the way. ACK. In Australia, for example, I believe a stop line (solid white line) has the same legal effect as a stop sign. That's in Italy too. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging continuous flow intersections
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:11:59 -0500, David Lynch wrote: I suspect that I'd end up creating a set of ways that look something like this, plus a whole bunch of oneway tags and turn restrictions: http://dl1050.dyndns.org:/images/osm/cfi.png Thanks for the suggestion -- but I'd avoid drawing different ways for different lanes in a single carriageway. David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] North Star Award
Another Eurocentric Award ?? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Awards North Star The North Star has been awarded to people who have either completed all the roads within a District, Small County, Large town or City; or for people that have solved a big problem for everyone within OSM. I would think that a lot of Australian mappers have completed the equivalent of a large town singlehanded (as usual the words on the wiki aren't well expressed - is this for doing it singlehanded or putting the last piece in?) and as we don't navigate by the North Star, we could self-award ourselves Southern Cross Awards, and we'd be happy for Southern African and South Americans to join in too we could be more precise and suggest that a mapper has put in 90% of the roads in an area of so many square kms?? Owing to the lack of OSM I've actually been reading some books and found one writer noting that even the use of a Mercator projection is Eurocentric and they weren't talking about OSM. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Newbie intro
G'day all, A quick introduction, I'm starting out mapping the blank bits of country Victoria round my place, including some of the National Parks nearby. I'm using a combination of iPhone, various Garmin receivers and the odd Trimble to do the work. I've been enjoying reading the discussion on the status of 4WD tracks. Here in Vic there are three legal classes of tracks within National Parks and State forests: Management Vehicles Only (MVO), seasonally closed and open. All other signs (4WD, dry weather only) are advisory and have no legal status. I'm not sure how this would be best reflected in OSM! I look forward to learning heaps more here. Cheers H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Newbie intro
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Appleton Dale wrote: G'day all, A quick introduction, I'm starting out mapping the blank bits of country Victoria round my place, including some of the National Parks nearby. I'm using a combination of iPhone, various Garmin receivers and the odd Trimble to do the work. I've been enjoying reading the discussion on the status of 4WD tracks. Here in Vic there are three legal classes of tracks within National Parks and State forests: Management Vehicles Only (MVO), seasonally closed and open. All other signs (4WD, dry weather only) are advisory and have no legal status. I'm not sure how this would be best reflected in OSM! I look forward to learning heaps more here. Cheers H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Newbie intro
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Appleton Dale wrote: G'day all, A quick introduction, I'm starting out mapping the blank bits of country Victoria round my place, including some of the National Parks nearby. I'm using a combination of iPhone, various Garmin receivers and the odd Trimble to do the work. I've been enjoying reading the discussion on the status of 4WD tracks. Here in Vic there are three legal classes of tracks within National Parks and State forests: Management Vehicles Only (MVO), seasonally closed and open. All other signs (4WD, dry weather only) are advisory and have no legal status. I'm not sure how this would be best reflected in OSM! I look forward to learning heaps more here. Cheers H sorry, i hit send on the wrong email welcome aboard we need more thinking about seasonal and unseasonal uses of roads, and other restrictions like 4wd_only; dry_weather_only so management vehicles only (and i presume fire trucks too) is another important restriction. whether it is legal or advisory is important to Germanic thinkers, less to us. Now we understand better how we get those Europeans doing stupid things on our roads - it wasn't illegal, it was only advisory :-$ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Newbie intro
--- On Sun, 23/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: welcome aboard we need more thinking about seasonal and unseasonal uses of roads, and other restrictions like 4wd_only; dry_weather_only 4wd_only is now a valid tag :) Want to go 2 from 2? :) so management vehicles only (and i presume fire trucks too) is another important restriction. I assume that would just be an access=private tag, even though it's crown land it's still considered as owned by NPWS usually. whether it is legal or advisory is important to Germanic thinkers, less to us. In a very strict sense, these dry_weather/4wd_only signs could be used to fine someone, like the sign you posted a link to showing all road damage will be paid for by anyone screwing up the road in wet weather. Now we understand better how we get those Europeans doing stupid things on our roads - it wasn't illegal, it was only advisory :-$ They still don't agree with us, they still think it's just another smoothness option, except for those from Iceland maybe. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] North Star Award
--- On Sun, 23/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: Another Eurocentric Award ?? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Awards North Star The North Star has been awarded to people who have either completed all the roads within a District, Small County, Large town or City; or for people that have solved a big problem for everyone within OSM. These things can go a number of ways, while they might inspire some people they can also cause division if people get sour grapes for not getting the recognition they think they deserve. I would think that a lot of Australian mappers have completed the equivalent of a large town singlehanded At least those of us in rural areas :) and as we don't navigate by the North Star, we could self-award ourselves Southern Cross Awards, and we'd be happy for Southern African and South Americans to join in too Getting away from stars, well at least distant ones you also have the 'aurora australis' :) we could be more precise and suggest that a mapper has put in 90% of the roads in an area of so many square kms?? By GPS or by sat imagery? Owing to the lack of OSM I've actually been reading some books and found one writer noting that even the use of a Mercator projection is Eurocentric and they weren't talking about OSM. Which Mercator projection and why is it eurocentric? Spherical Mercator is used by google and others because it's much simpler calculation than some of the other projections from lat/lon to x/y ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] North Star Award
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: Which Mercator projection and why is it eurocentric? the original. it expands the size of europe compared t all the colonised lands opinion of Arno Peters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Peters -- BOFH excuse #215: High nuclear activity in your area. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] North Star Award
--- On Sun, 23/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: the original. it expands the size of europe compared t all the colonised lands opinion of Arno Peters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Peters That might be a side effect, but I don't think there is a good way to flatten the earth without making it into a weird shape like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map The downside to that is it would make lat/lon to x/y very complex. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] How to tag giant acorn?
Jason Stirk jst...@oobleyboo.com writes: At Ballina, and it's been announced in the last week or so that it will be demolished some time soon, as it's in really bad nick. That's cutting in to our big attractions. So what're we left with, the big potato, merino, trout and oyster? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] How to tag giant acorn?
