Re: [talk-ph] Car navigation using Garmin with OSM

2010-06-07 Thread Jim Morgan
maning sambale wrote, On Monday, 07 June, 2010 01:39 PM:
 I have been reviewing estimated time of arrival (ETA) for garmin gps
 routing.  I noticed that as Sehested reported, the speed calculation
 is over-optimistic.  Due to the absence of complete maxspeed data in
 PH streets, 

I think the reason they don't have maximum speed data is because there's no way 
anyone will ever reach it! I read somewhere that the average traffic speed in 
Makati is 12 km/h. Which means you might as well tag them all with Type 0. 

Suggesting a new slogan for Makati; Normal rules don't apply

Jim

PS. OK yes, I know that the max speed data is used to calculate the fastest 
possible time. Just having a bit of fun here. 

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph


Re: [talk-ph] Car navigation using Garmin with OSM

2010-06-07 Thread Michael Cole
Wrong suggestion

more apt..

Rules don't apply

The speeds should be set to the real speed limits by law not a vague Traffic 
flow 
limitation imposed by Traffic (Jam) Enforcers... 

If I do 30KM/H will my garmin later report speeding? 

5KM per hour is walking speed, I do faster than that most of the time in 
Makati. (I walk everywhere in Makati..) 



On Monday 07 June 2010 2:16:51 pm Jim Morgan wrote:
 maning sambale wrote, On Monday, 07 June, 2010 01:39 PM:
  I have been reviewing estimated time of arrival (ETA) for garmin gps
  routing.  I noticed that as Sehested reported, the speed calculation
  is over-optimistic.  Due to the absence of complete maxspeed data in
  PH streets,
 
 I think the reason they don't have maximum speed data is because there's no
  way anyone will ever reach it! I read somewhere that the average traffic
  speed in Makati is 12 km/h. Which means you might as well tag them all
  with Type 0.

 
 Jim
 
 PS. OK yes, I know that the max speed data is used to calculate the fastest
  possible time. Just having a bit of fun here.
 
 ___
 talk-ph mailing list
 talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
 

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph


Re: [talk-ph] Car navigation using Garmin with OSM

2010-06-07 Thread maning sambale
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Michael Cole colemic...@gmail.com wrote:
 (I walk everywhere in Makati..)
And my cycling speed is faster than most primary/secondary roads in Marikina :)

I agree that most of this speed limits isn't followed, but the default
road_speed (in the osm-ph map) is very inaccurate.  My route
simulation along NLEX is 230 kph! This why I demoted all speed in the
osm-ph garmin to below 90 kph (for now).


-- 
cheers,
maning
--
Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph


Re: [OSM-talk-be] CORINE Land Cover 2000 (now with permission)

2010-06-07 Thread Mathias Versichele
+1

2010/6/7 Luc Van den Troost luc.a...@gmail.com

 As it starts to be an early voting here, +1 for me too, at least for the
 areas with low areal resolution.
 For the areas with high res areal images we probably have to look first
 what areas have a good landuse definitions right now. Based on images and
 personal knowledge they might be much more precise and detailed than corine.

 Just one remark regarding rendering. Landuse rendering seems too dominant
 on certain zoom-levels now.
 I noticed it near the french border here:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.8146lon=4.9209zoom=12layers=B000FTF
 At this zoom level, even tertiary roads, that should be rather clear, fade
 away in the dark green forest area.

 Luc / Speedy


 On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Renaud MICHEL 
 r.h.michel+...@gmail.comr.h.michel%2b...@gmail.com
  wrote:

 Le lundi 07 juin 2010 à 14:42, Ben Laenen a écrit :
  Lennard wrote:
   Now that the legal issues have been resolved, and the technical setup
   has been mostly performed, the question remains about whether to
   proceed with an actual import? Don't worry about it happening
   overnight, we have plenty of time to discuss and review the steps
   involved.
 
  +1 for importing from me as well.

 +1 for me too.

 --
 Renaud Michel

 ___
 Talk-be mailing list
 Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be



 ___
 Talk-be mailing list
 Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be




-- 
Mathias Versichele
Bio-ir milieutechnologie / Msc. geografie
Oudburgstraat 16
9240 Zele
0485/16.07.08
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works

2010-06-07 Thread Frederik Ramm
Alex,

Alexrk wrote:
 Am I right that such a tourist map could only be published under a CC-like 
 license again? In other words, if I do so and sell just one copy of that map, 
 any Big Publishing  Co could duplicate and sell the same on its own for 
 ..hmm.. half the price?

Correct.

 So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would be 
 able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a 
 ROI 
 on that work?

Our standard reply is that you cannot expect to apply old-world business 
models to our new world order. There is a lot of room for really 
creative things; taking our map and printing an A-Z is not exactly a 
prime example of creativity.

The suggested ODbL license changes situation by allowing you to make a 
produced work and license that under a non-share-alike license as long 
as the produced work is not a database.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works

2010-06-07 Thread andrzej zaborowski
On 7 June 2010 21:40, Alexrk alex...@yahoo.de wrote:
 Frederik Ramm schrieb am 07.06.2010 19:36:
 So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would 
 be
 able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a 
 ROI
 on that work?

 Our standard reply is that you cannot expect to apply old-world business
 models to our new world order. There is a lot of room for really
 creative things; taking our map and printing an A-Z is not exactly a
 prime example of creativity.


 Tnx Frederik.

 You might like AZ (or Falk or whatever) or not - but please don't 
 underestimate
 the creative work of cartographers. Making a good readable, fine-looking paper
 map is far more than installing Mapnik, choosing some color styles and 
 pressing
 the render-button.

 Why making to much assumptions or restriction regarding the kind of business
 models evolving behind OSM? I think it's not a good attitude to say, we don't
 like or respect this or that usage of OSM because it's too old school, it's 
 not
 Web 2.0 or ..geez.. someone claims his own license for his IP (damn 
 capitalist ;-)).

You're probably talking to the wrong person because Frederik is one of
the PD advocates and just gave an answer to your question.

But I like the Share alike rule and if you use the data produced by
osm, osm wants to be able to use the result under the same license.
Otherwise the situation may become like with the Map_Features
cheat-mug, it's only sold locally, but at the same time nobody else in
the world can produce identical mugs.

In this case however I'm not sure, the CC-By-SA is not precise about
what part of the work is share alike: only the data, or also the style
you used? (It's not precise because it wasn't made for data
obviously..)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F
talks about the case where you're using only the data, not tiles, and
says that then you need to state map data CC-such-and-such which
implies that the rest is not necessarily CC-such-and-such.

Cheers

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works

2010-06-07 Thread Frederik Ramm
Alex,

Alexrk wrote:
 You might like AZ (or Falk or whatever) or not - but please don't 
 underestimate 
 the creative work of cartographers. Making a good readable, fine-looking 
 paper 
 map is far more than installing Mapnik, choosing some color styles and 
 pressing 
 the render-button.

I know.

 Why making to much assumptions or restriction regarding the kind of business 
 models evolving behind OSM? I think it's not a good attitude to say, we don't 
 like or respect this or that usage of OSM because it's too old school, it's 
 not 
 Web 2.0 or ..geez.. someone claims his own license for his IP (damn 
 capitalist ;-)).

I am also of the opinion that it is desirable to give people as much 
freedom in working with our data as possible, so you are preaching to 
the choir here.

But not everyone in our project will agree that the concept of IP is a 
good thing. You seem to be relatively sure about the idea that anything 
you add on top of OSM data is yours and yours alone - but if you take 
your finished A-Z product, and remove from it the data taken from OSM, 
and remove from it the tricks you have learned from the old masters when 
you studied cartography (surely that's their IP, no?), and remove from 
it the nicely matching colour palettes that you have downloaded from a 
web site, and remove from it the font which has taken someone a full 
year to design, and remove from it the work of Mercator and those who 
came before him... is your own contribution in all of this really so 
large that it warrants that you should get 100% of the credit and revenue?

I think that IP is grossly overestimated and overused in our society. 
Recently I used the tube in London and saw that even there some group of 
lawyers had an ad campaign aimed at people who think they are up to 
something and need that protected. I have had to sign countless NDAs in 
my life only for people to divulge stuff that any thinking person could 
come up with.

Incidentally that it also the reason why I am against share-alike 
licenses - because they are rooted in IP, in the idea that our work of 
recording stuff around us somehow entitles us to dictate our terms and 
conditions to others. Just like you think that it is of course all 
yours if you design a good map from OSM data, OSMers assert that it is 
all theirs. I find both positions morally questionable.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works

2010-06-07 Thread Alexrk
Frederik Ramm schrieb am 07.06.2010 22:55:
 
 Incidentally that it also the reason why I am against share-alike 
 licenses - because they are rooted in IP, in the idea that our work of 
 recording stuff around us somehow entitles us to dictate our terms and 
 conditions to others. Just like you think that it is of course all 
 yours if you design a good map from OSM data, OSMers assert that it is 
 all theirs. I find both positions morally questionable.
 

I don't want to deny the work of OSM and I don't want to say this part is 
mine 
or this is yours. And of course I think OSM should be credited properly as 
the 
data provider. So ok, maybe the term IP is a bit unfortunate. Certainly  we 
always stand on the shoulders of giants. We should also credit those clever 
guys 
who invented GPS and the computer etc ..that's not the point.

It's merely a problem of restricted possibilities I see with share-alike in 
that 
case.

Lets assume someone works two weeks - hunch darkly night after night over Adobe 
Illustrator, coming up with a handmade city map of Hamburg. OK voila nice, now 
lets try to sell it in a small edition of printed copies (BoD or whatsoever). 
But why should one invest two weeks of work + advance payments for the printing 
costs, if another big publishing house can take that map and sell it for half 
the price, just because that company didn't had your sunk costs (and possess 
much cheaper publishing abilities).

Sounds not so promissing. From that point of view, share-alike would even 
benefit monopolies - as typically any other sunk cost-intensive production 
does.

I think, I begin to understand, that CC is really not the right license for OSM.

Regards
Alex

-- 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alexrk2


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works

2010-06-07 Thread Frederik Ramm
Alex,

Alexrk wrote:
 Lets assume someone works two weeks - hunch darkly night after night over 
 Adobe 
 Illustrator, coming up with a handmade city map of Hamburg. OK voila nice, 
 now 
 lets try to sell it in a small edition of printed copies (BoD or whatsoever). 
 But why should one invest two weeks of work + advance payments for the 
 printing 
 costs, if another big publishing house can take that map and sell it for half 
 the price, just because that company didn't had your sunk costs (and 
 possess 
 much cheaper publishing abilities).

One idea would be to make a deal with them and have them commission you 
to make that map. If they make a good  wholesome product of it, and 
they don't sell at too much of a markup, would people rather buy their 
original product or the chinese facsimile for half the price?

Another idea would be combining the OSM map with other, original content 
which makes the product something nice and special; that other stuff, if 
it is not derived from OSM, would not be CC-BY-SA, so while anyone can 
copy the map, they cannot copy the other stuff, and thus can never 
reproduce the whole that you have created.

There are lots of business models that work with share-alike data; it is 
just that the old business models which are exclusively based on pay me 
or I sue you don't work.

 Sounds not so promissing. From that point of view, share-alike would even 
 benefit monopolies - as typically any other sunk cost-intensive production 
 does.

I don't follow your argument here. A Monopoly means there is only one 
provider of maps who can dictate the price. Whereas with share-alike, as 
soon as the would-be monopolist makes big profits, others will come and 
copy his map. Where's the monopoly there?

 I think, I begin to understand, that CC is really not the right license for 
 OSM.

CC is not the right license for OSM, but not for any of the reasons you 
have mentioned.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


[OSM-talk] presentation on introduction to osm technicals

2010-06-07 Thread Mikel Maron
Hi

I'm giving a workshop on Friday at the Africa Agricultural GIS Week in Nairobi. 
The first half of the day will be a short mapping party. The second half of the 
day will survey topics in how to use OSM data ... in OpenLayers, Shapefiles, 
using osmosis, API, etc. The audience will be GIS professionals.

Does anyone have any presentation files or materials that covers this kind of 
thing?

Thanks
Mikel

 == Mikel Maron ==
+254(0)724899738 @mikel s:mikelmaron
http://mapkibera.org/
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Haiti
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] presentation on introduction to osm technicals

2010-06-07 Thread jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
Hi, I have a presentation on the same topic due for the 20th, maybe we could
work together.
what about a shared google doc for a presentation?
http://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AYQovvVR7xyxZGc2NnAzc3dfMTk3Z3doMmJkYzkhl=en
here i started something very simple.
mike

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Hi

 I'm giving a workshop on Friday at the Africa Agricultural GIS Week in
 Nairobi. The first half of the day will be a short mapping party. The second
 half of the day will survey topics in how to use OSM data ... in OpenLayers,
 Shapefiles, using osmosis, API, etc. The audience will be GIS professionals.

 Does anyone have any presentation files or materials that covers this kind
 of thing?

 Thanks
 Mikel

 == Mikel Maron ==
 +254(0)724899738 @mikel s:mikelmaron
 http://mapkibera.org/
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Haiti


 ___
 dev mailing list
 d...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] presentation on introduction to osm technicals

2010-06-07 Thread François Van Der Biest
Hi Mikel,

This page [1] deals with the use of the XAPI with OpenLayers. It's
very interesting, but in French.
The app [2] source might be more readable/

HTH,
F.

[1] http://www.geotribu.net/node/260
[2] http://88.191.39.115/fabien/geotribu/application/osm/xapi/

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Hi

 I'm giving a workshop on Friday at the Africa Agricultural GIS Week in
 Nairobi. The first half of the day will be a short mapping party. The second
 half of the day will survey topics in how to use OSM data ... in OpenLayers,
 Shapefiles, using osmosis, API, etc. The audience will be GIS professionals.

 Does anyone have any presentation files or materials that covers this kind
 of thing?

