Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes & cycle tracks - my findings and a proposal

[Felix Hartmann]

p.s. Personally I feel that cycle TRACKS would be much easier to map 
if drawn as a separate highway=cycleway (despite any challenges the 
renderers and routers currently have with this) - it just makes things 
a lot easier!!



No, no,no,no




As for changing the cycleway key values:

If we do that, we actually loose too much information. Yes, changing the 
current cycleway key, could be a rather good idea. But don't replace it 
by something not better.


If we want to change it, then we should
a) wait for the editors to support proper lane mapping
b) wait for the editors to support proper junction mapping

c) think about how to do it once the above is working and accepted. 
Don't change the cycleway key now. It ain't perfect, but with :left and 
:right it covers most situations and it isn't difficult to understand.



Some places for thought:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway%3Djunction

and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lane_group


P.S. this is better placed on the tagging mailinglist

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

[OSM-talk] Heute Abend OSM Stammtisch Wien

[Felix Hartmann]

Nur mal so als kurze Erinnering. ab 17:00 Uhr im Wieden Bräu...


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Request for Romano-British features

[Felix Hartmann]

On 03.01.2012 11:36, Lester Caine wrote:

Pieren wrote:

If someone does this in my area, I'll revert the deletion as vandalism.
>

Funny. I also consider adding non-existing stuff as "vandalism". I
hope we will never contribute on the same areas...


This is the current reason *I* have been unable to contribute to OSM 
in the last few years. All of the material I am gathering relates to 
historic mapping and I want somewhere that I can share it with other 
like minded users. Perhaps now is the time simply to fork a version 
that is only intended for historic mapping. There does not seem to be 
any agreement on a cross database API as an alternative to destroying 
data as it is superseded by changes on the ground. But one of the 
rules that does apply is that data that has been generated by others 
SHOULD NOT simply be destroyed unless it is inappropriate.


The thing is - historic data that doesn't exist anymore is inappropriate 
because it is confusing for anyone contributing to OSM. For the same 
reason we don't want to have anything that is in the air. E.g. if people 
would trace flight-routes into OSM, they would add lots of confusion, as 
they are not on the ground. Flight routes or historic AND not existing 
on ground anymore objects is simply confusing. Adding tags to a current 
street/way that states that it was once a Roman street on the other hand 
is of course okay (as long as it was important and is currently in a 
broader sense touristically important), because it is still on the ground.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..

[Felix Hartmann]

On 01.09.2011 08:19, Michael Kugelmann wrote:

On 31.08.2011 10:44, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
I would go so far as to say, don't delete *anything* until legally 
you absolutely have to.
I would like to somehow modyfy this statement: we should replace the 
data not delete it! So please remap the information that needs to be 
removed.

Well that is deleting. Everything else would be copying.

Especially on less common tags that are rather specific or subjective 
you will not be able to replace them.
E.g. tracktype, smoothness, mtb:scale, sac_scale and so on, would 
definitely need local knowledge to be redone.


So if you don't want to have any trouble, best delete any object WITHOUT 
looking at the tags, else someone who purposely mistagged will quickly 
find out.
Also things like name:en and other languages, simply redoing every tag 
shouldn't be done at all.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Topo Pirineos - or lots of new material to trace/import in the Pyrenees

[Felix Hartmann]

On 11.07.2011 13:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2011/7/9 Felix Hartmann:

 As we're
still under CCBYSA 2.0, people can use it to trace rivers and trails to OSM
:-)


while the data is still distributed under cc-by-ca you cannot enter
data any more in cc-by-sa only. All current contributions most also be
compatible with odbl and the ct.

Of course you can. I.e. on fosm.org.



or might we have another case of OSM data piracy
(I'ld support the later, as there is no real data sources given for the rest
of the data, and from my opinion clearly a pirated Garmin MPC has been used
to create the map).


do you have more details why you think that this is pirated data
besides "missing" source-tags?
No, as I don't have much clue at all where the data is from. I do think 
for Spain it's from IGN and thus okay for personal use only. For France 
I have no clue at all.
However as I could not find (don't speak catalan, so only used google 
translate), a list of sources (and there seems to be quite a melange), I 
have no clue.


Clearly OSM data is pirated as the map is not published CCBYSA 2.0!


cheers,
Martin



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

[OSM-talk] Topo Pirineos - or lots of new material to trace/import in the Pyrenees

[Felix Hartmann]

http://www.topopirineos.blogspot.com/

This map is using Openstreetmap Data for main roads, but lots of other 
stuff too. Attribution is not really given correctly, but somehow a bit. 
As we're still under CCBYSA 2.0, people can use it to trace rivers and 
trails to OSM :-)



or might we have another case of OSM data piracy
(I'ld support the later, as there is no real data sources given for the 
rest of the data, and from my opinion clearly a pirated Garmin MPC has 
been used to create the map).


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

Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki

[Felix Hartmann]

Why not setup a "Wave" server, using google Wave software. It's open 
source, and really efficient for real time as well as non real time 
communication. Alternative a google server could be used, but then it is 
just like other proprietary tools (though based on opensource software).


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

Re: [OSM-talk] When advertising is good

[Felix Hartmann]

The biggest problem we have is that were not important enough and too 
cluttered to attract in map adverts yet.


I think in the long run, it's not about adverts around the map, but ads 
in the map (of course the database should be advert free). Als our maps 
are still mainly for looking at, maximum autorouting, but few to noone 
uses them to search for specific stuff, so there is less incentive to 
promote your business by buying a logo for it (smallest thing to start 
with).