--- On Sun, 23/8/09, David Clarke gadic...@pnambic.org wrote: That's cutting in to our big attractions. So what're we left with, the big potato, merino, trout and oyster? The owners of the big pineapple (one near Nambour) were on tv the other day complaining about it being heritage listed which would limit remodeling and what not. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Big Things
And don't forget the BIG BANANA Darylr ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straß ennamen
Florian Lohoff schrieb: Was bringt es, wenn ich vom Screenreader in OSM eine Hermann-Heinrich-Meierstraße vorlesen lasse, wenn auch alle Passanten die Straße nur als H.-H.-Meier-Straße kennen, weil es eben so auf dem Straßenschild steht und auch in Anschriften so geschrieben wird? Nicht alles was hinkt ist ein vergleich - Die allermeisten Namen sind abgekuerzt - In deinem fall steht etwa ganz anderes da - Da ist nicht abkuerzung sondern synonymbildung. Und davon redet hier keiner. Naja, es stimmt schon, dass der Herr Hermann Henrich Meier (sorry für den Fehler im Vornamen) der Gründer der H-H.MeyerCo war. Trotzdem heisst die Straße nach der Person und nicht nach der Firma. Trotzdem kann ich Deinen Einwand Synonmbildung nicht ganz nachvollziehen. Und nur weil auf dem Straßenschild A.-v.-D.-Hülshoff steht kennen das nicht die Anwohner als A Punkt Minus vau punkt - Deee Punkt Minus Hülshoff Straße sondern als Annette-von-Droste-Hülshoff Straße und das bekommen auch Menschen aus anderen Kulturkreisen hin das ein Anfangsbuchstabe Punkt eine abkuerzung ist. Ich wüsste jetzt nicht, wer Abkürzungs-Punkte mitspricht, das tat nichtmal die FDP zu ihren besten Zeiten. Und was die Wladimir-Iljitsch-Lenin-Allee anbetrifft: Wenn das Straßenschild den Namen ausschreibt, dann sollte auch die Karte das tun. Und umgekehrt (siehe obigen H.-H.-Meier). Das haette dir in diesem fall nicht geholfen weil das was auf dem Straßenschild stand abwich vom allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Und dann bist du erst recht aufgeschmissen... An welcher Stelle bin ich dann bereit, die zwangsläufigen Probleme zu ertragen? - Wenn ich einen Straßennamen auf der Karte suche, den mir jemand gesagt hat? - Wenn ich anhand der Karte versuche, mich im Straßenbild zu orientieren? Ich würde ersteres vorziehen, da ich dann noch nicht in der Situation bin, mich gleichzeitig auf den fließenden Verkehr zu konzentrieren. -jha- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Johann H. Addicks schrieb: Will sagen: Ob ausgeschrieben oder abgekürzt, das ist völlig egal. Im Stadtplan sollte es schon so geschrieben stehen wie man es auf den Straßenschildern lesen kann! Für mich stellt sich die Situation so dar: Eine Straße hat einen Namen. Der enthält normalerweise keine Abkürzungen, findet sich möglicherweise in irgendwelchen amtlichen Verzeichnissen, ist aber meist ohnehin klar, wenn man nicht auf der Gleichsetzung zwischen abgekürztem Straßenschild und Namen besteht. Dieser Name wird an verschiedenen Stellen aufgeschrieben. Auf Straßenschildern, in Stadtplänen, ... An jeder dieser Stellen wird er an die Bedürfnisse des Mediums angepasst. Kein Platz? Kürzen. Keine ß in der Schriftart? Durch ss oder sz ersetzen. Und so weiter. All diese Dinge beeinträchtigen aber nicht den Namen selbst. name=* ist eine Möglichkeit, den Namen einzutragen, nicht die Beschriftung des Straßenschilds. Wenn letztere als wertvolle Information angesehen wird (und das ist sie bisweilen), kann man sie natürlich _auch_ eintragen, nur würde ich dies eben nicht als name=* tun. Dann kommen auch Auswärte mit eingeschränkter Allgemeinbildung damit zurecht. Die Zuordnung Langform - Abkürzung erfordert keine sonderliche Allgemeinbildung, sondern nur rudimentäre Kenntnisse über das Konzept Abkürzung. Die Zuordnung Abkürzung - Langform sehr wohl (Kenntnis berühmter und weniger berühmter Persönlichkeiten). Daher halte ich das Taggen der Langform irgendwie für nützlicher für Leute mit eingeschränkter Allgemeinbildung. Tobias Knerr ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Am Sunday 23 August 2009 10:23:25 schrieb Tobias Knerr: Die Zuordnung Langform - Abkürzung erfordert keine sonderliche Allgemeinbildung, sondern nur rudimentäre Kenntnisse über das Konzept Abkürzung. Die Zuordnung Abkürzung - Langform sehr wohl (Kenntnis berühmter und weniger berühmter Persönlichkeiten). Daher halte ich das Taggen der Langform irgendwie für nützlicher für Leute mit eingeschränkter Allgemeinbildung. Genau. Ergänzent möchte ich noch sagen das es bei Abweichungen zwischen einer Behördlichen Liste und eines Straßenschildes ja durchaus möglich ist (ich habe es schon gemacht) mal bei der Koumne um Klärung zu bitten. In Hamburg sind deshalb schon ein paar Straßenschilder ausgetauscht worden. Auch ist es möglich an eine Straße ein note zu setzen, z.B. note=Herr Meyer von der Stadtverwaltung Musterman hat mir bestätigt das der Name mit h geschrieben wird, und das Straßenschild falsch ist. Mir fallen die meisten Fehler sowieso nicht auf, wenn ich eine Wegbeschreibung etc. lese, und ein Computer kann auch nach ähnlichen Namen suchen, also warum sollen wir uns daran jetzt solange festbeißen. Gruß Sven ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Walking Papers in Deutsch