 Thanks
 Mikel

 == Mikel Maron ==
 +254(0)724899738 @mikel s:mikelmaron
 http://mapkibera.org/
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Haiti

 ___
 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] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Peter Körner
John Smith schrieb:
  Currently I've been making a proposal for OSM to adopt an UUID tagging
  scheme so that third parties wishing to directly refer to OSM objects
  can do so without the current problems of using internal database
  reference IDs vanishing in future.
I don't think that your uuid-tags will be more stable either - they are 
subject to thousands of editors that will sometimes delete tags they 
don't know or that won't take over those tags to the ways when they 
create polys for them.

About explicit editor support: I disapprove proposals that won't work 
without explicit editor support (eg. because they are too complex to 
handle in a manual fashion).

  So far I've been toying with some proof of concept stuff to establish
  what works and what doesn't, so far I've coded some scripts to
  generate and upload UUIDs automatically on OSM objects
Doing sth. automatically in osm is always a bad idea, especially if the 
thing you're trying to do is still in a proposal state -- so please do 
not run it agaianst the main api as long as it's not approved by a 
wide-enough audience.

I like Tim's Query-to-map [1] which accomplishes this task already and 
doesn't rely on any extra tagging, by combining bbox+[ref|name] -- tags 
that don't vanish as fast as some mysterious uuid tag.

Peter


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Query-to-map

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 17:58, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
 I don't think that your uuid-tags will be more stable either - they are
 subject to thousands of editors that will sometimes delete tags they don't
 know or that won't take over those tags to the ways when they create polys
 for them.

The proposal covers those situations by tracking deleted UUIDs and
duplicated UUIDs, with your logic we should ban all the editors
because they can create duplicate nodes.

 About explicit editor support: I disapprove proposals that won't work
 without explicit editor support (eg. because they are too complex to handle
 in a manual fashion).

Most of the semi-complex to complex features never had editor support
at one stage but if this proposal is deemed suitable by enough people
the editors will figure out some new snazzy way to incorporate support
to varying degrees, just like support for relations has improved over
time as people found them increasingly useful for various things.

 Doing sth. automatically in osm is always a bad idea, especially if the
 thing you're trying to do is still in a proposal state -- so please do not
 run it agaianst the main api as long as it's not approved by a wide-enough
 audience.

I think you have misunderstood or at least not comprehended the
potential for being able to easily share the same ID with other
databases without needing to do special or complex bbox searches like
you suggest. At no stage didn't I ever suggest that any script should
simply mass tag nodes with UUIDs, these should only be generated if
there is an actual need for them.

 I like Tim's Query-to-map [1] which accomplishes this task already and
 doesn't rely on any extra tagging, by combining bbox+[ref|name] -- tags that
 don't vanish as fast as some mysterious uuid tag.

There is a lot of ID tags in the database and they seem to be a lot
more stable than OSM IDs.

It might do so, but it's horribly inefficient as a result of needing
to do searches across areas, and can't cope with an occupant such as a
business moving across town without an even more inefficient brute
force search which may not work if the tags fix the name due to
spelling mistakes etc etc etc.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 18:26, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 I like Tim's Query-to-map [1] which accomplishes this task already and
 doesn't rely on any extra tagging, by combining bbox+[ref|name] -- tags that
 don't vanish as fast as some mysterious uuid tag.

 There is a lot of ID tags in the database and they seem to be a lot
 more stable than OSM IDs.

 It might do so, but it's horribly inefficient as a result of needing
 to do searches across areas, and can't cope with an occupant such as a
 business moving across town without an even more inefficient brute
 force search which may not work if the tags fix the name due to
 spelling mistakes etc etc etc.


Also it doesn't cover a new thought I had on the subject, being able
to assign unique IDs in the field without needing to connect to the
main OSM DB to get a new ID, this might be useful in emergency
situations where you need to tag a lot of things in tandem with a
group in very short order and being able to easily share and modify
that information with only LAN connectivity.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi,

John Smith wrote:
 Also it doesn't cover a new thought I had on the subject, being able
 to assign unique IDs in the field without needing to connect to the
 main OSM DB to get a new ID, this might be useful in emergency
 situations where you need to tag a lot of things in tandem with a
 group in very short order and being able to easily share and modify
 that information with only LAN connectivity.

Sounds like a rather hypothetical situation to me but if I ever found 
myself in such a situation I would simply assign a block of negative IDs 
to every participant and have them use these. Just like in an .osc 
document really.

Bye
Frederik

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Frederik Ramm
John,

John Smith wrote:
 I think you have misunderstood or at least not comprehended the
 potential for being able to easily share the same ID with other
 databases without needing to do special or complex bbox searches like
 you suggest. 

It doesn't exactly require a stroke of genius to see that potential, 
given that people are already using our internal IDs all over the place 
for lack of something better.

It does, however, require a stroke of genius to find a non-invasive and 
permanent way to solve this problem. Tagging objects with UUIDs is neither.

 It might do so, but it's horribly inefficient as a result of needing
 to do searches across areas, and can't cope with an occupant such as a
 business moving across town

If you investigate the use cases for permantent IDs further, you will 
find that moving across town is often a valid reason for actually 
discarding the ID. As in, someone writes a travel guide and wants to 
link to a restaurant (Chez Fred, an excellent pizza joint in the heart 
of Hamburg with views on the Elbe river traffic...). Now if Chez Fred 
moves across town and is replaced, at the same location, with Chez 
John, is it useful for the travel guide to still be able to link to 
Chez Fred? - Of course, if the travel guide said: Chez Fred, an 
excellent pizza joint in Hamburg where renowned chef Frederik Ramm 
entertains his guests to Pizza Margherita every Tuesday, then it would 
have made sense to keep the link despite the move (but perhaps not so if 
the owner=... tag had changed...)

For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the 
change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs 
are not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.

Bye
Frederik

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 19:01, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 It doesn't exactly require a stroke of genius to see that potential, given
 that people are already using our internal IDs all over the place for lack
 of something better.

I'm open to suggestion on what would be better, I don't think either
system is perfect and both have work arounds for their flaws.

 It does, however, require a stroke of genius to find a non-invasive and
 permanent way to solve this problem. Tagging objects with UUIDs is neither.

Unless we start trying out different solutions we'll only be guessing.
You're assuming they'll simply disappear, but they can be applied to a
new object, unlike the existing IDs.

 If you investigate the use cases for permantent IDs further, you will find
 that moving across town is often a valid reason for actually discarding
 the ID. As in, someone writes a travel guide and wants to link to a
 restaurant (Chez Fred, an excellent pizza joint in the heart of Hamburg
 with views on the Elbe river traffic...). Now if Chez Fred moves across
 town and is replaced, at the same location, with Chez John, is it useful
 for the travel guide to still be able to link to Chez Fred? - Of course,
 if the travel guide said: Chez Fred, an excellent pizza joint in Hamburg
 where renowned chef Frederik Ramm entertains his guests to Pizza Margherita
 every Tuesday, then it would have made sense to keep the link despite the
 move (but perhaps not so if the owner=... tag had changed...)

You misunderstood, I wasn't talking about people tagging stuff moving
across town, I was talking about the thing they tagged moving across
town. Also the current proposal suggests using multiple UUID tags if
needed one for the occupant, one for the building in case they need to
be split, if you only have one UUID and Flickr refers to the building
and wikipedia refers to the occupant, who gets to keep the UUID if the
occupant shifts?

 For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the
 change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs are
 not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.

I fail to see your point here, why would changing properties cause
problems with UUIDs that are allocated independently of the existing
OSM ID information? I'm not suggesting here to replace the internal ID
numbers with something else, but use static tags so they can be
shifted between objects.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 18:51, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Sounds like a rather hypothetical situation to me but if I ever found myself
 in such a situation I would simply assign a block of negative IDs to every
 participant and have them use these. Just like in an .osc document really.

That is a solution, I'm not sure if it's the best solution, again
we're guessing which would work better.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 19:08, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 7 June 2010 18:51, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Sounds like a rather hypothetical situation to me but if I ever found myself
 in such a situation I would simply assign a block of negative IDs to every
 participant and have them use these. Just like in an .osc document really.

 That is a solution, I'm not sure if it's the best solution, again
 we're guessing which would work better.


The down side with negative IDs is you can't track them in any way
once they're upload without getting the new IDs from the person that
uploaded, or guessing at map objects, in the case of Haiti there were
a lot of objects tagged with similar information and if the lat/lon
changes between revisions you'll end up with duplicates in the system.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Peter Körner
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
 For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the 
 change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs 
 are not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.

But location/tag combinations could:

   ?bbox=$SOME-STREET$amenity=restaurantcuisine=italian

could link to *any* restaurant in this place,

   ?bbox=$SOME-CITY$amenity=restaurantoperator=fred

could link to *your* restaurant - this also works, if fred's going to 
open a whole restaurant chain,

   ?bbox=$SOME-CITY$amenity=restaurantname=Chez%20Fred

could link to *a specific* restaurant somewhere in the city.

Peter

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Peter Körner
John Smith schrieb:
 I think you have misunderstood or at least not comprehended the
 potential for being able to easily share ...

I think I did.

But as you already said, you're not the first one with this idea and 
just adding another id-tag doesn't make anything better. So please, 
let's first check if this is *really* a good solution instead of just 
playing the my-id-is-better-than-yours-game over again.

Peter

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi,

John Smith wrote:
 You misunderstood, I wasn't talking about people tagging stuff moving
 across town, I was talking about the thing they tagged moving across
 town. 

Yes. And thereby a link might, or might not, lose its meaning.

 Also the current proposal suggests using multiple UUID tags if
 needed one for the occupant, one for the building in case they need to
 be split, if you only have one UUID and Flickr refers to the building
 and wikipedia refers to the occupant, who gets to keep the UUID if the
 occupant shifts?

This could lead to an inflation of UUIDs on the object, and everyone who 
changes the object will have to decide which of them to keep, which to 
move, which to delete. For example, a restaurant would have one UUID for 
the building it is in, one UUID for the chef, one UUID for the pretty 
barmaid and so on - one UUID indeed for every single property someone 
wants to link to. Then if you, as a mapper, find that the restaurant has 
moved across town you'll have to find out what to do with these UUIDs 
(or, more likely, you'll just leave them alone).

 For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the
 change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs are
 not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.
 
 I fail to see your point here, why would changing properties cause
 problems with UUIDs that are allocated independently of the existing
 OSM ID information?

Because if you link to a restaurant because it has a nice location, then 
changing the location would mean that the link is invalidated; if you 
link to the restaurant because of the chef, then not. You might also 
link to a restaurant because of the name (e.g. Surprisingly, Hamburg 
has three restaurants named 'Chez something'...) - in which case the 
link would have to survive a move and a change in chefs but not a change 
in name.

Is German English really so different from Australian English ;-)

Bye
Frederik

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 19:19, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
 But as you already said, you're not the first one with this idea and just
 adding another id-tag doesn't make anything better. So please, let's first
 check if this is *really* a good solution instead of just playing the
 my-id-is-better-than-yours-game over again.

I'm not saying my idea is perfect, which is why I put it on the wiki
as a proposal, but I'm trying things out to see if they'll work,
otherwise we're just assuming that they're all going to fail so we may
as not try and address the issue.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 19:13, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
 Frederik Ramm schrieb:

 For every kind of object and every context in which you link to it, the
 change of some properties might invalidate the link. That's why UUIDs are
 not only clumsy but also not solving the problem.

 But location/tag combinations could:

  ?bbox=$SOME-STREET$amenity=restaurantcuisine=italian

 could link to *any* restaurant in this place,

  ?bbox=$SOME-CITY$amenity=restaurantoperator=fred

 could link to *your* restaurant - this also works, if fred's going to open a
 whole restaurant chain,

  ?bbox=$SOME-CITY$amenity=restaurantname=Chez%20Fred

 could link to *a specific* restaurant somewhere in the city.

You are guessing the details are going to be the same if things get
shifted, it won't help if the old node is deleted and a new one added
with a spelling mistake, or at the very least require just as much
intervention as fixing up missing UUIDs. In fact if a UUID is deleted
you could use similar searches you point out above to suggest where
the UUID should be shifted to, but leave it up to a person to make an
informed decision about it.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 19:22, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 This could lead to an inflation of UUIDs on the object, and everyone who
 changes the object will have to decide which of them to keep, which to move,
 which to delete. For example, a restaurant would have one UUID for the
 building it is in, one UUID for the chef, one UUID for the pretty barmaid
 and so on - one UUID indeed for every single property someone wants to link
 to. Then if you, as a mapper, find that the restaurant has moved across town
 you'll have to find out what to do with these UUIDs (or, more likely, you'll
 just leave them alone).

By occupant I meant the business, not people... As for what to do
about the UUID, Peter has already pointed out solutions to the issue,
think of the UUIDs as a lookup table to speed up searching inside a
bbox every time you want to locate an object...

 Because if you link to a restaurant because it has a nice location, then
 changing the location would mean that the link is invalidated; if you link
 to the restaurant because of the chef, then not. You might also link to a
 restaurant because of the name (e.g. Surprisingly, Hamburg has three
 restaurants named 'Chez something'...) - in which case the link would have
 to survive a move and a change in chefs but not a change in name.

I'm not talking about people, but the business occupying the building,
not the chef or the head waiter nor the .

 Is German English really so different from Australian English ;-)

It would certainly seem so.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread David Earl
On 07/06/2010 10:22, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Then if you, as a mapper, find that the restaurant has
 moved across town you'll have to find out what to do with these UUIDs
 (or, more likely, you'll just leave them alone).

Isn't that going to be true whatever mechanism is used?

If the OSM object refers in some way to the entity, then if the entity 
changes (its location or relevant object) the OSM object may have to be 
updated. If the entity refers to the OSM object and the OSM object 
changes (location or identity) the entity may have to be updated. 
Presumably the updates can only be done by those with the appropriate 
knowledge.

David

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Lester Caine
John Smith wrote:
 On 7 June 2010 19:19, Peter Körnerosm-li...@mazdermind.de  wrote:
 But as you already said, you're not the first one with this idea and just
 adding another id-tag doesn't make anything better. So please, let's first
 check if this is *really* a good solution instead of just playing the
 my-id-is-better-than-yours-game over again.