Google has to pay for map data, and still makes enough money with in map 
adverts to more than cover costs, but we miss a system for map 
producers, that is as simple as google adsense for websites, to place in 
map adverts.

I often think about how and where would be a good start to get it going!

On 03.05.2011 21:25, Nic Roets wrote:

One or two people on the list said that they avoid advertising where
ever they can. I know advertising can be annoying when the same add
appears 10 times in a row, but I just want to explain a few things.

Let's look at the example of a restaurant that is working below
capacity. It can be because they recently opened. It can be because
they are not located on a busy corner. So they have waiters and chefs
not working at peak productivity. They have freshly prepared food
going to waste.

This is a problem that on demand location based advertising can solve,
provided people are willing to accept it in their lives: The
restaurant gets more patrons. Those patrons no longer go to other
restaurants. The other restaurants are now able to serve the remaining
patrons faster.

And the same argument does for most retail and service business.

The great thing about OSM is that we are driving the cost of maps to
$0. If media corporation have annoying ads, people will simply switch.
The media corporation and the advertiser (the restaurant) will now
need to work together to give you the maps at a cost "below 0". My
guess is that it will be in the form of coupons or other specials. "If
you order the OSM special, you get a free softdrink with your burger".

So next time you want to embed maknik in website, consider the
advantages of embedding MapQuest instead.

(And no, I do not have affiliation with MapQuest or any media company).

___
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] Skip geographical (redundant) address tags

[Felix Hartmann]

On 03.05.2011 15:05, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Felix Hartmann 
mailto:extremecar...@gmail.com>> wrote:


+1


boundaries are too often wrong or incomplete or if someone deletes
them accidentally (or renames them slightly)


again the "is_in" discussion

All these arguments above are also valid when you put the full address 
tags. It's always a good practice to avoid duplicated data in a 
database. It makes only sense if the address cannot be deduced from 
the boundaries (like in US, it seems).
Nope, it makes sense all the time. Cause boundaries really are not ment 
for deducting information onto what's inside. This really slows down any 
kind of processing (much much more than having data duplicated which 
only takes up a bit more disk space).
Don't forget the fundamentals : OSM is a geospatial database 
containing geospatial data. If you are a consumer, use a database 
server with geospatial functions like postGIS (otherwise we don't need 
coordinates in nodes). It's true that it requires some skills and 
learning curves and lazy programmers can always expect that 
contributors will do the job for them...


Pieren


___
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] Skip geographical (redundant) address tags

[Felix Hartmann]

On 03.05.2011 10:09, Thomas Davie wrote:

On 3 May 2011, at 08:57, Jaak Laineste wrote:


Hello,

It looks like trivial suggestion, but could not find any past
discussions with quick search.

Is there good reason to add addr:country, addr:county, addr:city and
other regional tags to all the address tags, if OSM database already
has administrative regions for given area? These admin areas already
create implicit relation, which can be used in any application to add
city,country,district,state and other regions. So buildings would have
only addr:street, addr:housenumber (and possibly house:housename and
addr:full tags). Depending on country, addr:postcode could be
geographical also.

Searching a database for a way that surrounds a potentially enormous area (certainly 
enormous in the case of country) when you want to find out "what city/country/... is 
this in" is *far* less efficient than simply looking at the tags.  Plus, Addresses 
are not always as straightforward as you make out, it's not possible to tell which 
administrative areas should be included in an address by simply looking at which ones 
happen to encompass the building.

Bob
___

+1

Look at all current implementations. If the address is not tagged 
completly (country, state, city, street) then programs are lost, and 
boundaries are too often wrong or incomplete or if someone deletes them 
accidentally (or renames them slightly) all data inside the boundary 
wouldn't have an address anymore. Plus it takes a lot of computation 
time, to put boundary information onto objects inside.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports

[Felix Hartmann]

On 21.02.2011 00:47, Daniel Sabo wrote:

On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Felix Hartmann wrote:


Couldn't agree more to it. Imports kill community and scare novices away.
...
Most important things for OSM are good aerial photos coupled with large community. Worst 
are imports. The United States are so bad, I don't think OSM will ever become important 
there. The biggest thing to remember is that "creating" something is much more 
fun than correcting it. Imports make OSM a chore and no fun.

As a former novice I completely disagree with you here. If the TIGER import 
hadn't happened I would have had zero interest in OSM, a vast empty map is not 
very inspiring.

But really, no one here has hard data, whenever we say "it destroys the community" or "it 
helps the community"  we're just throwing anecdotes at each other. What we need are better tools to 
build a community like Serge and Kevin are talking about, a dozen of us arguing on a mailing list about what 
360k people "really want" isn't going to accomplish much.

- Daniel

Well we have no hard data, but evidence. Basically no users and editors 
in the US but loads in Europe. And loads of countries without imports 
flourishing as communities start to grow (like Slovakia, Czech Republic, 
Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark) but less involvement in countries 
with imports. A vast empty map is no fun, but neither is a complete map. 
The worst is a seemingly complete map, with crap data (like plan.at data 
in Austria, that was in general off by around 20-100m).


Just show me some neighboring countries where the one with imports some 
time ago (minimum 1 year) are doing better than neighboring 
countries/regions where no imports took place.