Am Saturday 22 August 2009 20:47:05 schrieb Jonas Krückel: Hi, seit heute gibt es Walking Papers in deutscher Sprache. Details zur Meldung von Fehlern und Verbesserungsvorschlägen findet ihr oben neben den Links zu den einzelnen Sprachen. Manche Texte sind bestimmt noch verbesserungsfähig, ich bin da für Vorschläge offen und werde selbst noch versuchen es besser zu machen. Ich denke das ist ein weiterer, wichtiger Schritt, um Walking Papers noch einfacher zu machen und noch mehr Leute mit dieser tollen Idee dahinter zu erreichen, jetzt könnt ihr diese Seite auch wirklich guten Gewissens jedem empfehlen ;-) Zur Zeit werden auch noch Freiwillige gesucht, die einen Druck- und Scan-Service übernehmen wollen. Die Idee dahinter ist, dass es Leute gibt, die keinen Drucker oder wohl wahrscheinlicher keinen Scanner haben und daher nicht an dem Projekt teilnehmen können. Daher gibt es von Stamen Design das Angebot, dass man ihnen einen frankierten Briefumschlag schickt und sie dann einen Ausdruck zurückschicken oder das man eine beschriftete Karte schickt und dann wird diese eingescannt. Details dazu hier (Beispielseite, evtl. mal auf Englisch umschalten): http://walking-papers.org/print.php?id=hgc6cmxn Allerdings ist dieses Angebot für Deutschland nicht so praktikabel, die Hürde einen Brief in die USA zu schicken und die damit verbundene Zeit ist sicherlich zu hoch. Bis jetzt gab es keine einzige Anfrage an Stamen in den USA, es ist also nicht zu erwarten, dass ihr überrannt werdet ;-) Falls ein Sponsor für Papier, Tinte etc. benötigt wird, kann das sicherlich auch über den Fossgis-Verein laufen, ich bin da bereits in Kontakt. Also, falls ihr Interesse habt so etwas zu tun, meldet euch bei mir und wir können dann die weiteren Details regeln. Es gibt auch keinen Zwang das für immer zu machen, falls es einen unerwarteten Ansturm gibt, kann man das sicherlich auch aufteilen bzw. wieder neue Leute finden. Man könnte für das Drucken z.B. Pixelletter nehmen, dann braucht man nur noch einen Sponsor. Für das Scannen gibt es auch schon Dienstleister, ich denke das macht im Zweifel auch jeder zweite Copy-Shop. Gruß Sven ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
lulu-...@gmx.de schrieb: Hi, noch ein neues Argument für das Ausschreiben von Straßennamen: Die Symbian-Software Loadstone-GPS importiert OSM-Daten und liest sie mittels Screenreader vor - Es ist eine einfache Navi-Software, die auch für Blinde funktioniert. So weit brauchst Du gar nicht zu gehen. Der Suchcontroller sollte für seine Arbeit hinreichend Futter haben. Die Verlängerungen Str. - Straße, Dr. - Doktor bekommt man sicher hin aber irgendwann ist ende. Und noch etwas perfides. Viele Nutzer tendieren dazu, wenn sie in einer Suchmaske keine Antwort bekommen die wird die Sucheingabe nicht kürzer um mehr Ergebnisse zu erhalten, sondern es wird immer mehr eingegeben. Bis man irgendwann Anna-Elisabeth-Franzisca-Adolphina-Wilhelmina-Ludovica-Freiin-von-Droste-zu-Hülshoff-Straße eingibt. Für die Prof.-von-Capitaine-Straße im Nachbarort steht auf dem Straßenschild Prof.-v.-Capit.-Str.. Das hab ich so nicht in OSM eingegeben. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Walking Papers in Deutsch
Hi ! verbesserungswürdig finde ich noch etwas untertrieben - für eine Erstbetrachter ist die Menüführung sehr schwierig und wird wohl in einem Themenwechsel enden. Gruß Jan :-) Jonas Krückel schrieb: Hi, seit heute gibt es Walking Papers in deutscher Sprache. Details zur Meldung von Fehlern und Verbesserungsvorschlägen findet ihr oben neben den Links zu den einzelnen Sprachen. Manche Texte sind bestimmt noch verbesserungsfähig, ich bin da für Vorschläge offen und werde selbst noch versuchen es besser zu machen. Ich denke das ist ein weiterer, wichtiger Schritt, um Walking Papers noch einfacher zu machen und noch mehr Leute mit dieser tollen Idee dahinter zu erreichen, jetzt könnt ihr diese Seite auch wirklich guten Gewissens jedem empfehlen ;-) Zur Zeit werden auch noch Freiwillige gesucht, die einen Druck- und Scan-Service übernehmen wollen. Die Idee dahinter ist, dass es Leute gibt, die keinen Drucker oder wohl wahrscheinlicher keinen Scanner haben und daher nicht an dem Projekt teilnehmen können. Daher gibt es von Stamen Design das Angebot, dass man ihnen einen frankierten Briefumschlag schickt und sie dann einen Ausdruck zurückschicken oder das man eine beschriftete Karte schickt und dann wird diese eingescannt. Details dazu hier (Beispielseite, evtl. mal auf Englisch umschalten): http://walking-papers.org/print.php?id=hgc6cmxn Allerdings ist dieses Angebot für Deutschland nicht so praktikabel, die Hürde einen Brief in die USA zu schicken und die damit verbundene Zeit ist sicherlich zu hoch. Bis jetzt gab es keine einzige Anfrage an Stamen in den USA, es ist also nicht zu erwarten, dass ihr überrannt werdet ;-) Falls ein Sponsor für Papier, Tinte etc. benötigt wird, kann das sicherlich auch über den Fossgis-Verein laufen, ich bin da bereits in Kontakt. Also, falls ihr Interesse habt so etwas zu tun, meldet euch bei mir und wir können dann die weiteren Details regeln. Es gibt auch keinen Zwang das für immer zu machen, falls es einen unerwarteten Ansturm gibt, kann man das sicherlich auch aufteilen bzw. wieder neue Leute finden. Gruß Jonas ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Für die Prof.-von-Capitaine-Straße im Nachbarort steht auf dem Straßenschild Prof.-v.-Capit.-Str.. Das hab ich so nicht in OSM eingegeben. Nichzu vergessen das je nach Platzverhältnissen, Umbauten usw. durchaus auch mal unterschiedliche Abkürzungsformen an ein und der selben Straße vorkommen. Ginge man da nach der Argumentation das Eingabe und Schild übereinstimmen sollten, müsste für jedes ein eigene Namensangabe in die Datenbank bringen und ein Router müsste das je nach Richtung berücksichtigen. Das ist Blödsinn. Die Angaben gehören voll ausgeschrieben in die Datenbank. Abkürzungen lassen sich einfacher automatisch ableiten. Wer kann denn z.B. bitte etwas mit der L.-v.-Ranke-Straße anfangen? Umgangssprachlich ist das einfach die Ranke Straße, wenn jemand danach fragt. Ausgeschrieben ist das die Leopold-von-Ranke-Straße. Noch schöner ist die H.-H.-v.-Fallersleben-Straße, teilweise auch nur H.-v.-Fallersleben-Straße. Umgangssprachlich weiß so auch jeder was die Fallersleben Straße oder von Fallersleben Straße ist. Ausgeschrieben wäre das die Heinrich-Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Straße. Ich wette das andernorts auch die volle August-Heinrich-Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Straße gibt. Das kürzt man ab, weil das schlicht nicht auf ein Schild passen würde. Jeder gibt das anders an. Selbst in Adressen wird oft nur von Fallersleben Straße angebeben, die findest du so auch auf keinem Schild. Desshalb volle Namen. Abkürzungsvarianten sind Aufgabe einer vernünftig programmierten Anwendung. Im umgekehrten Fall nutzt man auch nur volle Namen. Wenn ich irgendwo etwas bestelle und die H.-Heine-Straße angebe, wird die bei guten Masken automatisch korrigiert, andere finden das erst nicht. Das muss ich den vollen Namen angeben, da interessierts keinen was auf irgendeinem Schild steht. Es zählt der voll ausgeschriebene Name. Gruß Mirko ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straß ennamen