 I'm not saying my idea is perfect, which is why I put it on the wiki as a
 proposal, but I'm trying things out to see if they'll work, otherwise we're
 just assuming that they're all going to fail so we may as not try and address
 the issue.

Internally generated id numbers are used to currently identify things. As long 
as those numbers do not change then they can be used to provide permanent links 
to anything in the database. The problem - I think - is that these internal 
numbers are attached to a POI of some sort which may benefit from being able to 
identify different facets of that point of interest? You either add separate 
poi's for the 'building' and the 'occupant' and the like so that you get 
different internal id's ... or we agree on a way of uniquely tagging 
information 
in a manor that does not rely on the internal sub structure?

XML is too flexible to rely on identifying distinct objects when taken in
isolation from their deeper context, so some overall unique identifier has a
place? UUID is an well designed unique id that suits the bill so why not use it.
Trying to 'create' a new type of unique ID would be pointless?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 19:45, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
 Internally generated id numbers are used to currently identify things. As long
 as those numbers do not change then they can be used to provide permanent 
 links
 to anything in the database. The problem - I think - is that these internal
 numbers are attached to a POI of some sort which may benefit from being able 
 to
 identify different facets of that point of interest? You either add separate
 poi's for the 'building' and the 'occupant' and the like so that you get
 different internal id's ... or we agree on a way of uniquely tagging 
 information
 in a manor that does not rely on the internal sub structure?

If you need to group objects, create a relation and then tag the
relation with a unique ID...

 XML is too flexible to rely on identifying distinct objects when taken in
 isolation from their deeper context, so some overall unique identifier has a
 place? UUID is an well designed unique id that suits the bill so why not use 
 it.

XML is supposed to make data interchange between different databases
easier, but once you start mixing datasets all bets are off, this has
nothing to do with XML and everything to do with mixing datasets.

As for your other point about UUIDs being useful, I think I agree with
you, but then I have no idea what you mean by your next question.

 Trying to 'create' a new type of unique ID would be pointless?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] presentation on introduction to osm technicals

2010-06-07 Thread Iván Sánchez Ortega
El 07/06/2010 8:14, Mikel Maron escribió:
 The second half of the day will survey topics in how to use OSM data
 ... in OpenLayers, Shapefiles, using osmosis, API, etc. The audience
 will be GIS professionals.

 Does anyone have any presentation files or materials that covers this
 kind of thing?

I did an overview of OSM tech a while ago:

http://www.slideshare.net/ivansanchezortega/openstreetmap-en-zzzincodp#54

It doesn't cover anything in depth, but IMHO, GIS professionals like to 
have an idea of how everything works together.


Hope that helps,
-- 
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/6/7 Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de:
 John Smith schrieb:
   Currently I've been making a proposal for OSM to adopt an UUID tagging
   scheme so that third parties wishing to directly refer to OSM objects
   can do so without the current problems of using internal database
   reference IDs vanishing in future.
 I don't think that your uuid-tags will be more stable either


I think they do improve the situation - at least the mapper sees that
there is an external reference clued to a certain object.

 - they are
 subject to thousands of editors that will sometimes delete tags they
 don't know or that won't take over those tags to the ways when they
 create polys for them.


that's both not acceptable IMHO, espescially deleting tags the editor
doesn't know of is completely contradictory to the OSM principle of
free form tagging.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Lester Caine
John Smith wrote:
 XML is supposed to make data interchange between different databases
 easier, but once you start mixing datasets all bets are off, this has
 nothing to do with XML and everything to do with mixing datasets.

 As for your other point about UUIDs being useful, I think I agree with
 you, but then I have no idea what you mean by your next question.

   Trying to 'create' a new type of unique ID would be pointless?

Actually it follows on from the 'mixing datasets' point. The UK has a well 
defined ID for every property in the United Kingdom. I have a large set of that 
data available for other purposes but I end up having to tag the unique 
property 
id's with something else as the same numbers appear in other data sets. Adding 
UUID references to the different datasets makes matching a whole of a lot 
easier.

UUID is an already well structured unique id so there is no point trying to 
redesign it ... lets just use it ...

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 20:05, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
 UUID is an already well structured unique id so there is no point trying to
 redesign it ... lets just use it ...

I haven't seen anyone argue against UUIDs specifically, just some
people have approached the problem of trying to use existing tags to
uniquely identify something, but that assumes there is nothing
similarly tagged nearby, at which point someone has to go in and make
a tag change anyway, regardless if it is fixing up broken UUID
references or other tags.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map

2010-06-07 Thread Gervase Markham
On 06/06/10 17:46, Gary68 wrote:
 could you please be a little bit more precise what you don't like at
 osmarender and especially mapgen.pl?

It was me who said that, actually. Here are a few comments, mostly in 
relation to the Mapnik style:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40961lon=0.01101zoom=16layers=0B00FTF

* Bus stop icons are big and ugly
* In fact, many icons have too few colours
* Lots of text rendering has letters overlapping themselves
* Text in different categories overlaps (e.g. road names/train station
   names/POI names)
* Font is probably 1-2 px too big to fit nicely in the roads
* Road names overlap one way arrows
* Road ends are square
* Choice of POIs to render seems not as good as Mapnik

Example of lots of overlapping text:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40711lon=0.01398zoom=17layers=0B00FTF

Hope that's a useful start... My suspicion is that some of this stuff, 
like text rendering, cannot be fully fixed with the technology choices 
inherent in the way OSMARender works. But I'd love to be proved wrong.

Gerv


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging wide steps (tribune / terrace)

2010-06-07 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/6/6 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
 On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 Off the top of my head I'm thinking of a line within the area that
 defines the direction. it would have to be linked to the boundary by
 using relations(?)

 Yup that is how I think also. Still no complete solution, but probably
 worth refining this, as a start:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Area


yes, this is indeed one possible usage of this proposal: you could map
the beginning and end of each continuous steps. (this is 2 lines: one
indicating the lower end and one way following the upper end. In the
middle (horizontal areas with no elevation = landing) you could define
them as such (without even redrawing the ways). This enables as well
to map curved/multiangled steps, but still is problematic in cases,
where the steps intersect with a diversely inclined terrain (therefore
resulting in different amount of steps on the left and on the right
side). In the relation you could enter additional information
(steps=15) for the number of steps, to define it in ultimate detail
(optionally). Unfortunately no current renderer or router is able to
use this.


 Note that this will still not be a perfect solution for the
 semi-circular steps/terraces, because a way + area will not define the
 curve in each step.


yes, they will in many/most (exceptions see above) cases (according to
the area proposal you don't map areas as closed polygons).


 To do this explicitly, you'd probably want to
 map each step individually (as a curved way),


you would do this following the area-proposal, but you would probably
reduce it from each step to each first and last step of a
continuity of steps.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.dewrote:

 I don't think that your uuid-tags will be more stable either - they are
 subject to thousands of editors that will sometimes delete tags they
 don't know or that won't take over those tags to the ways when they
 create polys for them.


What about the website=* tag?  Do people tend to maintain them?  Because
website=u.osm.org/c9f0f516-7da2-4cf0-a455-b09f90792c7d would work equally
well and wouldn't require any new tags.

I don't think the uuid tags would be treated perfectly.  But they do seem
like they'd be better than nothing, even if only some portion of the mappers
maintain them.  Also, I'm one of those mappers that will sometimes delete
tags I don't know.  But not if they're given an objective explanation in the
wiki.

The only thing I'm really afraid of is that these tags would violate what
some people seem to believe is a rule - the supposed map only what's on the
ground rule.  Do the website=* and wikipedia=* tags violate this rule?

Anthony
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 23:12, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 What about the website=* tag?  Do people tend to maintain them?  Because
 website=u.osm.org/c9f0f516-7da2-4cf0-a455-b09f90792c7d would work equally
 well and wouldn't require any new tags.

While you can embed a UUID in a URL I would suggest it gets it's own
tag since lots of objects already get a website tag.

 I don't think the uuid tags would be treated perfectly.  But they do seem
 like they'd be better than nothing, even if only some portion of the mappers
 maintain them.  Also, I'm one of those mappers that will sometimes delete
 tags I don't know.  But not if they're given an objective explanation in the
 wiki.

+1 any tags that are used should be documented, or at least discussed
and there may be a similar tag already used that is better.

 The only thing I'm really afraid of is that these tags would violate what
 some people seem to believe is a rule - the supposed map only what's on the
 ground rule.  Do the website=* and wikipedia=* tags violate this rule?

Using that logic, source=* from aerial imagery, would need to be
removed, although if wikipedia starts linking to OSM objects do we
need to also link to wikipedia objects?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:18 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 7 June 2010 23:12, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  The only thing I'm really afraid of is that these tags would violate what
  some people seem to believe is a rule - the supposed map only what's on
 the
  ground rule.  Do the website=* and wikipedia=* tags violate this rule?

 Using that logic, source=* from aerial imagery, would need to be
 removed,


Well, I'm sure even the most ardent map only what's on the ground
proponents will make exceptions for things which are legally required.  As
for source tags that *aren't* legally required, I'd actually argue myself
that as metatags they should be on the changeset, not the element.

Either way, I could see someone going around removing uuid=* tags from
places where they couldn't find the QR code in the store window.


 although if wikipedia starts linking to OSM objects do we
 need to also link to wikipedia objects?


I'd suggest that we should have a single website=* or uuid=* link to an
all-inclusive wiki (can't use Wikipedia as that single website because of
their notability rules), and that all other linking to any other websites
should be done by adding an external link from that wiki page.

So, no.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:18 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:

 While you can embed a UUID in a URL I would suggest it gets it's own
 tag since lots of objects already get a website tag.


I'd prefer that.  But if the let's try to get consensus for a new tag
process fails, there's always shove it into an already accepted tag
option.  (At which point it'd probably be website:uuid=*, or even
website:uuid:building/operator/etc=*)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map

2010-06-07 Thread Gary68
hi,

thanks for the information. i thought that some issues were related to
the style file but of course some are technology inherent - and might
need heavy thinking and development before being solved. at least
speaking for mapgen.pl

regarding mapgen:
- the icon issues could be solved quickly by the user (by drawing or
using new ones)
- it is true that way and poi labels might overlap. but not inside a
group. that is a street label will not overlap another street label
- font sizes can easily be adapted
- oneway arrows share the space with way labels ;-)
- road ends are not square :-)
- choice of pois is done in style sheet 

cheers 

gerhard
gary68


On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 11:49 +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
 On 06/06/10 17:46, Gary68 wrote:
  could you please be a little bit more precise what you don't like at
  osmarender and especially mapgen.pl?
 
 It was me who said that, actually. Here are a few comments, mostly in 
 relation to the Mapnik style:
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40961lon=0.01101zoom=16layers=0B00FTF
 
 * Bus stop icons are big and ugly
 * In fact, many icons have too few colours
 * Lots of text rendering has letters overlapping themselves
 * Text in different categories overlaps (e.g. road names/train station
names/POI names)
 * Font is probably 1-2 px too big to fit nicely in the roads
 * Road names overlap one way arrows
 * Road ends are square
 * Choice of POIs to render seems not as good as Mapnik
 
 Example of lots of overlapping text:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40711lon=0.01398zoom=17layers=0B00FTF
 
 Hope that's a useful start... My suspicion is that some of this stuff, 
 like text rendering, cannot be fully fixed with the technology choices 
 inherent in the way OSMARender works. But I'd love to be proved wrong.
 
 Gerv
 
 
 ___
 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] Custom rendering of a small map

2010-06-07 Thread Frederik Ramm
Gerv,

Gervase Markham wrote:
 I'd like to render a map of about a square mile or so of the town of 
 Bromley, in Kent, for the information sheet for my wedding in August (yay!).

I guess by now you have an idea of the kind of trouble you're signing up 
to by getting married ;-)

If you

* are geek enough to think that you can fiddle with a Mapnik stylesheet
* have a bit of money to spare

but

* are not willing to go through the whole Mapnik setup yourself

you could set up an Amazon cloud thingie (billed by the hour, thus 
affordable) and install the stuff from tiledrawer.com which gets you a 
ready-made tile server. Then play around with the style sheet until you 
like it (simply preview in web browser), and finally make a screenshot 
or even better, run an SVG export.

This still requires hacking the XML but you get the PostGIS and Mapnik 
setup delivered right to your Amazon machine.

Bye
Frederik


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging wide steps (tribune / terrace)

2010-06-07 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/6/7 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
 Interesting problem. Seems related to the general how to map a street
 as an area without sacrificing the properties of streets problem. Use
 an area, and a relation, with the relation specifying which way(s) are
 the top and bottom?


+1, as long as the lateral sides are straight, this could be solved
with 2 ways (one above and one below) and the area-relation (no yet
defined for steps). In case of curved sided it would be required to
enter them as well

cheers
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


[OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works

2010-06-07 Thread Alexrk
Hi, I've got a question about the current CC license: Let's say one would like 
to create a tourist map from OSM data - eg like those AZ city plans 
(http://www.a-zmaps.co.uk/?nid=354)

Am I right that such a tourist map could only be published under a CC-like 
license again? In other words, if I do so and sell just one copy of that map, 
any Big Publishing  Co could duplicate and sell the same on its own for 
..hmm.. half the price?

So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would be 
able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a ROI 
on that work?

Regards
Alex

-- 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alexrk2


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map

2010-06-07 Thread Colin Marquardt
2010/6/7 Gary68 g...@gary68.de:
 regarding mapgen:
 - the icon issues could be solved quickly by the user (by drawing or
 using new ones)

FWIW, these icons here are awesome: http://www.sjjb.co.uk/mapicons/
(they are the successor/evolution of the svg-twotone ones that OSM's
Mapnik style uses, CC-0, authored by Brian Quinion).

Cheers
  Colin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA and derivate works

2010-06-07 Thread Alexrk
Frederik Ramm schrieb am 07.06.2010 19:36:
 So if that interpretation of CC-BY-SA is correct, practically no one would 
 be 
 able to do really creative things with OSM if she or he would like to get a 
 ROI 
 on that work?
 
 Our standard reply is that you cannot expect to apply old-world business 
 models to our new world order. There is a lot of room for really 
 creative things; taking our map and printing an A-Z is not exactly a 
 prime example of creativity.
 