I think imports are good for stuff we cannot easily record ourselves 
(like borders) - but no good for stuff we can get ourselves.
And if you see tracing from aerial imagery as a chore, you're making a 
mistake. I think we should wait till local people do it. That way it 
gets better quality and is not much work for anyone. We should not 
strive to be complete, but offer more or different data than commercial 
map providers, because that's where we are good at. Striving to get a 
map with best use for carnavigation will not happen - our structure and 
means are really inferior here. Getting speciality maps noone can 
compete with large communities.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports

[Felix Hartmann]

Couldn't agree more to it. Imports kill community and scare novices away.

Austria two years ago was actually one of the best mapped countries for 
the density of population. Much better in general than Germany or other 
countries. Since we began importing plan.at community stopped to grow 
and many many got pissed of. Also value of imports is not good. 
Switzerland 2 years ago nowhere as well covered as Austria, on the other 
hand had no imports, but largely good aerial imagery. By now Northern 
Switzerland map data quality and attributes are absolutely stunning. In 
Austria as soon as you move 20km away from Vienna, average quality is no 
good


I also think that in the Netherlands the imports destroyed what OSM can 
do. In the Netherlands street and landuse data are really complete, but 
quality is just as bad as normal maps. There are far fewer attributes 
than in Germany and if you take pedestrian or bicycle navigation as a 
goal, even though data is really complete, what you can get out of the 
data is crap compared to the bordering parts of west Germany 
(North-Westphalia).


Most important things for OSM are good aerial photos coupled with large 
community. Worst are imports. The United States are so bad, I don't 
think OSM will ever become important there. The biggest thing to 
remember is that "creating" something is much more fun than correcting 
it. Imports make OSM a chore and no fun.

On 20.02.2011 13:00, Jaak Laineste wrote:

  Without knowing local situation I cannot comment this particular
case, but I can tell about mass-imports what I have done myself, spent
each time many man-days for conversions, improving scripts,
discussions with community etc

  1. second largest city of our country full data (streets,buildings
etc) import. The city had a few streets before, and person who had
added most of them, agreed to replace them. It created positive buzz
about "good quality OSM database", but killed local community.
  2. Corine Land Cover, nation-wide import. Today I would do it much
more carefully, or not at all. It has made more mess and troubles, the
only advantage is that medium-zoom rendering looks nicer with a lot of
green forests; but high-zoom is terrible and it is very hard to fix it
now.
  3. National administrative borders (from state source), all levels.
This was the only good import so far you could not get the data with
field survey.
  4. I have also prepared quite good water info - decided NOT import
it, keep for manual copy
  5. In the pipeline is national address database (should have all
addresses/buildings as points).  I have permission from source,
accept/comments from the community, reject from local post agency
regarding including post codes (surprise-surprise).

  So out of 5 imports maybe 1 or 2 were really "good" ones, if you look
it this way. So imports are very-very dangerous and should be done
only if there really is no other alternative. My own optimism of
re-using existing souces (as anyone with strong background in
GIS/geodata would have) to improve OSM has reduced dramatically.

  But I like the idea that there should be separate shared import-data
layer in OSM database (API and editing tools) itself, similar to GPS
files. Right now I have several new datasets just as bunch of OSM
files somewhere in our HTTP, and URLs are posted to local talk-list,
but this is not a good solution, I actually dont recall myself where
they were.

Jaak from Estonia

2011/2/20 Frank Steggink:

On 11-02-20 11:54 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:





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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing imagery now available in JOSM

[Felix Hartmann]

On 01.12.2010 13:59, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Adding source tags never hurts. I believe source=bing is what is sort 
of agreed upon.

Is source=bing verified?
Else it is pretty bad to start mapping

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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Felix Hartmann]

On 30.11.2010 17:17, Anthony wrote:

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Robert Kaiser  wrote:

Robin Paulson schrieb:

or am i missing a tag? do i need to tag parks, etc. with "area=yes"
"foot=yes", "access=yes" or would that be a case of "tagging for the
routing engine"

Note that in some park, stepping on the grass is explicitely forbidden, so
automatically routing across park space may pose a problem.

What is the default, though.  For a leisure=park, area=yes is
certainly the default.  access=yes certainly is not (you typically
can't drive through a park).  As for foot=*, I'd say foot=permissive
is the default (from the definition - "Typically (or pretty much
always) open to the public, but may be fenced off, and may be closed
e.g. at night time."). If stepping on the grass is explicitly
forbidden, the area should be marked with foot=no or foot=private.

As for the ability of routers to utilize open spaces for routing, I
think that's more of a future feature than a current one, regardless
of how it is tagged.  Doesn't seem like it would be all that
difficult, as a preprocessor would just need to add implicit ways
connecting the possible routes through the park.  But in any case,
doesn't really matter much how it's tagged, so long as non-routable
park areas are tagged as such.

I wouldn't apply the same logic to wooded areas, of course, but those
wouldn't be properly tagged with leisure=park.  As for long rows of
bushes, those should be tagged - maybe barrier=hedge?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
I don't think routing over areas will ever work well. It might work for 
2-3 areas and that is already really difficult for calculation. Just 
routing onto an open space is no problem, but calculating a route over a 
longer distance, would mean that for any place the time it needs and the 
way to take have to be calculated as a way, before using it for 
autorouting. Hence in the end the only thing that will work, is that 
there are invisible ways for routing with very low priority added to the 
map, because everything else won't be feasible for longer distances.