Ich wüsste jetzt nicht, wer Abkürzungs-Punkte mitspricht, das tat nichtmal die FDP zu ihren besten Zeiten. Doch - das tut der gemeine Mapper, wenn er ein Staßenschild in sein Diktiergerät spricht ständig: Ha Punkt Minus Ha Punkt Minus Meier mit E I Minus Straße ;-) Friedhelm ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Mirko Küster schrieb: Die Angaben gehören voll ausgeschrieben in die Datenbank. Abkürzungen lassen sich einfacher automatisch ableiten. Standadrdabkürzungen wie str., v.-, Prof., Dr. usw. sehe ich unkritisch, beim rest sehe ich es ähnlich wie Du. Wer kann denn z.B. bitte etwas mit der L.-v.-Ranke-Straße anfangen? die H.-H.-v.-Fallersleben-Straße, teilweise auch nur Bei den beiden geht es noch, da kann man den ausgeschriebenen Namen wenigstens noch in der Wikipedia finden. Gruselig wird es bei verblichenen Dorfbürgermeistern und anderen Persönlichkeiten ähnlichen Rangs (ohne die herabsetzen zu wollen). Da hat man kaum eine Chance den ausgeschriebenen Namen zu recherchieren. Und das kleine Schildchen um wen es sich eigentlich handelt ist auch nicht immer zu finden. BTW: Wie geht man eigentlich mit Umbenennungen von Straßen um? öoc_name, alt_name? Zumindest für den Suchcontroller sollte der alte Name eine Weile auffindbar sein. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Am So, 23.08.2009, 13:40 schrieb Thomas Reincke: Da hat man kaum eine Chance den ausgeschriebenen Namen zu recherchieren. Hey?! BTW: Wie geht man eigentlich mit Umbenennungen von Straßen um? öoc_name, alt_name? Zumindest für den Suchcontroller sollte der alte Name eine Weile auffindbar sein. Ich verwenda da: name:formerly also ehemaliger Name ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Walking Papers in Deutsch
Jan Tappenbeck wrote: verbesserungswürdig finde ich noch etwas untertrieben - für eine Erstbetrachter ist die Menüführung sehr schwierig und wird wohl in einem Themenwechsel enden. Sehe ich zwar ähnlich, ist aber ein Problem der Originalversion. Jedenfalls bekam ich als Reaktion auf das meinerseitige Verbreiten der Meldung, dass Walking-Papers jetzt auf Deutsch verfügbar ist, was das nicht für eine großartige Alternative zu Google sei. Die betreffende Person hatte offenbar noch gar nichts von OpenStreetmap gehört. Vielleicht sollte man daher ein paar Usability-Aspekte an den Originalautoren zurückmelden. Gruß, Patrick ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 08:58:48AM +0200, Johann H. Addicks wrote: Was bringt es, wenn ich vom Screenreader in OSM eine Hermann-Heinrich-Meierstraße vorlesen lasse, wenn auch alle Passanten die Straße nur als H.-H.-Meier-Straße kennen, weil es eben so auf dem Straßenschild steht und auch in Anschriften so geschrieben wird? Nicht alles was hinkt ist ein vergleich - Die allermeisten Namen sind abgekuerzt - In deinem fall steht etwa ganz anderes da - Da ist nicht abkuerzung sondern synonymbildung. Und davon redet hier keiner. Naja, es stimmt schon, dass der Herr Hermann Henrich Meier (sorry für den Fehler im Vornamen) der Gründer der H-H.MeyerCo war. Trotzdem heisst die Straße nach der Person und nicht nach der Firma. Trotzdem kann ich Deinen Einwand Synonmbildung nicht ganz nachvollziehen. Lenin ist der Kampfname oder Synonym fuer Wladimir Illinowski und keine abkuerzung ... Und was die Wladimir-Iljitsch-Lenin-Allee anbetrifft: Wenn das Straßenschild den Namen ausschreibt, dann sollte auch die Karte das tun. Und umgekehrt (siehe obigen H.-H.-Meier). Es ist aber nicht immer eindeutig - Auch die offizielle Darstellung eines Straßennamens haengt immer davon ab wieviel Platz da ist. Es kann sein das auf einem Straßenschild die lange und auf einem Anderen die Kurze ist weil eben auf der Hauswand nicht so viel Platz war ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen. - - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 01:40:27PM +0200, Thomas Reincke wrote: BTW: Wie geht man eigentlich mit Umbenennungen von Straßen um? öoc_name, alt_name? Zumindest für den Suchcontroller sollte der alte Name eine Weile auffindbar sein. Ich benutze alt_name Wenn eine Straße umbenannt wird wird sich die Kommune hueten den namen so schnell wieder woanders zu benutzen - dann waere das chaos ansonsten perfekt. Daher ist alt_name als alternativer name durchaus angebracht. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen. - - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Tobias Wendorff schrieb: BTW: Wie geht man eigentlich mit Umbenennungen von Straßen um? Ich verwenda da: name:formerly Was spricht jetzt gleich nochmal dagegen, das auf http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name genannte old_name (Historically or previously known As) zu nehmen? Tobias Knerr ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Tobias Knerr schrieb: Was spricht jetzt gleich nochmal dagegen, das auf http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name genannte old_name (Historically or previously known As) zu nehmen? Meine Routine :-) Ich verwende: - name - name:DE - name:history - name:alternative (kompatibel dazu noch alt_name) - name:local (kompatibel dazu noch loc_name) - name:formerly - name:street_sign Durch die Semantik kann es sich jeder mit einem Dictionary in seine Sprache übersetzen. alt als Abkürzung für Alternative finde ich schon grenzwertig, da wir es eigentlich im Zusammenhang mit einer Höhe verwenden. Für mich besteht außerdem ein Unterschied zwischen historisch und ehemalig. Hier im östlichen Rand des Ruhrgebiets, gibt es alte Handelswege, die nachweisbare Namen haben, dann teilweise in Chausseen umbenannt wurden und nach dem Krieg normale Straßennamen bekommen haben. historic = der alte Handelsweg (z.B. Salzweg xy) formerly = der alte Chaussee local = der gebräuchliche Name (z.B. Kälbermarkt in Werl) street_sign = wenn da etwas außergewöhnlich Anderes steht etc. Wieso soll ich Informationen verwaschen?! ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Aufruf: Wiki-Artikel