Tnx Frederik.

You might like AZ (or Falk or whatever) or not - but please don't underestimate 
the creative work of cartographers. Making a good readable, fine-looking paper 
map is far more than installing Mapnik, choosing some color styles and pressing 
the render-button.

Why making to much assumptions or restriction regarding the kind of business 
models evolving behind OSM? I think it's not a good attitude to say, we don't 
like or respect this or that usage of OSM because it's too old school, it's not 
Web 2.0 or ..geez.. someone claims his own license for his IP (damn capitalist 
;-)).

So, looks ODbL is an inevitable step along the path towards fostering more 
creative IP on top of OSM.


Regards
Alex

-- 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alexrk2


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 23:39, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Well, I'm sure even the most ardent map only what's on the ground
 proponents will make exceptions for things which are legally required.  As

If attribution is legally required the attribution tag should be used,
not the source tag, the source tag is for indicating the source of the
information.

 for source tags that *aren't* legally required, I'd actually argue myself
 that as metatags they should be on the changeset, not the element.

This is getting pretty far off topic, even if this thread started it,
but some people think that is sufficient although I disagree since
people may be mapping from multiple sources of information at the same
time, eg they might get the name from wikipedia and the location from
aerial imagery and the turning restriction from a survey, but that
information may not be the same for all object edited...

 Either way, I could see someone going around removing uuid=* tags from
 places where they couldn't find the QR code in the store window.

UUIDs aren't just so you can slap a QR code in some shop window, that
is merely one use case, it's so different databases can explicitly
identify an object, it might be some park someone photographer wants
to link their photos to in Flickr. Also just because something isn't
on the ground shouldn't mean it should be deleted just because someone
is overly zealot about only having things in the database that are on
the ground, otherwise we might as well start deleting half the state
and country borders that have nothing on the ground.

 I'd suggest that we should have a single website=* or uuid=* link to an
 all-inclusive wiki (can't use Wikipedia as that single website because of
 their notability rules), and that all other linking to any other websites
 should be done by adding an external link from that wiki page.

Why does it have to be a wiki? While a wiki might be usable as a point
to document tags, it's not perfect, it takes a lot of work cross
referencing information which is just duplicating work already in the
OSM database, but I won't go into that here and is really for another
thread as well. While documenting tags requires free form text for the
description, wiki's are mostly for human use, not machines however for
machines to use a reference source the information usually has to be
very explicit.

If you want to interlink databases, eg wikipedia, you would simply
extend upon the work I've done for UUID to OSM object lookup table,
you'd add one more table and then use the UUID as the key field and
link other object IDs from other databases to it.

 I'd prefer that.  But if the let's try to get consensus for a new tag
 process fails, there's always shove it into an already accepted tag
 option.  (At which point it'd probably be website:uuid=*, or even
 website:uuid:building/operator/etc=*)

I don't think that's a terribly good idea, this information isn't
suppose to render on any maps so sub-typing isn't advantageous, also
UUIDs are object references, they aren't supposed to be website
referrers, that is simply one use case, but not the main use case.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 10:16, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd prefer that.  But if the let's try to get consensus for a new tag
 process fails, there's always shove it into an already accepted tag
 option.  (At which point it'd probably be website:uuid=*, or even
 website:uuid:building/operator/etc=*)

 I don't think that's a terribly good idea, this information isn't
 suppose to render on any maps so sub-typing isn't advantageous, also
 UUIDs are object references, they aren't supposed to be website
 referrers, that is simply one use case, but not the main use case.

Also anyone tracking OSM change sets using hstore would be able to do
their own UUID lookup table without any code changes, you just need to
query the database for the UUID and you'll be able to locate the OSM
object it's attached to.

It will take a little more effort to build a cross-reference table of
foreign IDs, but the information collected by someone or some group to
do this could be published as changesets similar to OSM changesets and
then others could keep their own local lookup table as well, having
such an easily distributed database will be much more useful to the
internet in general than a single wiki.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:16 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 7 June 2010 23:39, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  Either way, I could see someone going around removing uuid=* tags from
  places where they couldn't find the QR code in the store window.

 UUIDs aren't just so you can slap a QR code in some shop window


Just to clarify, I don't mean to imply that they'd be right, just that I
could see it happening.


 Also just because something isn't
 on the ground shouldn't mean it should be deleted just because someone
 is overly zealot about only having things in the database that are on
 the ground, otherwise we might as well start deleting half the state
 and country borders that have nothing on the ground.


To be clear, I agree.


 If you want to interlink databases, eg wikipedia, you would simply
 extend upon the work I've done for UUID to OSM object lookup table,
 you'd add one more table and then use the UUID as the key field and
 link other object IDs from other databases to it.


Do you have a link?  I'm not familiar with that proposal.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 11:04, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Just to clarify, I don't mean to imply that they'd be right, just that I 
 could see it happening.

I'm still trying to find someone that has self printed suitable
stickers to find out how to do it at a reasonable cost, while it might
be cheap to print 100 stickers commercially in our case we want 100
different stickers.

 If you want to interlink databases, eg wikipedia, you would simply
 extend upon the work I've done for UUID to OSM object lookup table,
 you'd add one more table and then use the UUID as the key field and
 link other object IDs from other databases to it.

 Do you have a link?  I'm not familiar with that proposal.

I was hoping to have something done before I brought it up, but at
present it's still in my head. I have for the time being included your
previous wording about using a wiki on the proposal, but left it open
because while I don't think a wiki would be the best solution, I'd be
interested to know if you have a good reason for needing freeform
text.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging wide steps (tribune / terrace)

2010-06-07 Thread Robin Paulson
On 6 June 2010 12:21, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
 highway=steps area=yes?


 A very good question posed by Alex. I have a few wide steps (~50m) in my
 city.

 It's a good start for a solution from Nathan, but it would need a
 direction tag in order for the renderers to know which way the steps
 went up  down.


we could adopt something similar to how waterway=riverbank and
waterway=river are used together. an area to mark the outline of the
steps; a single way to mark the 'direction' of them

 A similar(ish) problem was brought up recently regarding routing over
 pedestrian areas. They don't have an intrinsic direction in the way that
 linear ways do. Was a solution found?

does it matter? i'm not sure an area has a 'way' through it. by
definition, pedestrians can take any route across this, including
walking round in circles for hours on end. i assume when we mark it as
area=yes, any decent routing engine will treat the area as something
pedestrians can walk through by the shortest route

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Anthony
  If you want to interlink databases, eg wikipedia, you would simply
  extend upon the work I've done for UUID to OSM object lookup table,
  you'd add one more table and then use the UUID as the key field and
  link other object IDs from other databases to it.
 
  Do you have a link?  I'm not familiar with that proposal.

 I was hoping to have something done before I brought it up, but at
 present it's still in my head. I have for the time being included your
 previous wording about using a wiki on the proposal, but left it open
 because while I don't think a wiki would be the best solution, I'd be
 interested to know if you have a good reason for needing freeform
 text.


I'm not sure.  The description would be fairly freeform.  I can't think of
anything else that would be as freeform as that.

I call it a wiki but I imagine most of the data would be structured.  In
fact, in many ways I think it'd be better structured than OSM data, which
doesn't currently allow for arrays or sets or type checking.

Not much different from http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27940475,
except that edit wouldn't require flash, and it'd be formatted a little
better (*).  If the OSM database could better support structures, and
especially arrays of structures, it could even use the OSM database for
storage.  But I'm not sure that's going to happen.  For those things that
are supported by the OSM database, the wiki would use the API.

(*) For instance, instead of addr:housenumber=411 and addr:street=Elm
Street, it'd say Address: 411 Elm Street.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 12:09, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 I'm not sure.  The description would be fairly freeform.  I can't think of
 anything else that would be as freeform as that.

 I call it a wiki but I imagine most of the data would be structured.  In
 fact, in many ways I think it'd be better structured than OSM data, which
 doesn't currently allow for arrays or sets or type checking.

 Not much different from http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27940475,
 except that edit wouldn't require flash, and it'd be formatted a little
 better (*).  If the OSM database could better support structures, and
 especially arrays of structures, it could even use the OSM database for
 storage.  But I'm not sure that's going to happen.  For those things that
 are supported by the OSM database, the wiki would use the API.

 (*) For instance, instead of addr:housenumber=411 and addr:street=Elm
 Street, it'd say Address: 411 Elm Street.

You might be confusing a couple of issues here, when you look at OSM
tags you are viewing a simplified database, that is the raw data, what
you are describing is presentation of that data in a more human
friendly way, this isn't the same thing as free form text.

I highly doubt anyone would seriously want to document, beyond what
already exists in the OSM DB, every possible object anyone would want
to link to, eg someone takes a picture of a lamp post because it looks
interesting for a photo and wants to link it to the OSM object that
might describe the location and height of the object.

If on the other hand the object is worth commenting on or further
describing, this is where something like wikipedia or freebase would
be useful, you link the wikipedia/freebase IDs to the OSM ID and then
you can write a three page essay on the object.

I might be wrong, but I don't think there is a specific need for free
form text but there is a need to link the text to a map object.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:18 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:

 You might be confusing a couple of issues here, when you look at OSM
 tags you are viewing a simplified database, that is the raw data, what
 you are describing is presentation of that data in a more human
 friendly way, this isn't the same thing as free form text.


I'm not the one who brought up free form text, you are.

I highly doubt anyone would seriously want to document, beyond what
 already exists in the OSM DB, every possible object anyone would want
 to link to, eg someone takes a picture of a lamp post because it looks
 interesting for a photo and wants to link it to the OSM object that
 might describe the location and height of the object.


Do we have such objects in OSM?

In any case, I don't think anyone will want to document what already
exists in the OSM DB.  I would expect someone creating an ID to link to
(i.e. the person who uploaded the picture) to put in a brief description of
what they're linking to, though (at the very least a cool lamp post).
Otherwise, we have no basis to maintain the link, and they might as well
just link to the node.

Really, I think we need a better example than a lamp post, or at least the
node ID of an actual lamp post in OSM.

If on the other hand the object is worth commenting on or further
 describing, this is where something like wikipedia or freebase would
 be useful, you link the wikipedia/freebase IDs to the OSM ID and then
 you can write a three page essay on the object.


A three page description would be way too long.

I might be wrong, but I don't think there is a specific need for free
 form text but there is a need to link the text to a map object.


How else are you going to describe what your object is?  I don't see a
uuid:lamp_post in your list of examples.  I guess that would be,
uuid:man_made?  I don't think many people are going to figure that out.  In
fact, I can't even really figure it out.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 Really, I think we need a better example than a lamp post, or at least the
 node ID of an actual lamp post in OSM.


http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/highway/street_lamp

Still not sure what the use case would be, though :).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 12:50, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 Really, I think we need a better example than a lamp post, or at least the
 node ID of an actual lamp post in OSM.

 http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/highway/street_lamp

 Still not sure what the use case would be, though :).


Tagging what's on the ground? There are some very decroative, and
possibly historical lamp posts in existence.

If people are tagging individual trees I don't see why other actual
objects can't be either as long as they are of interest to someone or
a group of people

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:51 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 8 June 2010 12:50, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 
  Really, I think we need a better example than a lamp post, or at least
 the
  node ID of an actual lamp post in OSM.
 
  http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/highway/street_lamp
 
  Still not sure what the use case would be, though :).
 

 Tagging what's on the ground? There are some very decroative, and
 possibly historical lamp posts in existence.

 If people are tagging individual trees I don't see why other actual
 objects can't be either as long as they are of interest to someone or
 a group of people


Fair enough.  So the description is optional.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 12:46, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 I'm not the one who brought up free form text, you are.

This is why this is a proposal and why we are discussing things to
brain storm...

 Otherwise, we have no basis to maintain the link, and they might as well
 just link to the node.

That's the whole point of UUIDs, because they want to link to the
node, but linking using DB IDs is a bad idea, so I thought using an ID
that can be shifted from one object to another might be a better idea.
The ID is so you can link to the object without needing to worry about
finding the node if it's replaced by an area.

 How else are you going to describe what your object is?  I don't see a
 uuid:lamp_post in your list of examples.  I guess that would be,
 uuid:man_made?  I don't think many people are going to figure that out.  In
 fact, I can't even really figure it out.

If I had all the details nutted out this wouldn't still be a proposal :)

In your next email you suggest they are highway tags, so uuid:highway=*

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 12:55, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Fair enough.  So the description is optional.

If someone needed to add a description can't they just use the note=*
tag? Which then makes it a display issue.

One purpose of unique IDs is to inter-link databases, while it's nice
to know which databases are linking to OSM objects, it shouldn't be
mandatory, just like we shouldn't have to add comments for every
aspect of why we tagged something in some particular way.

Paul from Freebase has already indicated they were/are planning to
dump Freebase IDs into the OSM DB to make their life easier*, however
if every 3rd party site did this we'd end up with an unmanageable list
of unique IDs against OSM objects and in that situation I can pretty
much guarantee that these most likely won't be maintained properly, or
simply bulk reverted/deleted as they shouldn't be in the OSM DB.

On the other hand if we provide people the means of being able to link
to OSM objects without them all dumping their own keys in our database
things are much more likely to turn out better for everyone.

* http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/freebase-discuss/2010-June/001847.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Anthony
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:55 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 8 June 2010 12:46, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  How else are you going to describe what your object is?  I don't see a
  uuid:lamp_post in your list of examples.  I guess that would be,
  uuid:man_made?  I don't think many people are going to figure that out.
  In
  fact, I can't even really figure it out.

 If I had all the details nutted out this wouldn't still be a proposal :)

 In your next email you suggest they are highway tags, so uuid:highway=*


I just think it'd be a lot easier to say uuid=*, uuid_type=lamp post.
Because uuid:highway=* is incredibly non-intuitive.  Of course, that doesn't
work because then you can't have multiple uuids on a single object without
creating relations or unnecessarily duplicating objects.  The OSM database
doesn't readily support arrays of structured data.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:01 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
 If someone needed to add a description can't they just use the note=*
 tag? Which then makes it a display issue.