As long as there is no consensus or widespread use, of how map rendering 
should add such invisible ways, no area should be considered to be 
routable.
Real polygon routing is AFAIK with the currently developed algos 
impossible (but also does not exist in reality. If you put a camera over 
a public place, and record 24hours, you'll soon notice even though 
anyone is free to walk wherever he wants to, actually there are more or 
less defined pathes that everyone takes when crossing a place - hence 
one could also argue, that such undefined but existing pathes should be 
mapped, but with a consensus that they are not visbibly rendered in 
maps, and also not shown in editors by default, except when say 
activating an editing session with the goal of working strictly on 
autorouting features -- which is in my eyes how such areas should be 
delt with ultimately (though not yet, because the editors still show 
everything and a myriad of pathes over places would make editing much 
harder))


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Felix Hartmann]

 On 22.08.2010 12:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Felix,

Felix Hartmann wrote:
Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a 
future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers 
as possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who 
want to contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF 
and others to tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they 
will loose us and also be faced with a fork.


I am all for people being constructive, so you have my support if you 
want to create a fork, and I have no reason to tell people that they 
should not support that. There are certainly good uses for a fork.


However, you do not only want to create a fork but *also* do your best 
to harm the rest of the project that goes along with ODbL. You say you 
want to convince as many people as possible not to sign up to ODbL, in 
order to cripple that effort, with the hope of in the end forcing 
everyone to stick with your fork.
As I stated, my goal is to have OSM to continue under CCBYSA2.0 -  and I 
think this will workout best by showing the people that they do not have 
to blindly accept the new Odbl including the strange Contributor Terms. 
If there was a fair decision for the users, than the question would not 
be do you accept the new terms Yes or No, but which license do you 
prefer - (and which additional licenses would you accept to work with).


The current process is simply dictated by people that do everything to 
push through ODbL, in hoping that most users blindly accept without ever 
thinking about it!


It is clear that a fork makes only sense, if enough people participate 
in it, but the same is true for OSM under Odbl. If 80% of people wander 
of to work on the fork instead, than soon the remaining 20% of people 
will be faced to decide how they want to continue.


So yes, I do want to do my best to stop the ODbl by showing everyone 
that it is possible for us, to continue successfully using CCBYSA.


These two aspects are separate - you could set up a fork *without* 
doing anti-ODbL propaganda.


I think this is unnecessary. Also, from discussions myself various 
others had with you on the German forum, I still have the impression 
that your opposition to ODbL is based on fear and uncertainty and not 
on fact. I don't think you have understood (or are willing to 
understand) the reasons for changing the license.


(If you feel you need to discuss this further, please make sure to do 
so on legal-talk and not here.)


This is not a good starting position for a fork. I'd rather have 
somone do it who doesn't do it out of blind protest and political 
propaganda.


Bye
Frederik




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Felix Hartmann]

 On 22.08.2010 12:26, Robert Scott wrote:

On Sunday 22 August 2010, Felix Hartmann wrote:

This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the
usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork
without new registration.

How about you start with your own mailing lists?


robert.

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

Why should We?

Is this mailinglist excluding anyone who does not agree to the Odbl? If 
so then clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else so fuck off.


As I hope this is not the case, currently we should be able to work from 
here too. (besides as I noticed by private mails, there are already 
people working on a fork on a rather private basis for now)...


This list should be for general talk about OSM, and working on how to 
continue OSM as we know it, should be part of it!



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

[OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation

[Felix Hartmann]

 Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a 
future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers as 
possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want to 
contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and others to 
tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will loose us and 
also be faced with a fork.


This is not for legal-talk, because it should not be about why we don't 
want the Odbl, but what WE can do to stop it and continue working under 
CCBYSA 2.0


This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the 
usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork 
without new registration.


I put up a wiki page with a few points here, please contribute:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ccbysa_fork

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

Re: [OSM-talk] I don't want companies stealing OSM data that I contribute!

[Felix Hartmann]

 On 19.08.2010 12:24, Grant Slater wrote:

On 19 August 2010 11:07, Valent Turkovic  wrote:

AFAIK with new Contributor Terms [1] all data entered into OSM can be
taken by some company, closed and they could create a product made profit
on it.

Yes or no? Please just answer this for start.

No, they have to make the data available. The data is share-alike.
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/

Nope, they don't have to. Only if they use it as one database. If they 
use it to publish maps, or create a product that afterwards uses two 
databases seperately, they don't have to publish their own data under Odbl.


This has some positive sides, i.e. you could use CCBYNC data inside a 
map (which is a product) whithout that data loosing its NC status, on 
the other hand basically anyone can do whatever he wants now with OSM 
data, whithout giving a penny back. For me this is unacceptable and I 
won't agree to the new license, and also tell other people to stay far 
away from odbl.


For me Odbl means that the quest for free data has failed, if you push 
Odbl license, you push data that is incompatible to CCBYSA terms as we 
know them.

Legal-talk is over here:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
It is the place to ask legal question.

Regards
  Grant

___
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] I don't want companies stealing OSM data that I contribute!

[Felix Hartmann]

 On 19.08.2010 12:07, Valent Turkovic wrote:

AFAIK with new Contributor Terms [1] all data entered into OSM can be
taken by some company, closed and they could create a product made profit
on it.

Yes or no? Please just answer this for start.

I have no problem with companies making a profit, just go ahead and do it.