Hallo! André Riedel schrieb: Am 21. August 2009 10:38 schrieb Wolfgang Wienke wo_wie...@gmx.net: Hallo! André Riedel schrieb: Am 20. August 2009 21:41 schrieb Wolfgang Wienke wo_wie...@gmx.net: Es war nun mal bisher offensichtlich so üblich, ist nicht meine Idee. In jedem Fall sollte ein Zusatz erfolgen, da verschiedene Kontenpunkte mit gleicher Nummer oft recht nah andereinader liegen und man sonst bei Suchen nach der Relation allein nach den Knotenpunktnummern nicht weiß, wo sie liegt. Man muss dann immer erst in de Karte schauen. war daher die Fahrradknotenpunkte in einer Relation zusammenzufassen. Das erfolgt ja sowieso. Man könnte ja den Renderer anpassen, dass alle zum gleichen Netzwerk gehörende Knoten unterschiedliche Farben oder Umrandungen bekommen. Da Woher soll der Renderer das denn erkennen, wenn es nirgendwo festgelegt ist? Festgelegt wird das doch nach deiner Aussage in einer Relation. Nein, das ist nicht richtig, zumindestens wüßte ich nicht, dass bisher solche Relationen erstellt wurden. Aber man könnte es vielleicht machen. Allerdings muss man dann immer noch hoffen, das ein entsprechender Renderer programmiert wird. In den Relationen wird bisher festgehalten, welche Strecken zu einer Route gehören. Auf SOLCHE Relationen bezogen sich auch meine Ausführungen. die Renderer noch nicht können, sollte man trotzdem nicht die Daten verfälschen. Von verfälschen kann nicht die Rede sein, sondern nur von der zusätzlichen Gebietsinformation. Ich fahre an einem Fahrradknoten vorbei, an dem ganz große die Zahl 04 steht, also ref=04 oder meinetwegen rcn_ref=03. Du möchtest ihn aber mit Toponummer+Fahrradknotennummer taggen, wo dann sowas wie ref=5512_03 rauskommt. Wenn Du an einem Knoten vorbei kommst, tritt das Problem natürlich nicht auf. Wenn Du aber die Daten eines Knotens z.B. in JOSM siehst, weißt du sonst zunächst nicht, zu welchem Gebiet er gehört. Du kannst das natürlich aus der geografischen Lage vermuten, das ist aber nicht immer eindeutig. Wichtiger ist das bei den Relationen der Routen. Wenn ich z.B. (demnächst hoffentlich) die Daten einer Relation herunterladen möchte, um sie z.B. in meinen PDA auf den Fahrrad zu laden und die Routen abzufahren, finde ich bei einer Routensuche nach name oder note oft nur z.B. 02-25. Daran kann ich so nicht erkennen, ob die z.B. Route im Bereich Maastricht oder Geilenkirchen gemeint ist. -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Wolfgang Wienke ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straß ennamen
Am Sonntag 23 August 2009 schrieb Florian Lohoff: Und nur weil auf dem Straßenschild A.-v.-D.-Hülshoff steht kennen das nicht die Anwohner als A Punkt Minus vau punkt - Deee Punkt Minus Hülshoff Straße sondern als Annette-von-Droste-Hülshoff Straße und das bekommen auch Menschen aus anderen Kulturkreisen hin das ein Anfangsbuchstabe Punkt eine abkuerzung ist. man kann's auch uebertreiben... als anwohner wuerde ich die wahrscheinlich hülshoffstrasse nennen, selbst avaudehülshoff ist schon sehr ausfuehrlich. ausserdem kann ich mir gut vorstellen, dass viele die vornamen gar nicht kennen - wozu auch... Will sagen: Ob ausgeschrieben oder abgekürzt, das ist völlig egal. Im Stadtplan sollte es schon so geschrieben stehen wie man es auf den Straßenschildern lesen kann! Dann kommen auch Auswärte mit eingeschränkter Allgemeinbildung damit zurecht. Das haette dir in diesem fall nicht geholfen weil das was auf dem Straßenschild stand abwich vom allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Und dann bist du erst recht aufgeschmissen... der allgemeine sprachgebrauch spricht punkte aus?!? is scho recht... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straß ennamen
Guenther Meyer schrieb: als anwohner wuerde ich die wahrscheinlich hülshoffstrasse nennen, selbst avaudehülshoff ist schon sehr ausfuehrlich. ausserdem kann ich mir gut vorstellen, dass viele die vornamen gar nicht kennen - wozu auch... Führen wir hier eine Geodatendatenbank oder schreiben wir einen Fantasy-Roman? Will sagen: Ob ausgeschrieben oder abgekürzt, das ist völlig egal. Im Stadtplan sollte es schon so geschrieben stehen wie man es auf den Straßenschildern lesen kann! Dann kommen auch Auswärte mit eingeschränkter Allgemeinbildung damit zurecht. Das haette dir in diesem fall nicht geholfen weil das was auf dem Straßenschild stand abwich vom allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Und dann bist du erst recht aufgeschmissen... der allgemeine sprachgebrauch spricht punkte aus?!? is scho recht... Er meinte sicherlich 'Abkürzungen mit Punkt'. Oder sagst Du: Guten Tag Herr D-R, mir tut da was weh? ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straß ennamen
Am Sonntag 23 August 2009 schrieb Tobias Wendorff: Guenther Meyer schrieb: als anwohner wuerde ich die wahrscheinlich hülshoffstrasse nennen, selbst avaudehülshoff ist schon sehr ausfuehrlich. ausserdem kann ich mir gut vorstellen, dass viele die vornamen gar nicht kennen - wozu auch... Führen wir hier eine Geodatendatenbank oder schreiben wir einen Fantasy-Roman? mein vorschlag war sicher nicht der realitaetsferne... Will sagen: Ob ausgeschrieben oder abgekürzt, das ist völlig egal. Im Stadtplan sollte es schon so geschrieben stehen wie man es auf den Straßenschildern lesen kann! Dann kommen auch Auswärte mit eingeschränkter Allgemeinbildung damit zurecht. Das haette dir in diesem fall nicht geholfen weil das was auf dem Straßenschild stand abwich vom allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Und dann bist du erst recht aufgeschmissen... der allgemeine sprachgebrauch spricht punkte aus?!? is scho recht... Er meinte sicherlich 'Abkürzungen mit Punkt'. Oder sagst Du: Guten Tag Herr D-R, mir tut da was weh? ich sag aber auch nicht de er punkt, so wie von ihm beschrieben... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Zur Info: [Osmf-talk] Informal board election results