No, because there's no easy way to tie the note to the the uuid.  What if
you want two notes, one of which is a note for uuid:building and one of
which is a note for uuid:operator?  Again, can't do it easily in OSM,
because the OSM database doesn't readily support arrays of structured data.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread Anthony
By the way, I assume we should break this out to an off-list discussion, or
on a different list, or something.

My apologies to those who don't like a lot of traffic on talk.

OSM-verbose, anyone?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 13:04, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 I just think it'd be a lot easier to say uuid=*, uuid_type=lamp post.
 Because uuid:highway=* is incredibly non-intuitive.  Of course, that doesn't
 work because then you can't have multiple uuids on a single object without
 creating relations or unnecessarily duplicating objects.  The OSM database
 doesn't readily support arrays of structured data.

Just because something would be easier, doesn't mean it is better, you
also have to remember that these key/value pairs are inherently not
for human consumption, while there would need to be some kind of human
interaction in figuring out which object you were trying to link to,
this doesn't nessicarily mean that existing editors are the best way
to do it.

I'm currently trying to extend the proof of concept to include a web
page for people to cross reference links between say wikipedia and OSM
to show you what I mean, but it'll take me a little time to develop
and test it.

 No, because there's no easy way to tie the note to the the uuid.  What if
 you want two notes, one of which is a note for uuid:building and one of
 which is a note for uuid:operator?  Again, can't do it easily in OSM,
 because the OSM database doesn't readily support arrays of structured data.

Personally I don't think a comment is needed, you are trying to link
databases together, while it might not be 100% obvious who is linking
to OSM for what reason, the need to link is the objective of this
exercise.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging OSM objects with UUIDs

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 13:09, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 By the way, I assume we should break this out to an off-list discussion, or
 on a different list, or something.

 My apologies to those who don't like a lot of traffic on talk.

 OSM-verbose, anyone?


I attempted to start a thread on the tagging list but this topic keeps
getting pushed back to the talk list.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [talk-au] [SOTM] State of country Australia poster

2010-06-07 Thread Steve Bennett
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello,

 This year, the State of the Map in Girona will make use of posters (A1
 vertical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_paper_size ) for State of
 Countries. Since last year, it has been a very interesting year for
 Australia with some major imports like the boundaries and the introduction
 of Nearmap. Obviously, it would be better if someone from Australia could
 come to present it but I would be equally happy just to hang the poster for
 people to see what is happening. The printing of the poster would be done
 directly in Girona so it wouldn't be a problem if a PDF was to be sent.
 I would love to see some of you just to put a face on the names that I see
 and it is always better to meet in person.

I'm a bit confused what you're asking for. Are you asking for someone
(or someones) to produce an Australian poster? What's the deadline? Or
one has already been done, but you'd like someone Australian to
present it?

Steve

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] The nearmap effect

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 June 2010 15:41, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://www.itoworld.com/product/osm/map?colour=tablestyle=_default_osm_tagsarea=4687:0sort=total-show=key_values:8

 I only just discovered ItoWorld, heh.

I think Ross reported the other week about almost 100,000 objects in
OSM tagged with Nearmap as the source.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] The nearmap effect

2010-06-07 Thread Ross Scanlon
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:45:20 +1000
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 7 June 2010 15:41, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
  http://www.itoworld.com/product/osm/map?colour=tablestyle=_default_osm_tagsarea=4687:0sort=total-show=key_values:8
 
  I only just discovered ItoWorld, heh.
 
 I think Ross reported the other week about almost 100,000 objects in
 OSM tagged with Nearmap as the source.

Currently from tagwatch

nodes   16274
ways119647
relations 154

-- 
Cheers
Ross

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] Brisbane Mapping Meetup #2 is soon!

2010-06-07 Thread David Dean
Hi everyone,

Only two weeks to go now to the next OSM Meetup, now at the exciting
new Monday night timeslot.

Please let me know if can come, and I'll be sending out another
reminder email in a week's time.

Happy mapping,

- David

On 30 May 2010 21:37, David Dean dd...@ieee.org wrote:
 Hi everyone,

 This is just a quick email to let everyone know that the second
 Brisbane Mapping Meetup is at Grange Library at 18:30 on Monday the
 21st of June. I would like to encourage as many people as possible to
 come, especially new mappers.

 This event will be a sit-down mapping meetup where we can all get
 together and talk about how to map using OSM tools, and we'll be more
 than happy to demonstrate mapping to anyone who is interested. So,
 please feel free to bring your laptops if you want to learn how to use
 JOSM/Potlatch/Meerkator or have any other OSM mapping questions. I'm
 sure we'll be able to help.

 For more details on the event, please visit
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brisbane_Mapping_Meetups. Please
 pass this email or a link to the event page onto anyone who you think
 might be interested.

 - David

 (please let me know if you don't want these emails in future)

 --
 David Dean
 Post-Doctoral Fellow, RP-SAIVT, QUT
 (me) http://www.davidbdean.com
 (saivt) http://www.bee.qut.edu.au/projects/saivt/
 (post) Room S1101, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Australia 4001
 (p) +61 7 3138 1414 (m) 0407 151 912
 (CRICOS) 00213J




-- 
David Dean
Post-Doctoral Fellow, RP-SAIVT, QUT
(me) http://www.davidbdean.com
(saivt) http://www.bee.qut.edu.au/projects/saivt/
(post) Room S1101, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Australia 4001
(p) +61 7 3138 1414 (m) 0407 151 912
(CRICOS) 00213J

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] [SOTM] State of country Australia poster

2010-06-07 Thread Emilie Laffray
On 7 June 2010 07:06, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:


 I'm a bit confused what you're asking for. Are you asking for someone
 (or someones) to produce an Australian poster? What's the deadline? Or
 one has already been done, but you'd like someone Australian to
 present it?



The deadline is a few days before the State of the Map (9-11th of July). I
would like to see a poster done by the Australian community so it can be
displayed at the SOTM. Obviously, it would be better for an Australian to
present it, but if no one can come, it will be still displayed.
I am finishing a sample and I will display it soon.

Emilie Laffray
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] Bridges and Tunnels

2010-06-07 Thread Roy Wallace
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:47 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you can run a script over data it could also be pre-processed in a
 similar manner without needing explicit tags on the objects.

This is true. i.e. Rather than automatically adding layer=whatever to
the DB where it's missing, leave that out of the DB and assume
corresponding defaults in the client app, when the data is read from
the DB.

Or in other words, you're not adding any useful *information* to the database.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] Bridges and Tunnels

2010-06-07 Thread Liz
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
  Each bridge that currently does not have a layer tag would have layer=1
  added.
 
 That will be incorrect if a bridge crosses a body of water (or other
 object) that has a layer tag other than zero. Which means some
 renderers may go from currently rendering something correctly, to
 rendering it incorrectly as a result of that change.

When putting long rivers on the map eg Darling, Bidgee, Lachlan
I routinely put the unsurveyed river at layer=-1
when i actually get there and find whether the road has a bridge, a punt or a 
ford to cross the road, then I do some changes to road and river.

So frequently a body of water will have a layer tag other than zero.

Liz

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] Bridges and Tunnels

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 12:22, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 When putting long rivers on the map eg Darling, Bidgee, Lachlan
 I routinely put the unsurveyed river at layer=-1
 when i actually get there and find whether the road has a bridge, a punt or a
 ford to cross the road, then I do some changes to road and river.

 So frequently a body of water will have a layer tag other than zero.

It's useful to set most waterway=drain to be layer=-1 to stop false
positives from showing up on keepright when they run under roads and
such. To simplify maybe it should be assumed that all waterways are
layer=-1 and any tunnels default to layer=-2, that would solve the
issue from a preprocessing point of view wouldn't it?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] The nearmap effect

2010-06-07 Thread John Smith
On 8 June 2010 13:31, Neil Penman ianaf4...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Only the vast majority of these were not sourced from Nearmap (except in some 
 of the country areas not previously covered by Yahoo).  They may have been 
 updated by somebody using nearmap imagery, mostly trivial changes, but they 
 would have been originally created via survey or from Yahoo. Certainly names 
 would not have been sourced from nearmap.  Wouldn't it would make more sense 
 if the source tag was only applied to changesets?  Even that is not ideal as 
 in one changeset multiple sources could  be used, ie survey for names, 
 nearmap for layout.

The vast majority of the information I personally sourced as nearmap
has been new content, and not just in regional areas there completely
new suburbs that weren't built when yahoo imagery was taken, or I
added source:location=* tags, I disagree about only setting source as
part of the changeset tags, while nearmap imagery might be used for
locations it isn't used for naming etc.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] The nearmap effect

2010-06-07 Thread Neil Penman
Only the vast majority of these were not sourced from Nearmap (except in
 some of the country areas not previously covered by Yahoo).  They may 
have been updated by somebody using nearmap imagery, mostly trivial 
changes, but they would have been originally created via survey or from 
Yahoo. Certainly names would not have been sourced from nearmap.  
Wouldn't it would make more sense if the source tag was only applied to 
changesets?  Even that is not ideal as in one changeset multiple sources
 could  be used, ie survey for names, nearmap for layout.

--- On Mon, 7/6/10, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:

From: Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com
Subject: Re: [talk-au] The nearmap effect
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Received: Monday, 7 June, 2010, 6:44 PM

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:45:20 +1000
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 7 June 2010 15:41, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
  http://www.itoworld.com/product/osm/map?colour=tablestyle=_default_osm_tagsarea=4687:0sort=total-show=key_values:8
 
  I only just discovered ItoWorld, heh.
 
 I think Ross reported the other week about almost 100,000 objects in
 OSM tagged with Nearmap as the source.

Currently from tagwatch

nodes    16274
ways    119647
relations 154

-- 
Cheers
Ross

___
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-de] Wehrkiche?

2010-06-07 Thread NopMap


Hi!


Johannes Huesing wrote:
 
 Wobei archaeological_site eine
 Ausgrabungsstätte meint, was auf unseren Fall eher nicht zutrifft.
 
 Eben drum. Ich hatte nicht vor, tiefer in die Diskussion einzusteigen,
 da es rund um OSM einige Archäologie-Experten gibt, sehe mich aber 
 als Laienmapper in einem akuten Mangel an passenden Bezeichnungen. 
 

Ich denke das trifft es genau. Es gibt derzeit noch kein geeignetes Tag für
diesen speziellen Gebäudetyp.

archaeological_site halte ich für völlig ungeeignet - schließlich handelt es
sich meist um ein intaktes Gebäude. Ich würde eher eine Erweiterung von
historic vorschlagen, nachdem die Funktion als Wehrkirche dann doch schon
seit ein paar 100 Jahren keine Rolle mehr spielt:

historic=fortified_church

und wo wir grade dabei sind gibt es ja auch noch Wehrfriedhöfe, die könnte
man analog als

historic=fortified_graveyard

einzeichnen.


bye
   Nop
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Wehrkiche-tp5144689p5147682.html
Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


[Talk-de] Grenzen: Regionalschluessel wie Taggen?

2010-06-07 Thread Sven Anders

Moin,

ich schaue mir gerade den Regionalschluessel (RGS) genauer an.

Das ist ein neuer Schlüssel, der langfristig den Amtlichen 
Gemeindeschlüssel (AGS) ablösen soll (vgl [1]).


Ihn gibt es für Bundesländer, Kreise, (Regierungs-) Bezirke, Ämter und 
Gemeinden.


Es wäre einfach den RGS mit einem bot zu ergänzen, aber dafür haben wir 
bislang nicht die Genehmigung. Ich habe lediglich die Genehmigung einen 
Vergleich gegen das Gemeindeverzeichnis von destatis [2] zu machen.


Wie auch beim AGS gibt es mit RGS für mache Deckungsgleiche Gebeite 
mehrere Schlüssel. Z.B. gibt es beim AGS  in der Statistik:


* Das Bundesland Hamburg mit der AGS 02
* Den Kreis  Hamburg mit der AGS 02 0 00 und
* Die Gemeinde   Hamburg mit der AGS 02 0 00 000

In Wirklichkeit gibt es laut Hamburger Verfassung keinen Kreis und keine 
Gemeinde, aber das Spiel hier keine Rolle. Entscheidend ist das die 
letzten stellen alle Nullen sind, daran kann man erkennen das sie 
deckungsgleich sind.


Beim RGS ist ist das leider z.T. anders. Bei Hamburg ist es zwar gleich, 
es gibt dort nur zusätzlich noch das Amt Hamburg (RGS:
02 0 00 ), aber es gibt auch Gemeinden die den Status eines Amtes 
haben (zumindest in der Statistik) und nicht durch Nullen ergänzt werden.


Hier ein Beispiel:

Im Landkreis Goslar (Niedersachsen) (RGS: 03 1 53)  gibt es z.B.

* Das Amt  Bad Harsburg Stadt 03 1 53 0002  und
* die Gemeinde Bad Harzburg Stadt 03 1 53 0002 002

Interessant ist vielleicht das der Amtsteil 0002 numerisch dem 
Gemeindeteil 002 entspricht. Aber ich habe nirgends etwas dazu gelesen, 
das das immer so ist...


Nun ist die Frage, wie taggen wir Bad Harzburg?

Die Tags:
boundary=administrative
type=multipolygon
name=Bad Harzburg
de:amtlicher_gemeindeschluessel=03153002


sind denke ich klar. Spannend wird es bei:


de:regionalschluessel=031530002

(läßt die Gemeinde weg!) [Vorschlag: Amt]

oder:


de:regionalschluessel=031530002002

(läßt das Amt weg!) [Vorschlag: Gemeinde]

oder

de:regionalschluessel=031530002;031530002002

[Vorschlag: Semikolon]

oder zwei Relationen mit jeweils einem de:regionalschluessel [Vorschlag: 
Zwei Relationen] ?



Ich finde den Semikolon Vorschlag am besten, er bildet alles ab. Bevor 
ich nun den AGS Validator [3] umbaue, möchte ich aber noch ein paar 
Meinungen dazu hören.