I have a problem with companies that would like to take data, add some of
their own and not release it, and prohibit making derivative works from
data that is based on OSM.

If this is true then there needs to be a fork in this project as soon as
possible.

Sorry for the tone of this message.

[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms



It is true, (they just need to seperate it in two databases, which can 
be anyhting), I also think the new license because of this clause is 
utter rubbish and if it goes through there needs to be a fork. Is 
openfreemap.org still available?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cyclopath wiki bicycle map (was: Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle)

[Felix Hartmann]

On 13.05.2010 21:34, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 13:35:40 -0700, David Fawcett wrote:
>
>> You may be interested in the CycloPath project.  http://cyclopath.org/
>>
>> It is an OSM-like project for bicycle routes in Minneapolis - St.
>> Paul, Minnesota, USA.  A user can edit the cycle 'ways' and rate
>> preferences for different ways.  CycloPath can then generate
>> preferable routes for that user.
>>  
> Hi all,
>
>
>
Great, would be nice if you could give your input on howto best solve 
the problem that objective keys, can only lead to 90% best route (well 
with 90% best, it curently means you get in 50% of cases a perfect 
route, 40% a decent route, and 10% it goes completly wrong). You 
certainly must have a lot of knowledge in the field

Felix.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 09.05.2010 13:18, Jens Müller wrote:
> Am 03.05.2010 13:31, schrieb Felix Hartmann:
>   >  Subject: Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key
> class:bicycle
>
>
> What do you mean by "Autorouting"? Something else than just "routing"?
>
Well when I say autorouting I mean that a computer or GPS calculates a 
route, and I can follow it, and I get proper turn instructions like: 
Turn right into abcstreet cycleroute def.

Many people take routing for following tracks, so that would mean no 
automatic calculation of the ways. Hence I say autorouting to avoid 
confusion. I don't think navigation is a better term either for the above.
>
> ___
> 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] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 04.05.2010 11:40, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Felix Hartmann wrote:
>
>> On 03.05.2010 21:47, Ben Laenen wrote:
>>  
>>> Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones
>>> that are signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your
>>> route suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM
>>> database.
>>>
>> Well there is a big reason to do so. You cannot import such routes and
>> map then onto existing streets. Also no such sites feature a tagging
>> interface that is accessible with the tracks. They will not help
>> autorouting at all. The data therefore has to be in OSM to be used (a
>> parallel database would be stupid, because due to the small amount of
>> data would IMHO cause more traffic and data growth than doing it
>> directly in OSM).
>>  
> I agree that it's tricky to link route data to the proper ways in OSM one the
> two were separated, since lots of things could happen to the OSM data. But is
> that a reason to put everyone's favourite route in OSM, just because it would
> be "easier"?
>
> You'd actually make it much harder to map in OSM, because many mappers still
> cannot handle relations well and route relations regularly get broken by these
> inexperienced mappers. Not to mention the fact that say if a crossroad would
> be replaced by a roundabout, we get a huge extra burden to map everything
> correctly if that place was so popular that a few hundred of these routes were
> crossing it and you'd have to split that roundabout up in a lot of small
> pieces just to be able to map all routes correctly with proper
> forward/backward roles.
>
That is a valid point, and I don't like the answer its strictly an 
editor problem
> And who'll be maintaining someone's favourite route? Would I be allowed to
> take the route and slightly adjust it so it would be a little more scenic? Or
> should I then add my own route as well which would then be 99% the same as the
> first one, because I'm not allowed to destroy his favourite route by changing
> it slightly? Would someone be even allowed to delete a favourite route, or are
> we stuck with it forever if someone adds it in OSM? Also, I'm personally
> already discussing enough objective things, that I don't want to end up in
> long conversations where I also have to discuss some route which in my eyes
> doesn't make sense, but someone else found was pretty nice, but wasn't aware
> of some better alternatives for example.
>
> At least with signposted routes you don't end up with these discussions about
> subjective things. There it's clear what needs to be mapped.
>
>
Well here I am partly with you. We are more and more getting into social 
web, and OSM should not try to exclude itself. So for as long as the 
editor problem is not solved, we should make up the requirement that a 
route has to be published and documented somewhere (and of course put a 
big note not to infringe copyrights).  Documentation can be either in 
signposts, CCBYSA compatible brochures, blogs, or wikis.

Wiki format would actually be the best. Because we could start building 
community mapped relations. Meaning not only the relation itself is from 
multiple persons, but also the description, additional pictures, and so 
on is from community. It's actually a project I long had in mind but 
never got around doing. Because I simply have great problems 
understanding that we work on a really innovative project, but do our 
best to avoid recent developments (blogging and social networks are not 
new anymore, but have become part of many peoples life).