Zur Info, Am 23.08.2009 um 14:43 schrieb Peter Miller: I notice that there has not been a formal election results announcement on this list as yet. I was at the AGM and the results have been posted informally on the wiki and reflect my memory of the results. [1] I think we have a very good board for the coming year and it is noticeably more geographically diverse this year. Last year we had residents of fout countries (Netherlands, Sweden, UK, and the USA). We now have residents of six countries out of a board of seven (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, UK, USA). I don't envy the new board the amount of work that they have let themselves in, but I am very appreciate of the individuals who have stepped forward to perform this important role. Regards, Peter Miller [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM09/Election_to_Board ___ osmf-talk mailing list osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straß ennamen
Am 23. August 2009 14:39 schrieb Tobias Wendorff tobias.wendo...@uni-dortmund.de: Ich verwende: - name - name:DE - name:history - name:alternative (kompatibel dazu noch alt_name) - name:local (kompatibel dazu noch loc_name) - name:formerly - name:street_sign http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/grammar/adverbien.htm Adjektive beschreiben Substantive oder Pronomen (The street's former name is Prince-Road.) Adverbien beschreiben Verben, Adjektive oder Adverbien (The street formerly named Prince-Road) ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Stefan Schwan schrieb: Am 23. August 2009 14:39 schrieb Tobias Wendorff tobias.wendo...@uni-dortmund.de: Ich verwende: - name - name:DE - name:history - name:alternative (kompatibel dazu noch alt_name) - name:local (kompatibel dazu noch loc_name) - name:formerly - name:street_sign http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/grammar/adverbien.htm Verdammt, ich habe da vorher former stehen gehabt, habe es beim Korrigieren irgendwie auf formerly umgeändert. Danke für den Hinweis, ich tagge natürlich auch former :-) ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Zur Info: [Osmf-talk] Informal board election results
kann das bitte einer einmal zusammenfassend eindeutschen - besonders was mit election gemeint sein soll ! gruß Jan :-) Gehling Marc schrieb: Zur Info, Am 23.08.2009 um 14:43 schrieb Peter Miller: I notice that there has not been a formal election results announcement on this list as yet. I was at the AGM and the results have been posted informally on the wiki and reflect my memory of the results. [1] I think we have a very good board for the coming year and it is noticeably more geographically diverse this year. Last year we had residents of fout countries (Netherlands, Sweden, UK, and the USA). We now have residents of six countries out of a board of seven (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, UK, USA). I don't envy the new board the amount of work that they have let themselves in, but I am very appreciate of the individuals who have stepped forward to perform this important role. Regards, Peter Miller [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM09/Election_to_Board ___ osmf-talk mailing list osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Zur Info: [Osmf-talk] Informal board election results
Jan Tappenbeck wrote: kann das bitte einer einmal zusammenfassend eindeutschen - besonders was mit election gemeint sein soll ! gruß Jan :-) Gehling Marc schrieb: Zur Info, Am 23.08.2009 um 14:43 schrieb Peter Miller: I notice that there has not been a formal election results announcement on this list as yet. I was at the AGM and the results have been posted informally on the wiki and reflect my memory of the results. [1] I think we have a very good board for the coming year and it is noticeably more geographically diverse this year. Last year we had residents of fout countries (Netherlands, Sweden, UK, and the USA). We now have residents of six countries out of a board of seven (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, UK, USA). I don't envy the new board the amount of work that they have let themselves in, but I am very appreciate of the individuals who have stepped forward to perform this important role. Regards, Peter Miller [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM09/Election_to_Board === Ich habe bemerkt das es bis jetzt keine formelle bekanntmachung der Wahlergebnisse auf dieser Liste gegeben hat. Ich war auf der AGM und die Ergebnisse sind im Wiki geposted und und spiegeln nur meine Erinnerung wieder. Ich denke wir haben ein sehr guten Vorstand für das kommende Jahr, das geographisch vielfätliger ist. Letztes Jahr hatten wir Einwohner aus 4 Ländern (Niederlande, Schweden, UK und den USA). Nun haben wir Einwohner aus 6 Ländern in einem Vorstand von sieben (Deutschland, Italien, Niederlande, Schweden, UK, USA). Ich beneide den neuen Vorstand nicht um die Menge an Arbeit auf das sie Sich eingelassen haben aber ich begrüße es sehr, das die einzelnen sich zu dieser wichtigen Aufgabe entschlossen haben. Die Übersetzung ist nur ungefähr, also bitte dafür micht flamen :-) Das ganze bezieht sich auf die Wahl des Openstreetmap Foundation Vorstandes die an diesem Wochenende stattfand auf dem 2009 Annual General Meeting. Matthias ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Sven Anders schrieb: Ergänzent möchte ich noch