Gruß
Sven


[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtlicher_Gemeindeschlüssel
[2] 
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Regionales/Gemeindeverzeichnis/Gemeindeverzeichnis,templateId=renderPrint.psml

[3] http://svenanders.openstreetmap.de/ags/Deutschland/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] MTB Slippy-Map / Onlinekarte der openmtbmap

2010-06-07 Thread Peter Körner
Felix Hartmann schrieb:
 Das große Problem ist halt, das die Renderengine (noch?) keine Tooltips 
 unterstützt, weil das wäre einfach am wichtigsten für Infos wie 
 mtb:description die zurzeit einfach in keiner Karte vernünftig 
 integriert sind.
Das kann die Renderengine auch nicht weil sie nur PNGs produziert.
godofglow kann es aber aus der hstore-Datenbank in einen OpenLayers 
Vektor-Layer laden und der kann das dann, denn der läuft im Browser des 
Benutzers.

Lg, Peter

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] amenity=internet oder (amenity=telephone; telephone=no)

2010-06-07 Thread Fabian
[Problem SOLVED]
http://strehober.de/SHONY/projects/20100602741small.jpg


Fabian wrote:
 Hallochen,
 
 wie taggt man diese internet teminals?
 und am rande die notrufsaeule auch als solche?
 
 http://strehober.de/SHONY/projects/20100507385_small.jpg
 ...

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Grenzen: Regionalschluessel wie Taggen?

2010-06-07 Thread René Falk
Am 07.06.2010 09:55, schrieb Sven Anders:
 Moin,
 
 ich schaue mir gerade den Regionalschluessel (RGS) genauer an.
 
 Das ist ein neuer Schlüssel, der langfristig den Amtlichen
 Gemeindeschlüssel (AGS) ablösen soll (vgl [1]).
 
 Ihn gibt es für Bundesländer, Kreise, (Regierungs-) Bezirke, Ämter und
 Gemeinden.
 
 Es wäre einfach den RGS mit einem bot zu ergänzen, aber dafür haben wir
 bislang nicht die Genehmigung. Ich habe lediglich die Genehmigung einen
 Vergleich gegen das Gemeindeverzeichnis von destatis [2] zu machen.
 
 Wie auch beim AGS gibt es mit RGS für mache Deckungsgleiche Gebeite
 mehrere Schlüssel. Z.B. gibt es beim AGS  in der Statistik:
 
 * Das Bundesland Hamburg mit der AGS 02
 * Den Kreis  Hamburg mit der AGS 02 0 00 und
 * Die Gemeinde   Hamburg mit der AGS 02 0 00 000
 
 In Wirklichkeit gibt es laut Hamburger Verfassung keinen Kreis und keine
 Gemeinde, aber das Spiel hier keine Rolle. Entscheidend ist das die
 letzten stellen alle Nullen sind, daran kann man erkennen das sie
 deckungsgleich sind.
 
 Beim RGS ist ist das leider z.T. anders. Bei Hamburg ist es zwar gleich,
 es gibt dort nur zusätzlich noch das Amt Hamburg (RGS:
 02 0 00 ), aber es gibt auch Gemeinden die den Status eines Amtes
 haben (zumindest in der Statistik) und nicht durch Nullen ergänzt werden.
 
 Hier ein Beispiel:
 
 Im Landkreis Goslar (Niedersachsen) (RGS: 03 1 53)  gibt es z.B.
 
 * Das Amt  Bad Harsburg Stadt 03 1 53 0002  und
 * die Gemeinde Bad Harzburg Stadt 03 1 53 0002 002
 
 Interessant ist vielleicht das der Amtsteil 0002 numerisch dem
 Gemeindeteil 002 entspricht. Aber ich habe nirgends etwas dazu gelesen,
 das das immer so ist...
 
 Nun ist die Frage, wie taggen wir Bad Harzburg?
 
 Die Tags:
 boundary=administrative
 type=multipolygon
 name=Bad Harzburg
 de:amtlicher_gemeindeschluessel=03153002
 
 
 sind denke ich klar. Spannend wird es bei:
 
 
 de:regionalschluessel=031530002
 
 (läßt die Gemeinde weg!) [Vorschlag: Amt]
 
 oder:
 
 
 de:regionalschluessel=031530002002
 
 (läßt das Amt weg!) [Vorschlag: Gemeinde]
 
 oder
 
 de:regionalschluessel=031530002;031530002002
 
 [Vorschlag: Semikolon]
 
 oder zwei Relationen mit jeweils einem de:regionalschluessel [Vorschlag:
 Zwei Relationen] ?
 
 
 Ich finde den Semikolon Vorschlag am besten, er bildet alles ab. Bevor
 ich nun den AGS Validator [3] umbaue, möchte ich aber noch ein paar
 Meinungen dazu hören.

Hi Sven,

Wird bei Gemeinden ohne Verwaltungsverbund (Amt/ Amtsbezirk)
nicht generell  als Platzhalter eingefügt? Das dürfte das kleinere
Problem sein.

Bei Fällen wie Bad Harzburg hätte ich nichts dagegen nur die hirachisch
höhere Grenze (Amt) admin_level=7 zu taggen und den Regionalschlüssel
der Gemeinde zu verwenden. Dann hätten wir eine Kennzeichnung das die
Fläche von Amt und Gemeinde identisch sind ohne neue Taggs erfinden zu
müssen.

Ich wäre grundsätzlich auch dafür die Regionalschlüssel der höheren
Ebenen mit Nullen aufzufüllen. Das wäre aus meiner Sicht praktischer zu
handhaben. Es würde es auch einfacher machen ein paar Fehler
(Unvollständigkeit, Tastenpreller, etc.)zu erkennen.

Grüße

René


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


[Talk-de] Fahrrad-Routing MKGMAP

2010-06-07 Thread Jan Tappenbeck

Hi !

heute wollte ich mich vom GPS durch Lübeck leiten lassen und es sollte 
zu Umwegen kommen wegen Treppen. Diese haben aber Rampen für Räder.


Kann mir einer von Euch sagen ob Karten mit MKGMAP gerechnet auf 
ramp=yes oder ramp:bicycle 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ramp:bicycle=yes mit dem 
Routing entlang führen ?


Gruß Jan :-)
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Grenzen: Regionalschluessel wie Taggen?

2010-06-07 Thread Sven Anders

Am 07.06.2010 10:45, schrieb René Falk:

Am 07.06.2010 09:55, schrieb Sven Anders:



Hi Sven,

Wird bei Gemeinden ohne Verwaltungsverbund (Amt/ Amtsbezirk)
nicht generell  als Platzhalter eingefügt? Das dürfte das kleinere
Problem sein.


Jein, denn die Amt-Ebene wurde nachträglich eingefügt und die anderen 
Zahlen bilden auch noch die AGS. Eigentlich müsste vermutlich bei Bad 
Harzburg die Gemeinde ausgenullt werden, nur dann kommt die AGS nicht 
mehr raus.


Es gibt Z.b. zwei Gemeineden in Kreis Dithmarschen (Schleswig Holstein 
RGS 01 0 51), die in unterschiedlichen Ämter sind:


01 0 51 5163 097 Sankt Michaelisdonn und
01 0 51 5166 034 Friedrichskoog

Gleichzeitig gib es dort z.B. Heide Stadt mit den RGS:

01 0 51 0044 Heide, Stadt
01 0 51 0044 044 Heide, Stadt





Bei Fällen wie Bad Harzburg hätte ich nichts dagegen nur die hirachisch
höhere Grenze (Amt) admin_level=7 zu taggen und den Regionalschlüssel
der Gemeinde zu verwenden. Dann hätten wir eine Kennzeichnung das die
Fläche von Amt und Gemeinde identisch sind ohne neue Taggs erfinden zu
müssen.

Ich wäre grundsätzlich auch dafür die Regionalschlüssel der höheren
Ebenen mit Nullen aufzufüllen. Das wäre aus meiner Sicht praktischer zu
handhaben.


Finde ich nicht unbedingt, löst auch nicht das Problem.

Es würde es auch einfacher machen ein paar Fehler

(Unvollständigkeit, Tastenpreller, etc.)zu erkennen.


Nur das man das bei Bad Harzburg eben nicht kann.

Gruß
Sven



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Regionale Wallanlagen von 1707

2010-06-07 Thread Heiko Jacobs
Johann H. Addicks schrieb:
 Bitte nichts mappen, was nicht aktuell sichbar existiert.
 ... (also nicht mehr auffindbare Dinge) ...

Ich schrieb von sichtbaren auffindbaren Dingen ...

Gruß Mueck


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


[Talk-de] seperate Mailingliste zu GPS-Fragen

2010-06-07 Thread Jonas Stein
ich moechte nochmal auf die OSM-GPS-Mailingliste hinweisen:

http://lists.openstreetmap.de/mailman/listinfo/gps-technik
(Spiegel bei Gmane vorhanden)

-- 
Jonas Stein n...@jonasstein.de


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Wieder ein Scherz von Pfoten_weg_!_ ??

2010-06-07 Thread hike39
Am 02.06.2010 22:48, schrieb Walter Nordmann:

 hi,

 gibt es hier was neues?

 ich hab in eines meiner osm-files mal den usernamen auf pfoten_weg_!_
 geändert -  geht immer noch prima.

 du kannst es ja mal genau umgekehrt machen, das osm-file ist ja ascii und
 mit (fast) jedem editor deiner wahl editierbar.

 der username ist fuer mapgen sowieso piepegal.

 gruss

 walter

 -
 Erst hatten wir kein Glück und dann kam auch noch Pech dazu.

Hi Walter,
ich habe auch schon festgestellt, dass das Problem womoeglich nicht mit 
dem Parsen von dem User-Namen zu tun hat. Allerdings habe ich von Gary68 
auch noch keinen Tipp bekommen, ausser dass er ueber das Key visible=* 
erstaunt ist. Der Grund fuer mein Problem muss irgendwo anders liegen. 
Die Frage ist nur wo?

gruss

hike39


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] BAB mit no horse, bike etc.

2010-06-07 Thread Wolfgang
Hallo,
Am Sonntag 06 Juni 2010 10:26:04 schrieb Chris66:
 Am 06.06.2010 10:20, schrieb Jan Tappenbeck:
  auf der Strecke Hamburg - Berlin (z.B. [1] ) habe ich gesehe das jemand
  no horse, no bike und no foot definiert hat.
 
  Das ist ja mehr als überflüssig - stehen lassen oder wegnehmen??
 
  Wie ist Eure Meinung ?
 
 Moin,
 
 nicht nur dort.
 
 Hier in meiner Gegend pappt auch snowmobile=no, minspeed=60
 etc. dran also alles eigentlich überflüssig.
 

minspeed=60 ist definitiv falsch. Es gibt keine ausdrückliche 
Mindestgeschwindigkeit auf der Autobahn in de, es sei denn, dort steht 
explizit ein Schild. Die Fahrzeuge müssen nur in der Lage sein, mindestens 
mehr als 60km/h fahren zu _können_ (§18 Abs 1 STVO). Ob sie es tun, bleibt den 
Fahrern, ihren Nerven und dem Wetter überlassen.

Eine Mindestgeschwindigkeit gibt es nicht ausdrücklich, sie ergibt sich aber 
aus §1 STVO (behindern etc) und ganz deutlich §3 Abs.2 STVO und gilt nicht nur 
auf der Autobahn. Man darf auch auf der Bundesstraße nicht weniger als 100 
fahren, wenn man jemanden hinter sich hat, der nicht überholen kann und die 
Geschwindigkeit legal gefahren werden könnte

Taggen kann man das allerdings kaum, weil es keinen konkreten Wert gibt. Wenn 
man auf weiter Fläche allein ist, darf man auch Fußgängertempo fahren (das 
soll jetzt aber keine Empfehlung sein ;-)  ).

Gruß, Wolfgang

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Fahrrad-Routing MKGMAP

2010-06-07 Thread Sven Sommerkamp
Am Montag, 7. Juni 2010, um 10:57:32 schrieb Jan Tappenbeck:
 Hi !
 
 heute wollte ich mich vom GPS durch Lübeck leiten lassen und es sollte
 zu Umwegen kommen wegen Treppen. Diese haben aber Rampen für Räder.
 
 Kann mir einer von Euch sagen ob Karten mit MKGMAP gerechnet auf
 ramp=yes oder ramp:bicycle
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ramp:bicycle=yes mit dem
 Routing entlang führen ?
 
 Gruß Jan :-)

Weiß ich nicht, aber es ist schon wieder sehr schnell ein Fall gegebn wo die 
Meinungen auseinander gehen, was gewünscht wird.

Ich würde beispielsweise Treppen möglichst umgehen.

Dafür fahr ich auch lieber etwas weiter.
Wenn ich demnächst ein Velomobil hab oder meinen Anhänger dran hab sowieso.
Aber auch wenn ich mit dem Rennrad, oder halbweg volle Packtaschen unterwegs 
bin..


Ich könnte mir vorstellen alle eher weniger fitten Menschen mit Standardrädern 
versuchen jeden Umweg zu vermeiden und nehmen dafür eher auch Treppen, Gehwege 
Fußgängerzonen in Kauf.

Vielleicht ist das Bei Garminheräten dadurch zu lösen das man dann ein einfach 
auf Routing für KFZ, Fahrrar oder Fußgänger umstellt.

Ich täte sagen:
Für Fahrrad sollten solche Hindernisse wie Poller, Treppen, Gehweg usw. nicht 
geroutet werden.

Stattdessen kann man wenn gewünsch eher auf das Profil Fußgänger umstellen,
das paßt auch besser, denn man wir dann auch gezwungen sein häufig zu Fuß zu 
gehen und das Rad zu tragen.

Wenn ich aber auf einer Tour mit 30 kg Gepäck ständig über solche Strecken 
geschickt werde, verliere ich irgendwann die Nerven..

Fahrradprofil oder Navigation sagt auch so etwas wie fahrbahr für mich aus,
nicht schieb oder tragbar!

Gruß Sven 

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


[Talk-de] Quellen- und Lizenzangabe im Fernsehen

2010-06-07 Thread Markus
Liebe Juristen,

Wenn im Fernsehen eine OSM-Karte benutzt werden soll,
was wäre dann ein praktikabler minimaler Quellen- und Lizenzhinweis?