I am pretty sure, that 99% percent of OSM users would be fine with 
relations that are not signposted, if there exists CCBYSA compatible 
documentation.
>
>> We did not yet do so. But we also map other unofficial unphysical things
>> like boundaries (which are in no way public domain in Austria or
>> Germany, you are allowed to have information where you are, but not
>> where the boundary is running).
>>  
> I doubt you really cannot see a difference between boundaries (which are by no
> means unofficial by the way, they're very strictly defined by authorities) and
> a route someone likes very much.
>
>
Yes they are damn official, but not public. At least not down to 
community level. If you buy ground in Austria, you will have to pay at 
least a 3 digit sum to have cartographers decide which part of your 
property belongs to which community if you get remotely (say 10m) close 
to community boundary. Yes the boundaries are official, however the 
documentation about where the boundary is, is not public domain, 

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 04.05.2010 00:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Felix Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Sadly though many people in OSM are not able to leave their small
>> focussed mind and cannot espace their caged mind and try to use a
>> motorist perspective to do bicycle autorouting (e.g. CycleStreets
>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CycleStreets>  or
>> Cycle_routes/cyclability
>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability>).
>>  
> This is perhaps the most offensive thing I have ever read on these
> mailing lists, and I think you owe CycleStreets in particular - and
> those in OSM involved in cycle campaigning in general - an apology.
>
> Richard
>
>
I think they should rather feel honoured. They do good work, but in my 
opinion they should not accept that all data is motorist focussed, but 
also attack problems on how to make the data more usable for autorouting 
from a purely bicycle focussed point of view. I have laid this out from 
the top in context, and I don't consider it as offensive at all. From 
the standpoint that bicycle routing needs own tags, their approach is 
wrong/not comprehensive enough. They give a good example of trying hard 
to achieve the goal of nice routes, but as laid out in my opinion, will 
never reach that goal without changing focus.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 04.05.2010 01:41, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Am 03.05.2010 21:12, schrieb Felix Hartmann:
>
>> My actual position on this is, I will write a wiki page, with a note to
>> say bug off people against unofficial routes (because for mountainbiking
>> they will in a matter of days be largely more than signposted routes),
>> we will tag them route:unofficial:mtb=name and eveyone should give their
>> favourite routes a hefty go. People are much more interested in nice
>> routes than in difficulty, but according to tagwatch more than 25.000
>> ways have mtb:scale information, compared with maybe 50 mtb routes.
>>
>> If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start
>> with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up
>> a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums
>> (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner
>> newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes.
>>
>> Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no
>> more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except
>> if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are
>> not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route.
>>
>> If someone starts kicking them out, we could take out their submissions
>> using a bot if they really feel like starting an edit war. It won't be
>> much worse than in the Russian military discussion, will it?
>>
>> I don't give a damn what Andy or some other people say. For me the only
>> rule in OSM and that counts, is that as long as you're not destructing
>> the work of others (like say you put in paragliding routes that make
>> editing a pain for everyone else) or largely irrelevant data that
>> clutters the database so it becomes unusable, just let them do it (hey,
>> in Austria we likely still have 20% of data junk from plan.at, and I
>> don't even want to start about the crap data in the USA). The amount of
>> information is nothing compared to all the remarks by bots and editors
>> or on imports.
>>  
> Hi Felix!
>
> Reading a lot of what you write makes me feel pretty sad.
>
> These "some other people" you are talking about actually spend several
> years of their life - before your appearance here - to bring OSM to
> something you seem to value enough for your ideas.
>
>
Arguing about how long someone is inside OSM, is an argument I cannot 
follow. Of course I have only been a member of OSM since 3 years, of 
wich the last 2 years I was more active than the first one. However 
putting prior achievement as a requirement for being allowed to voice 
opinion, is to me ultraconservative and hingering progress. If you ask 
me, who I think is the person who has done most for OSM, I would say 
Carsten Schwede aka Computerteddy and Steve Ratcliffe because without 
their work, OSM wouldn't be anywhere near as popular. If someones work 
brought a few thousand people to OSM then to me he is more important 
than someone who maybe mapped 10x as much. However this should be blody 
irrelevant.
> Is it really your intention to start a bot edit war if "they don't
> confirm to what I want"? Is this really your way to spread your idea and
> *convince* people that you have a good idea?
>
> What I'm missing here is - respect of other peoples work.
>
I am perfectly respecting anyones work. All my proposals are about 
adding things that do not crash any existing structure. I'm just saying 
if someone started an edit war, one could respond with a bot war.
>
> There seems to be a wide concensus in OSM that we don't want to tag
> something like "this is my favourite route" - at least that's basically
> what I understood what you want to do.
>
Well I and many others have understood this differently. I understood we 
should map everything that makes the maps better, and if it does without 
harming anyone, so lets rock. OSM will become more and more a place 
where the largest share of information (take History) is not interesting 
to the largest part of the users, and the ability for minorities to add 
their data into OSM is what brought big success. It is definitely not 
classification of data for motorcar users, nor quality of data, nor 
quantity of data, because in all three points we are far behind the 
competition. The point where OSM stands out, is the richness of 
attributes. Therfore I can't see the smallest valid reason, why someone 
should be against including "this is my favourite route". Even if every 
OSM participant adds relations for his favourite 1000 routes (which will 
not happen), the a

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 03.05.2010 21:47, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Felix Hartmann wrote:
>
>> If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start
>> with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up
>> a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums
>> (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner
>> newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial
>>   routes.
>>
>> Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no
>> more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except
>> if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are
>> not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route.
>>  
> Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones that are
> signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your route
> suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM database.
>
> Greetings
> Ben
>
Well there is a big reason to do so. You cannot import such routes and 
map then onto existing streets. Also no such sites feature a tagging 
interface that is accessible with the tracks. They will not help 
autorouting at all. The data therefore has to be in OSM to be used (a 
parallel database would be stupid, because due to the small amount of 
data would IMHO cause more traffic and data growth than doing it 
directly in OSM).