sagen das es bei Abweichungen zwischen einer Behördlichen Liste und eines Straßenschildes ja durchaus möglich ist Was tun wir denn, wenn sowohl das Straßenschild, wie auch die behördliche Liste eine Abkürzung vorsieht? Ausgeschrieben taggen? -jha- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Mirko Küster schrieb: Jeder gibt das anders an. Selbst in Adressen wird oft nur von Fallersleben Straße angebeben, die findest du so auch auf keinem Schild. Das ist aber auch klar, denn diese Version müsste Fallerslebenstraße heisen, sofern diese sich immernoch auf den Dichter und nicht auf eine Ortschaft Fallersleben (z.b. Stadtteil von Wolfsburg) bezieht, die dann aber eher Fallerslebener Straße heißen wird. -jha- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Johann H. Addicks schrieb: Was tun wir denn, wenn sowohl das Straßenschild, wie auch die behördliche Liste eine Abkürzung vorsieht? Ausgeschrieben taggen? Nach dem Treffen mit AEROWEST ist meine Meinung zu den behördlichen Daten ein Stück nach unten gerutscht (Smile @ Frederik). Möglichkeiten: 1. auf die ALK schauen (da ist meist alles ausgeschrieben) 2. Amtsblätter durchschauen 3. auf alte Karten schauen (Stadtarchiv) 4. Anwohner fragen ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Eiskaffee?
Ich habe im Wiki kein Eiskaffe gefunden. Gibt’s sowas? Vorerst nehme ich dafür amenity=restaurant cuisine=ice_cream name=Eiskaffee ... Ist das so korrekt? MfG, Adiac ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Eiskaffee?
Hallo, ich nehme bisher amenity=cafe cuisine=ice_cream name=Eiscafé ... Gruß Andre Am Sonntag, den 23.08.2009, 20:03 +0200 schrieb Adiac: Ich habe im Wiki kein Eiskaffe gefunden. Gibt’s sowas? Vorerst nehme ich dafür amenity=restaurant cuisine=ice_cream name=Eiskaffee ... Ist das so korrekt? MfG, Adiac ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Eiskaffee?
Adiac schrieb: Ich habe im Wiki kein Eiskaffe gefunden. Gibt’s sowas? Eiskaffe klingt aber böse nach Eigennamen. Selbst Eiskaffee würde nur das Getränk bezeichnen. Du meinst doch sicher Eiscafé. AFAIK heißt es im Englischen ice-cream parlour. Wobei ... es kommt ja darauf an, was es da gibt und wie die Nutzung ist. Vermutlich ist es ein Geschäft in Café-Art, in dem Eis ausgegeben wird: amenity=cafe cuisine=ice_cream name=Eiscafé ... Grüße Tobias ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Zur Info: [Osmf-talk] Informal board election results
danke ! Matthias Versen schrieb: Jan Tappenbeck wrote: kann das bitte einer einmal zusammenfassend eindeutschen - besonders was mit election gemeint sein soll ! gruß Jan :-) Gehling Marc schrieb: Zur Info, Am 23.08.2009 um 14:43 schrieb Peter Miller: I notice that there has not been a formal election results announcement on this list as yet. I was at the AGM and the results have been posted informally on the wiki and reflect my memory of the results. [1] I think we have a very good board for the coming year and it is noticeably more geographically diverse this year. Last year we had residents of fout countries (Netherlands, Sweden, UK, and the USA). We now have residents of six countries out of a board of seven (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, UK, USA). I don't envy the new board the amount of work that they have let themselves in, but I am very appreciate of the individuals who have stepped forward to perform this important role. Regards, Peter Miller [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM09/Election_to_Board === Ich habe bemerkt das es bis jetzt keine formelle bekanntmachung der Wahlergebnisse auf dieser Liste gegeben hat. Ich war auf der AGM und die Ergebnisse sind im Wiki geposted und und spiegeln nur meine Erinnerung wieder. Ich denke wir haben ein sehr guten Vorstand für das kommende Jahr, das geographisch vielfätliger ist. Letztes Jahr hatten wir Einwohner aus 4 Ländern (Niederlande, Schweden, UK und den USA). Nun haben wir Einwohner aus 6 Ländern in einem Vorstand von sieben (Deutschland, Italien, Niederlande, Schweden, UK, USA). Ich beneide den neuen Vorstand nicht um die Menge an Arbeit auf das sie Sich eingelassen haben aber ich begrüße es sehr, das die einzelnen sich zu dieser wichtigen Aufgabe entschlossen haben. Die Übersetzung ist nur ungefähr, also bitte dafür micht flamen :-) Das ganze bezieht sich auf die Wahl des Openstreetmap Foundation Vorstandes die an diesem Wochenende stattfand auf dem 2009 Annual General Meeting. Matthias ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Tobias Wendorff schrieb: Johann H. Addicks schrieb: Was tun wir denn, wenn sowohl das Straßenschild, wie auch die behördliche Liste eine Abkürzung vorsieht? Ausgeschrieben taggen? Möglichkeiten: 1. auf die ALK schauen (da ist meist alles ausgeschrieben) 2. Amtsblätter durchschauen 3. auf alte Karten schauen (Stadtarchiv) 4. Anwohner fragen Kannst Du mal für angesprochene Hermann Henrich Meier Straße in Bremerhaven nachschauen? http://osm.org/go/0HgGlPtda-- http://www.bremerhaven.de/meer-erleben/stadt-haus/pressemitteilungen/2008/04/09/neue-anschrift-fuers-einstige-seeamt-keilstrasse-soll-stueck-kuerzer-werden.19688.html Ich habe bislang das nirgends ausgeschrieben gefunden. -jha- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Zur Info: [Osmf-talk] Informal board election results
Jan Tappenbecks produzierte TOFU: [..] War ja nicht anders zu erwarten. Anyway, wer nicht Mitglied ist, der darf nicht wählen, darf also auch nicht kritisieren. Es bleibt mir also nur die Schilderung meiner enttäuschten Hoffnungen. Ich werde jedoch keine Erwartungen darin setzen, dass der hier von einigen begrüßte Neuzugang im Board etwas in meinem Sinne Positives bewirken wird; ich stufe das als Hans Dampf in allen Gassen-Syndrom ein. Erstaunlich finde ich jedoch, dass es noch keine Proteste gegeben hat, gibt's doch sonst immer Vorbehalte gegen Einmischung von Konkurrenzprojekten. -jha- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Noch ein kurioses Schild...