Zu berücksichtigen ist dabei, dass Fernsehkarten
a) nur wenige Sekunden gezeigt werden
b) der Betrachtungsfokus auf dem Inhalt dar Karte liegt
c) Metainformation deshalb sehr begrenzt wahrgenommen wird

Die Quelle sollte m.E. ausschliesslich mit *Openstreetmap* bezeichnet 
werden. (also nicht irgendetwas mit www oder http)

Der Lizenzhinweis soll aus Praktibilitätsgründen (und obwohl von der 
Lizenz eigentlich gefordert) m.E. ganz entfallen.

Begründung:
- Die Erkennungsrate steigt, je kürzer und prägnanter der String ist.
- Wenn der Sting länger wäre, ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit gross, dass 
weder die Quelle, noch die Lizenz wahrgenommen werden würde. Dann könnte 
man sogar auf beides verzichten, der Effekt wäre der gleiche.
- OpenStreetMap hat einen so hohen Bekanntheitsgrad, dass Nutzer (bzw 
insbesondere Nachnutzer) wissen, welche Lizenz wir verwenden, bzw wo sie 
das nachlesen können.
- Wenn es uns gelingt, über das Fernsehen *OSM als Marke* bekannt zu 
machen, ist das ein Vielfaches wertvoller, als wenn wir die Lizenz 
hinschreiben, aber die Marke nicht wahrgenommen wird.

Ich vermag aber nicht zu beurteilen, ob es zulässig ist, für diesen 
Anwendungsfall auf die explizite Nennung der Lizenz zu verzichten.
Einerseits verzichten wir bereits auf die Nennung der Autoren.
Das ist ein Indiz dafür, dass wir auch die Lizenz als in der 
Quellenangabe implizit enthalten verstehen dürfen, aber andererseits 
gibt es Stimmen, die auf einer expliziten Lizenzanfgabe bestehen.

Gibt es Beispiele? Präzendenzfälle?

Gruss, Markus

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Quellen- und Lizenzangabe im Fernsehen

2010-06-07 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
Am 7. Juni 2010 12:30 schrieb Markus liste12a4...@gmx.de:
 Die Quelle sollte m.E. ausschliesslich mit *Openstreetmap* bezeichnet
 werden. (also nicht irgendetwas mit www oder http)


OK


 Der Lizenzhinweis soll aus Praktibilitätsgründen (und obwohl von der
 Lizenz eigentlich gefordert) m.E. ganz entfallen.


-1, die Lizenz sollte angegeben werden, wie genau steht allerdings auf
einem anderen Blatt (denkbar waeren evtl. nur die entspr. Logos). Ich
bin allerdings kein Jurist.


 - OpenStreetMap hat einen so hohen Bekanntheitsgrad, dass Nutzer (bzw
 insbesondere Nachnutzer) wissen, welche Lizenz wir verwenden, bzw wo sie
 das nachlesen können.


wo, hier auf der Liste oder unter Kartographen oder in der Opensource
Community? Sicher nicht unter der Mehrheit der Fernsehzuschauer.


Die Frage ist eher, ob man die Lizenz z.B. im Abspann unterbringt, und
nicht direkt einblendet neben der Karte.

Gruß Martin

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Fahrrad-Routing MKGMAP

2010-06-07 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
Am 7. Juni 2010 12:25 schrieb Sven Sommerkamp s_sommerk...@gmx.de:
 Ich würde beispielsweise Treppen möglichst umgehen.

 Dafür fahr ich auch lieber etwas weiter.


sehe ich auch so, noch besser wäre es, interaktiv gefragt zu werden.


 Ich täte sagen:
 Für Fahrrad sollten solche Hindernisse wie Poller, Treppen, Gehweg usw. nicht
 geroutet werden.


Poller sollten auf keinen Fall vermieden werden, die lassen Fahrräder
ja explizit passieren. Gehweg ist eine Sache, die lokal
unterschiedlich betrachtet werden muss (evtl. explizit angeben).
Sowohl in Rom als auch in Berlin ist das Befahren von Gehwegen
zumindest teilweise toleriert, (in Rom, weil die Straßen doch etwas
gefährlich sind und die Fahrräder wenige, in Berlin dort wo es keinen
Fahrradweg gibt und weil die Gehwege i.d.R. sehr breit sind). Auf dem
Land und in kleineren Städten sieht das z.T. schon anders aus. Wichtig
ist dabei immer auch, wieviele Fußgänger unterwegs sind.


 Fahrradprofil oder Navigation sagt auch so etwas wie fahrbahr für mich aus,
 nicht schieb oder tragbar!


ja, wobei es teilweise eine Abwägung erfordert: lieber 30 m schieben
oder 5km Umweg? Selbst mit 30kg Gepäck wird man wohl lieber 30m
schieben ;-)

Gruß Martin

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


[Talk-de] Datenspende Gemeindegrenzen Bayern ält eren Datums: Probleme bei Shape-Datenkonvertierun g

2010-06-07 Thread Dietmar
Hallo,

ich habe von der Uni Augsburg einen alten, eigenerfassten Bestand (aus den
1980ern) der Gemeindegrenzen Bayerns erhalten im Shape-Fileformat mit WKS84.

Meine Versuche mit shp-to-osm-0.7.3-jar-with-dependencies.jar unter Windows
führen zur Fehlerausgabe:

No output format specified. Defaulting to osmChange format.
07.06.2010 12:52:07 osm.output.OSMChangeOutputter saveOsmOut
INFO: Writing out to file
C:\Privat\OpenStreetMap\programme\shapeimporte\.\bayer
ngrenzen.osm0.osm.
07.06.2010 12:52:08 osm.output.OSMChangeOutputter saveOsmOut
INFO: Done.
Exception in thread main java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: points must
form
a closed linestring
at
com.vividsolutions.jts.geom.LinearRing.validateConstruction(LinearRin
g.java:95)
at com.vividsolutions.jts.geom.LinearRing.init(LinearRing.java:90)
at
com.vividsolutions.jts.geom.GeometryFactory.createLinearRing(Geometry

Wer hat Ideen oder weitergehende Möglichkeiten, die Daten zu konvertieren,
ggfs mit einigen offenen Flächen als Ergebnis?

Ich gehe davon aus, daß die Daten in der gemeldeten Hinsicht fehlerhaft
sind. Ich habe mit dem Konverter früher schon mal räumlich kleinere
Wasserschutzgebiets-Flächen konvertiert von einem anderen Datenlieferanten.

Ich will die Daten sowieso erst visuell prüfen und gegenchecken hinsichtlich
Genauigkeit und Aktualität und dann ggfs. einzeln übernehmen.

Bitte bei mir melden, dann stelle ich die Daten bereit.

Grüße
Dietmar


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Regionale Wallanlagen von 1707

2010-06-07 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
Am 7. Juni 2010 03:03 schrieb Johann H. Addicks addi...@gmx.net:
 Am 07.06.2010 00:14, schrieb Heiko Jacobs:
 Ich bin gerade beim Suchen vergessener Feld- und Waldwege und
 klassifizieren der vergessenen und nicht vergessenen Wege
 in einer Ecke angelangt, wo man über folgendes stolpert:

 Bitte nichts mappen, was nicht aktuell sichbar existiert.


was heisst aktuell sichtbar? Oberflächlich oder inkl. Grabung?
Archäologen sehen auch an der Oberfläche schon mehr als ein normaler
Mapper. Solange man Indizien findet (Überreste), kann man m.E. sowas
wie den Limes durchaus mappen, auch wenn er nicht mehr als solcher
erhalten ist.

Somit auch kein Mapping der
 ehemaligen Verläufe von Limes und längst geschliffenen Schwedenschanzen.


geschliffen heisst meistens nicht spurlos verschwunden, es gibt
normalerweise doch Spuren, und diese würde ich auch mappen.

 Was Du natürlich gern kartieren kannst sind die Hinweistafeln, die
 inzwischen aufgestellt wurden.


deutlich weniger interessant m.E., aber klar, kann man machen.

 Geländekanten kann man natürlich mappen. Aber im Flachland wird das
 reichlich bemüht, wenn dort verbliebene 1,5m-Absätze gemappt werden.


ein bisschen Mühe kann ruhig sein ;-)

Gruß Martin

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] gpx spuren verbinden

2010-06-07 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
Am 5. Juni 2010 09:38 schrieb Christian Knorr os...@gmx.de:
 der gleichen Strecke aufgezeichnet. Das entstandende Linienbündel
 beschreibt jetzt die Straße.
 Nun möchte ich den Mittelwert berechnen. Denn auch hierbei liegt die
 Wahrheit irgendwo in der Mitte. Und mit genügend Messwerten sollte die
 Spur einigermaßen exakt werden.
 Nun meine Frage. Welches Programm kann das?

 Das kann ich Dir zwar nicht beantworten, aber ich mache das immer so, dass ich
 _alle_ Spuren in JOSM lade. Dann siehst Du das ganze Linienbündel.
 Ich denke ein Mensch kann das besser interpretieren als ein Programm, über
 dessen Resultat ich keine Kontrolle habe.


+1, ich sehe das ähnlich. Dazu kommt, dass Du ja sowieso die einzelnen
Straßenabschnitte von Hand definieren musst, und mit ggf. vorhandenen
Stücken abgleichen.

Gruß Martin

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Fahrrad-Routing MKGMAP

2010-06-07 Thread aighes

Das musst du die jeweiligen Kartenersteller fragen. Zumeist werden Treppen
ausgeschlossen oder mit einer sehr niedrigen Priorität versehen. Das hat
auch seine Berechtigung.

Wenn die Rampe ein seperater Weg ist, sollte er auch eingezeichnet werden.
Wenn du mit Rampe aber nur diese Schiebehilfen für Kinderwagen  Co meinst,
so trifft ein ramp=yes darauf zu. Hier würde ich aber auch nicht mit dem
Fahrrad runterfahren, weshalb eine niedrige Priorität schon angebracht ist,
da man eben schieben muss.

Viele Grüße,
aighes
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Fahrrad-Routing-MKGMAP-tp5148108p5148664.html
Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Quellen- und Lizenzangabe im Fernsehen

2010-06-07 Thread Markus
Hallo Martin,

 Lizenz im Abspann

Das ist m.E. eine gute Lösung.
Damit bleibt *OSM als Marke* auf einen Blick erkennbar,
und die Lizenz ist explizit im Abspann angegeben.

Das funktioniert bei allen Beiträgen, die einen entsprechenden Abspann 
haben, der zusätzlich so ergänzt werden kann (Kinofilm).

Aber bereits bei Fernsehfilmen wird der Abspann aus Kostengründen sehr 
kurz gehalten, da werden gerade mal der Autor und die Redaktion genannt.

Und bei Nachrichtenbeiträgen fehlt sogar der Hinweis auf den Autor.

Aber gerade bei Nachrichtensendungen werden Karten regelmässig 
eingesetzt. Dafür gilt es eine optimale Form zu finden.

 OpenStreetMap hat einen so hohen Bekanntheitsgrad, dass
 Nachnutzer wissen, welche Lizenz wir verwenden

 wo

Der Nachnutzer wird, wenn er unsere tollen Karten im Fernsehen sieht und 
diese gern verwenden möchte, entweder wissen wie OSM funktioniert, oder 
OSM kennen und uns nach der Lizenz fragen, oder beim Sender fragen, was 
denn das für tolle Karten sind und ob/wie er sie benutzen darf.

Und wenn OSM täglich im Fernsehen kommt, dann kommen bestimmt auch bald 
eigene Beiträge zu OSM - und spätestens dann werden auch die 
Fernsehzuschauer bald wissen, dass wir eine freie Lizenz haben :-)

Gruss, Markus

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Quellen- und Lizenzangabe im Fernsehen

2010-06-07 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hallo,

Markus wrote:
 Aber bereits bei Fernsehfilmen wird der Abspann aus Kostengründen sehr 
 kurz gehalten, da werden gerade mal der Autor und die Redaktion genannt.
 
 Und bei Nachrichtenbeiträgen fehlt sogar der Hinweis auf den Autor.

Grundsaetzlich ist die Lizenz da recht freizuegig:

Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, 
however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a 
minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship 
credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other 
comparable authorship credit.

Kurzfassung: Autoren muessen in irgendeiner geeigneten Form genannt 
werden, aber mindestens so prominent wie andere Autoren, die einen 
vergleichbaren Beitrag leisten. Es geht also nicht, dass man heute eine 
Google-Karte in den Nachrichten zeigt, auf der gross Google in der 
Ecke steht, und morgen eine OSM-Karte, auf der das OSM nur halb so gross 
ist.

 Aber gerade bei Nachrichtensendungen werden Karten regelmässig 
 eingesetzt. Dafür gilt es eine optimale Form zu finden.

Wenn wir auf eine Public-Domain-Lizenz schwenken, fallen diese ganzen 
Fragen weg ;-)

Ich denke, dass ein Lizenzhinweis sich nicht umgehen laesst, denn ich 
moechte wetten, dass irgendwo bei so einer Nachrichtensendung schon ein 
Hinweis auf das Urheberrecht ist ((c) 2010 ARD oder sowas). Dieser 
wuerde dann, in Abwesenheit eines Ausnahmehinweises, auch fuer die 
OSM-Karten gelten; der Sender wuerde damit nicht nur eine OSM-Karte ohne 
Lizenzhinweis abbilden, sondern sogar irrefuehrenderweise behaupten, die 
OSM-Karte unterlaege seinem Copyright, und der Nutzer wuerde (im besten 
Fall) erst nach einem Anruf beim Sender erfahren, dass die Nutzung frei 
ist. Jeder beliebige OSMer koennte den Sender deshalb vor Gericht zerren.