We did not yet do so. But we also map other unofficial unphysical things 
like boundaries (which are in no way public domain in Austria or 
Germany, you are allowed to have information where you are, but not 
where the boundary is running). We also map skiroutes, and they are 
usually not signposted, and only randomly officialy noted. We have keys 
for grooming status of skipistes, and if you look in OSM there is loads 
of other info that is not physical or where there is good reason to not 
include it. However the big strength of OSM is that we do have all this 
data, and with time and crosschecking data, also other user classes can 
make good use of it. One nice example is that we don't map whether a 
street is inside a city or not. We do however map 
source:maxspeed:CountryCode=local/urban. With this information we can 
indirectly find out if a street is inside or outside of city boundaries. 
Over time with some smartness you can make up for many missing keys, but 
this is not enough to exclude others.
In future there will be a strong request for traffic information (oh 
yes, TMC is nothing better at all than unofficial routes, it is run by 
private companies and adding TMC serves no open data request at all - 
though I am sure people could argues pros here for pages too). Therefore 
I simply don't accept the point that we "don't" do something (as long as 
implementing it hurts noone). So having unofficial routes would have 
enough reason, and the only contra you bring is we don't do it because 
others do. Come on, at least try to be creative and give valid reasons 
why it should not be inside the OSM database. We don't do is is none. 
And that there are other websites for routes is even more lame. There 
are also other mapping data providers, but still we decided to go out 
and map.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 03.05.2010 19:29, Richard Mann wrote:
> I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
> routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
> record them as relations, perhaps
> "network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no". But Andy's a strict
> objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort of
> approach.
>
> Richard
>
> 2010/5/3 Felix Hartmann:
>
>> ...
>>  
Well that is a second topic we should attack. Say for Mountainbiking 
official routes are mostly for trekking bikes, and not for 
mountainbikers. That is the reason that on gps-tour.info and other 
portals, Mountainbiking is the leading sport for tracks. Furhtermore in 
many countries mountainbiking is troubled by legally gray legislation, 
where it makes fun (Austria, Germany, parts of Italy, ). For street 
cycling routes are usally nice, but for mtbiking I couldn't care less of 
what is signposted. Additionally from legislation if you signpost a 
route, usually you are legally responsible for accidents if road 
conditions are bad. Hence noone want to signpost routes, because it 
would be too expensive to keep care of the ways and you have to pay 
expensive insurance (that is at least the case in Austria). So even 
places that make loads of advertisments for mountainbiking, will only 
officially signpost very few routes but put up descriptions of route 
proposals on their webpages.

As I laid out, highway=primary is also subjective only. But this 
subjectivity has manifested in most peoples minds.

My actual position on this is, I will write a wiki page, with a note to 
say bug off people against unofficial routes (because for mountainbiking 
they will in a matter of days be largely more than signposted routes), 
we will tag them route:unofficial:mtb=name and eveyone should give their 
favourite routes a hefty go. People are much more interested in nice 
routes than in difficulty, but according to tagwatch more than 25.000 
ways have mtb:scale information, compared with maybe 50 mtb routes.

If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start 
with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up 
a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums 
(hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner 
newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes.

Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no 
more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except 
if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are 
not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route.

If someone starts kicking them out, we could take out their submissions 
using a bot if they really feel like starting an edit war. It won't be 
much worse than in the Russian military discussion, will it?

I don't give a damn what Andy or some other people say. For me the only 
rule in OSM and that counts, is that as long as you're not destructing 
the work of others (like say you put in paragliding routes that make 
editing a pain for everyone else) or largely irrelevant data that 
clutters the database so it becomes unusable, just let them do it (hey, 
in Austria we likely still have 20% of data junk from plan.at, and I 
don't even want to start about the crap data in the USA). The amount of 
information is nothing compared to all the remarks by bots and editors 
or on imports. And the benefit of getting more Mtbikers is huge, as 
hikers will never map the outdoors thoroughly, they are simply too slow 
and don't get in deep enough to the backcountry. Also for them cost of 
maps is not so important, as they are usually fine with 1-2 maps for a 
week. A mountainbiker doing a transalp, on the other hand, either buys 
20-30 paper maps (not realistic), uses a copy of some Garmin maps he 
"finds" on the net (the forums about where to get Garmin maps have 
probably two to three times the traffic compared to forums with legal 
talk about Garmin GPS), downloads tracks from gpsies, gps-tour.info and 
Co, or and this is increasing steadily now, uses OSM maps (guessed 95% 
on Garmin GPS).

The big problem is, that there are very few mountainbikers on the ML or 
Wiki. Most of them got into OSM because they used the maps. One year ago 
the search for "Openstreetmap" in the huge French "Velo Vert" forum (I 
think it is amongst the top 5 sport online forums worldwide if judged by 
either traffic and registered users) and it turned out 1 single topic 
(and no the search was working, I rechecked with google. Mountainbikers 
got on very late, because 2 years ago it was openSTREETmap, and only 
once streets got covered, people really started to show interest to map 
the outdoors. Still nowadays we lack a lot compared to official maps 
that is needed for orient

Re: [OSM-talk] class:cycleway - how should it be done

[Felix Hartmann]