Moin, etwas eigene Schilderkombinationen findet man beim Mappen ja ab und an. Letztens ist mir folgendes begegnet: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Schwere_Radfahrer_klein.jpg Gruss Torsten ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Wofuer alles Loecher in landuse
Robert S. schrieb: Ausgeschnitten werden muss aber nur, was nicht zu so einem Gebiet gehört. Leider gibt es keine klare Definition, was zu einem Gebiet gehoert und was nicht (Gehoert z.B. ein Park zu einem Wohngebiet? Oder ein Wald?) Als Folge davon wird jeder Renderer bei ueberlappenden Flaechen was anderes darstellen. = Im Zweifelsfall immer ausschneiden. Eine Ausnahme mache ich eigentlich nur bei Gebaeuden. Gruss Torsten ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Namensvorlage in Josm? (was: Schre ibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straßennamen)
Tobias Wendorff schrieb: Ich verwende: - name - name:DE - name:history - name:alternative (kompatibel dazu noch alt_name) - name:local (kompatibel dazu noch loc_name) - name:formerly - name:street_sign Ich habe bestimmt die Vorlage noch nicht gefunden, weil falsch gesucht: Wo verbirgt sich die Vorlage für den Namensdialog (nach diesem oder ähnlichem Schema) in JOSM? -jha- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Johann H. Addicks schrieb: Kannst Du mal für angesprochene Hermann Henrich Meier Straße in Bremerhaven nachschauen? http://osm.org/go/0HgGlPtda-- http://www.bremerhaven.de/meer-erleben/stadt-haus/pressemitteilungen/2008/04/09/neue-anschrift-fuers-einstige-seeamt-keilstrasse-soll-stueck-kuerzer-werden.19688.html Ich habe bislang das nirgends ausgeschrieben gefunden. Habe mal eben meine nicht-öffentlichen Quellen angezapft und ja: Es ist ein _Eigenname_. Sie heißt wirklich H.-H.-Meier-Straße! Ein wenig Recherche nach seiner Biographie ergibt, dass er unter dem Namen H. H. Meier bekannt war, da sein Vater Handelshäuser in New York und Bremen mit diesem Namen hatte - der hieß nämlich auch Hermann Henrich. Den Namen auszuschreiben halte ich für verfehlt, da es sich hierbei eindeutig um einen Eigennamen handelt. Ich würde das hier verwenden: name = H.-H.-Meier-Straße name:unabbreviated = Hermann-Henrich-Meier-Straße note = street has a proper name note:DE = Straße trägt Eigennamen So kann es jeder nachvollziehen. Nochwas: Wenn ich sowas sehe, drehe ich echt am Rad. Da haben alle Angst vor Google StreetView und Datenschutz und dann stellen die Beamten doch glatt Auszüge aus dem Grundbuch zusammen mit der Liegenschaftskarte online: http://www.bremerhaven.de/downloads/408/22417/BPM006_1.pdf Interessant aber auch, dass dort soviel von Reich geschrieben ist, obwohl der B-Plan von 1957 ist. Es ist zwar toll, dass die das alles Einscannen und bereitstellen, aber das ist dann doch zuviel des Guten. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Namensvorlage in Josm?
Johann H. Addicks schrieb: Tobias Wendorff schrieb: Ich verwende: - name - name:DE - name:history - name:alternative (kompatibel dazu noch alt_name) - name:local (kompatibel dazu noch loc_name) - name:formerly - name:street_sign Ich habe bestimmt die Vorlage noch nicht gefunden, weil falsch gesucht: Wo verbirgt sich die Vorlage für den Namensdialog (nach diesem oder ähnlichem Schema) in JOSM? Öhm, ich mache das manuell. Das ist auch nur meine Variante, da mag es noch andere geben. Ich kann die Liste jetzt übrigens erweitern, dank Deinem Beispiel: - name:unabbreviated Wie erzeugt man denn diese Vorlagen? Vielleicht kann ich sowas basteln. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweisen/Abkürzungen von Straße nnamen
Mirko Küster wrote: Ausgeschrieben wäre das die Heinrich-Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Straße. Ich wette das andernorts auch die volle August-Heinrich-Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Straße gibt. Ich vermute, die Wette hast du verloren. Artern hat die Heinrich-Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Straße, das ist aber bundesweit wohl die einzige Ausnahme. Typisch sind eher Abkürzungen oder volle Schreibweisen der Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Str. Nebenbei gib es auch den Ort Fallersleben, entsprechend auch Fallerslebener Straße (und Fallersleber Straße). Schönen Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