Bye
Frederik


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Punkte in Spur nach Zeit markieren

2010-06-07 Thread Steffen Wolf
Hi Johannes Huesing,

 Nun mein nächstes Problem: Ich habe vorgestern mit dem Handy meiner Frau
 42 Mal akustische Notizen gemacht (und mit irgendeinem proprietären Tool
 unter Wine von *.amr nach *.wav gewandelt). Wenn ich das Audio-Mapping-Tool
 recht verstehe,

Ich hab zwar noch nicht dieses Tool benutzt, aber das Image-Mapping-Tool
in JOSM kann die Bilder anhand ihrer Zeitstempel mithilfe eines geladenen
GPX-Track positionieren. Das Audio-Tool muesste doch auch so gut sein,
oder?

Mit
 touch -r input.amr output.wav
kannst du die Zeitstempel der Originaldateien uebernehmen. Zur Not
koenntest du damit auch Pseudo-Bilder mit diesem Zeitstempel versehen
und dann das Image-Tool nutzen. In einem Rutsch:
 for i in *.amr ; do touch -r $i ${i%.amr}.wav ; done

 Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, einen Zeitstempel händisch einzugeben und sich
 die Markierung in der Spur anzeigen zu lassen, oder umgekehrt einzelne 
 Spurpunkte zu markieren und sich dazu die Zeit anzeigen zu lassen?

Sowas aehnliches haette ich auch gern: Ich wuerd mir gern die Hoehe
ansehen. Bislang nutz ich aber gnuplot dafuer, hat ja eine bessere
3D-Ansicht.

cu,
 stw
-- 
Natürlich können Sie sich zur Prüfung anmelden. Sie können aber auch mit
einer Luftmatratze raus auf den Atlantik.

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Fahrrad-Routing MKGMAP

2010-06-07 Thread Joerg Fischer
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 Poller sollten auf keinen Fall vermieden werden, die lassen Fahrräder
 ja explizit passieren. Gehweg ist eine Sache, die lokal
 unterschiedlich betrachtet werden muss (evtl. explizit angeben).

+1

 ja, wobei es teilweise eine Abwägung erfordert: lieber 30 m schieben
 oder 5km Umweg? Selbst mit 30kg Gepäck wird man wohl lieber 30m
 schieben ;-)

Deshalb versucht Routing so etwas wie Gewichtung einzuführen. Auch beim
Autorouting kann es sinnvoll sein durch eine Tempo 30 Straße zu routen,
wenn die nur 500m lang ist, die Hauptstraße aber 10km entfernt.  :-)

Jörg

-- 
There are only 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't...


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Quellen- und Lizenzangabe im Fernsehen

2010-06-07 Thread Michael Buege
Zitat Markus:

 Liebe Juristen,

Aaahh, nix fuer mich  ;-)

 Wenn im Fernsehen eine OSM-Karte benutzt werden soll,
 was wäre dann ein praktikabler minimaler Quellen- und Lizenzhinweis?

Wie waere es, wenn die Leute es mit unseren Karten genau so machen wie mit
den Karten, die sie derzeit in solchen Faellen benutzen. Meistens sind das
Luftbilder von Google, auch mal Grafiken von Google Maps. Steht da nicht
immer in der Ecke Karte: Google oder Quelle: Google oder so?
Eigentlich braucht man nur die Karten und Google durch Openstreetmap
ersetzen und allen ist geholfen.

 Zu berücksichtigen ist dabei, dass Fernsehkarten
 a) nur wenige Sekunden gezeigt werden
 b) der Betrachtungsfokus auf dem Inhalt dar Karte liegt
 c) Metainformation deshalb sehr begrenzt wahrgenommen wird
 
 Die Quelle sollte m.E. ausschliesslich mit *Openstreetmap* bezeichnet
 werden. (also nicht irgendetwas mit www oder http)

Mir wuerde sogar Quelle:OSM reichen.

 Der Lizenzhinweis soll aus Praktibilitätsgründen (und obwohl von der
 Lizenz eigentlich gefordert) m.E. ganz entfallen.

Ganz klar: Nein.
Es ist eine sehr kleine Muehe, Quelle:Openstreetmap dahin zu schreiben.
Das ist im Vergleich zu der Arbeit, die das Erstellen dieser Karte
erfordert hat, wahrlich nicht zuviel verlangt. Ich glaube auch nicht, dass
die Fernsehleute damit ein Problem haben, denn, wie gesagt, bei Google
muessen sie es ja auch machen.

 Begründung:
 - Die Erkennungsrate steigt, je kürzer und prägnanter der String ist.
 - Wenn der Sting länger wäre, ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit gross, dass
 weder die Quelle, noch die Lizenz wahrgenommen werden würde. Dann könnte
 man sogar auf beides verzichten, der Effekt wäre der gleiche.
 - OpenStreetMap hat einen so hohen Bekanntheitsgrad, dass Nutzer (bzw
 insbesondere Nachnutzer) wissen, welche Lizenz wir verwenden, bzw wo sie
 das nachlesen können.

Ich bremse deinen begeisterten Optimismus da nur ungern aus, aber ich
glaube, ausser den Rechtsabteilungen von Google, Teleatlas und Navtech und 
Leuten wie uns, die jede Karteneinblendung im Fernsehen auf OSM-Beteiligung
abklopfen, interessiert es nur sehr wenig Fernsehgucker, welche Karten da
kurz eingeblendet werden, von wem sie stammen und unter welcher Lizenz sie
stehen. Ich haette allerdings nichts dagegen, wenn ich mich irre.

 - Wenn es uns gelingt, über das Fernsehen *OSM als Marke* bekannt zu
 machen, ist das ein Vielfaches wertvoller, als wenn wir die Lizenz
 hinschreiben, aber die Marke nicht wahrgenommen wird.

Nichts fuer Ungut, Markus, aber ich kann nur hoffen, dass OSM niemals
als Marke wahrgenommen wird. Aber ich glaube, du meinst Marke im Sinne
von Name, der fuer eine hervorragende Eigenschaft steht Ich wuensche mir,
dass OSM als Quelle fuer freie Karten(daten) wahrgenommen wird und dass
dieser Wesenszug auch durch die Medien ausreichend deutlich transportiert
wird. Da sind kurze Einblendungen unserer Karten wenig geeignet. Allerdings
wuerde diese Verwendung bestimmt von den Projektmitgliedern als Anerkennung
ihrer Arbeit gewertet werden. Das finde ich viel wichtiger.

-- 
Michael


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Datenspende Gemeindegrenzen Bayern ält eren Datums: Probleme bei Shape-Datenkonvertierung

2010-06-07 Thread Rainer Kluge
Am 07.06.2010 13:12, schrieb Dietmar:
 Ich will die Daten sowieso erst visuell prüfen und gegenchecken hinsichtlich
 Genauigkeit und Aktualität und dann ggfs. einzeln übernehmen.

Dabei solltest du berücksichtigen, dass seit den 80ern der Grenzverlauf zwischen
Bayern und angrenzenden Bundesländern, und somit auch die betroffenen
Gemeindegrenzen, an einigen Stellen verändert wurde. Zum Beispiel mit diesem
Staatsvertrag:
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/gr_ndstvtr_bw_by_3/gesamt.pdf

Dort wo der Grenzverlauf in OSM schon an diese Änderungen angepasst wurde,
sollte dieser nicht mit veralteten Daten überschrieben werden.

Gruß
Rainer


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Grenzen: Regionalschluessel wie Taggen?

2010-06-07 Thread Georg Feddern
Moin,

Sven Anders schrieb:
 Wie auch beim AGS gibt es mit RGS für mache Deckungsgleiche Gebeite 
 mehrere Schlüssel. Z.B. gibt es beim AGS  in der Statistik:

 * Das Bundesland Hamburg mit der AGS 02
 * Den Kreis  Hamburg mit der AGS 02 0 00 und
 * Die Gemeinde   Hamburg mit der AGS 02 0 00 000

 In Wirklichkeit gibt es laut Hamburger Verfassung keinen Kreis und 
 keine Gemeinde, aber das Spiel hier keine Rolle. Entscheidend ist das 
 die letzten stellen alle Nullen sind, daran kann man erkennen das sie 
 deckungsgleich sind.

nun, die Statistik lässt auch die Interpretation Alles Nullen in einer 
Ebene bedeutet Es gibt in dieser Ebene keine weitere Unterteilung zu.
Siehe die Spalte Regierungsbezirk, man beachte auch Niedersachsen mit 
seinen ehemaligen RB, also immer bezogen auf den Zeitpunkt der 
Erstellung der Systematik.

 Beim RGS ist ist das leider z.T. anders. Bei Hamburg ist es zwar 
 gleich, es gibt dort nur zusätzlich noch das Amt Hamburg (RGS:
 02 0 00 ), aber es gibt auch Gemeinden die den Status eines Amtes 
 haben (zumindest in der Statistik) und nicht durch Nullen ergänzt werden.

 Hier ein Beispiel:

 Im Landkreis Goslar (Niedersachsen) (RGS: 03 1 53)  gibt es z.B.

 * Das Amt  Bad Harsburg Stadt 03 1 53 0002  und
 * die Gemeinde Bad Harzburg Stadt 03 1 53 0002 002

 Interessant ist vielleicht das der Amtsteil 0002 numerisch dem 
 Gemeindeteil 002 entspricht. Aber ich habe nirgends etwas dazu 
 gelesen, das das immer so ist...

Wenn man sich die Statistik so anguckt, ist das durchgängig zumindest 
recht augenscheinlich, auch da die zusammenfassenden Ämter ja doch recht 
hohe, abgesetzte Kennziffern ab 5000 bekommen haben. Das lässt der 
Hoffnung Raum, dass diese Systematik gewollt sein könnte, falls mal 
wieder eine Gemeinde aus dem Verband ausscheren will
NB:
Mal sehen, wie sich der RGS bei Ascheberg(Holstein) entwickeln wird, 
wenn sie nicht mehr zum Amt Großer Plöner See gehören, aber auch keinen 
eigenen Amts-Status haben werden - vielleicht wechselt Plön, Stadt dann 
ja auch den RGS, wenn sie die Amtsaufgaben für Ascheberg übernehmen. ;-)


 Nun ist die Frage, wie taggen wir Bad Harzburg?

 Die Tags:
 boundary=administrative
 type=multipolygon
 name=Bad Harzburg
 de:amtlicher_gemeindeschluessel=03153002
 de:regionalschluessel=031530002;031530002002
 [Vorschlag: Semikolon]


welchen admin_level bekommt diese Relation denn dann?
Gemäß dieser Logik müsste sie ja admin_level=7;8 bekommen, da sie ja 
sowohl Gemeinde als auch Amt ist - im Gegensatz zu Hamburg.

Insofern würde ich die

 zwei Relationen mit jeweils einem de:regionalschluessel [Vorschlag: 
 Zwei Relationen] ?
dem jeweils entsprechenden admin_level und AGS eben nur bei der Gemeinde 
bevorzugen.

 Ich finde den Semikolon Vorschlag am besten, er bildet alles ab.

Es sind alle Informationen vorhanden,  ja ... aber ... irgendwie nicht 
so richtig ... finde ich - siehe den AGS, der hat beim Amt ja eigentlich 
auch nix zu suchen.
Ich betrachte es unter dem Grundsatz:
Alle Merkmale gelten immer und in jeder Unter-Konstellation - das ist 
dann nicht mehr erfüllt, finde ich.

Gruß
Georg


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


[Talk-de] Mautdaten

2010-06-07 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hallo,

hat jemand schon mal Mautdaten fuer deutsche Autobahnen in OSM erfasst?

Vom Gefuehl her wuerde ich sagen, dass man fuer jede Anschlusstelle eine 
Relation machen muss, die alle highway=motorway_junction-Nodes dieser 
Anschlusstelle enthaelt, und dann fuer jedes Paar von benachbarten 
Anschlusstellen eine Relation (member sind dann die zwei AS-Relationen), 
in der praktisch das Autobahnsegment modelliert wird: Zwischen AS X und 
AS Y sind es 3,7 Mautkilometer.

Oder?

Bye
Frederik

___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Mautdaten

2010-06-07 Thread Jan Tappenbeck
Am 07.06.2010 16:45, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
 Hallo,

  hat jemand schon mal Mautdaten fuer deutsche Autobahnen in OSM erfasst?

 Vom Gefuehl her wuerde ich sagen, dass man fuer jede Anschlusstelle eine
 Relation machen muss, die alle highway=motorway_junction-Nodes dieser
 Anschlusstelle enthaelt, und dann fuer jedes Paar von benachbarten
 Anschlusstellen eine Relation (member sind dann die zwei AS-Relationen),
 in der praktisch das Autobahnsegment modelliert wird: Zwischen AS X und
 AS Y sind es 3,7 Mautkilometer.

 Oder?

 Bye
 Frederik


hi !

gutes thema - sage mir eben die tags und ich erfasse gleich einige 
brücken da ich die nächsten tage auf der bab bin !

gruß Jan :-)


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


Re: [Talk-de] Wieder ein Scherz von Pfoten_weg_!_ ??

2010-06-07 Thread Gary68

sende mir doch bitte mal die *.osm datei - eine kleine tut's.

dann habe ich heute abend bestimmt mal zeit, danach zu sehen.

gerhard

On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 11:58 +0200, hike39 wrote:
 Am 02.06.2010 22:48, schrieb Walter Nordmann:
 
  hi,
 
  gibt es hier was neues?
 
  ich hab in eines meiner osm-files mal den usernamen auf pfoten_weg_!_
  geändert -  geht immer noch prima.
 
  du kannst es ja mal genau umgekehrt machen, das osm-file ist ja ascii und
  mit (fast) jedem editor deiner wahl editierbar.
 
  der username ist fuer mapgen sowieso piepegal.
 
  gruss
 
  walter
 
  -
  Erst hatten wir kein Glück und dann kam auch noch Pech dazu.
 
 Hi Walter,
 ich habe auch schon festgestellt, dass das Problem womoeglich nicht mit 
 dem Parsen von dem User-Namen zu tun hat. Allerdings habe ich von Gary68 
 auch noch keinen Tipp bekommen, ausser dass er ueber das Key visible=* 
 erstaunt ist. Der Grund fuer mein Problem muss irgendwo anders liegen. 
 Die Frage ist nur wo?
 
 gruss
 
 hike39
 
 
 ___
 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


  1   2   3   >