On 03.05.2010 15:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Felix,
>
> Felix Hartmann wrote:
>> Please use this thread if you support 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Class:bicycle
>> and want to have a discussion with usable output. Please be so polite 
>> and do not reply here if you think that this key is a bad idea. 
>> Constructive criticism on how to design class:bicycle key is 
>> discussed here.
>
> Can you please explain again which kind of free speech is permitted in 
> which of your threads and Wiki pages. Maybe it would also make sense 
> to create one mailing list thread for people with user names A-M and 
> one for people with user names N-Z to reply in, just so that things 
> don't get out of hand.
>
> And then if we create one Wiki page for the naysayers and another one 
> for those who think it's the best thing since sliced bread, then at 
> least nobody has to deal with any opposition; that should make 
> discussion so much easier.
>
> Advance notice:
>
> Later today, I'll start a thread about how to best proceed in shutting 
> down OSM altogether. Please everybody refrain from commenting on 
> shutting down OSM in that thread; the thread will be *only* for 
> discussion on how to do it best. Please stick to constructive ideas 
> about how to shut down OSM and be polite enough not to protest the 
> basic concept.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
Well OSM is like anarchy. There is one nice thing about it. Everyone can 
create rules like he want, and people can choose to respect them or not. 
Go forward and try to shutdown OSM :-). You decided not to follow the 
titles topic. That is your decision, but beware how people judge you on 
it (and that may be perfectly fine if you think, I don't mind, if you 
really don't mind...).

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

[OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

Even though there is a huge userbase in OSM that are avic cyclists, most 
of the information is still car centric, even though there are good 
intentions to change this. The problem is, we are living in a motorcar 
centric society, hence our whole road network is based on the idea to 
enable motorists to get quick from A to B. There are plenty of street 
types and access rights, only to enable motorists to go quicker. On 
motorroads, there are even laws to exclude any slow vehicles from even 
accessing them. There are laws and street signs to make slow motorrists 
(trucks / hgv) to stay on the right side, so that other motorrists who 
have nothing else in mind to go as quick as possible, even though this 
is not sustainable at all, overtake without being hindered.



Do I think there is a problem with that? No, it's just reality. What I 
want however is that maybe in a more environmentally friendly future, 
such rules and infrastructure is also setup for cyclists - because noone 
likes going slow just because there is a lot of traffic. Be it as a 
pedestrian, as a cyclist, or as a horserider. There is no such 
regulation or infrastructure for any other mean of transport but 
motorists. There are no roads where slow cyclists, are forced to stay on 
the right side. There are probably only a handfull of cases where a 
pedestrian was ever fined for walking on a cycleway for slowing down 
bikers, and it would be unfair to do so, because the infrastructure is 
not built to have cycleways to cycle fast.



 Current Situation

The overall situation is however not so bad. Every biker can in most 
places of the world find their preffered way with good local knowledge. 
This is where OSM should help. If inside OSM there is information about 
how welll a way is for what kind of cycling, then we could not change 
the system, but at least use those ways, that are already more than 
acceptable. the  Sadly though many people in OSM are not able to leave 
their small focussed mind and cannot espace their caged mind and try to 
use a motorist perspective to do bicycle autorouting (e.g. CycleStreets 
 or 
Cycle_routes/cyclability 
). They 
want to use objective tags based on hard and accountable facts only, to 
describe how well a way is suited for cycling (e.g. Radverkehrsanlagen 
 
). They argue that we should have only verifyable keys and tags. They 
miss the big point, that for motorists the whole system is based not on 
objective but subjective thinking, and that therefore we can use 
objective keys to say, this is a primary road. If we only want to have 
objective tags, then I applaud anyone who goes out an puts a bot to 
delete the key "highway=*" and only use verfiable keys like, traffic, 
lanes, access rights and so on to describe it. Would this work? In my 
opinion never, because it is far too complicated and will not allow us 
to classify a way as "primary" or "secondary" or "track". The 
highway=path versus highway=footway discussion of what key one should 
use, shows us that people want to be able to classify a way from their 
subjective position, and not fiddle with access rights and measurable facts.



As well as we have already classed any way from a motorist driven 
perspective into a motorway or into a track, we will have to do so also 
from other perspectives. And Openstreetmap can be the tool to achieve 
this. Just a little example to make this point clear. In the wiki we 
have the guideline, to tag any non classified way - often without right 
of way for motorists - as highway=track if it is wide enough for a car 
to use it, or as path/footway if no car can use it. In an objective 
world we should instead describe this situation by surface, width, 
traffic, access_rights, and so on, and I support to do so. However the 
large majority wants to only say this is a footway, this is a track, 
this is a cycleway. What they really mean by this, and want to know 
however is. Would I like to cycle here. Would I like to drive my car 
here. Would I like to use this way to Walk from A to B.



I'm in no way esoteric, and a highly objective and agnostic person, but 
there are things that one simply cannot describe using the old patterns 
and objective measurable facts to describe ways suitable for cycling. As 
our world is not made for cycling, it is much more difficult to describe 
and classify than to do such a thing for motorists! Therefore one can 
argue, that a single key like "cyclability" will not work, because every 
cyclist is different. However we do the same for motorists and it works 
so well (though not perfect) that it is common to use it. Autorouting 
for motorists would never work without taking account of the "highway" 
tag (which is as described before, not objective but subjective, and 
maybe even this subjecti

[OSM-talk] class:cycleway - how should it be done

[Felix Hartmann]

Please use this thread if you support 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Class:bicycle
and want to have a discussion with usable output. Please be so polite 
and do not reply here if you think that this key is a bad idea. 
Constructive criticism on how to design class:bicycle key is discussed here.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] OSM-Garmin-Karten bei Ebay

[Felix Hartmann]

On 12.04.2010 21:27, Martin Simon wrote:
> Am 12. April 2010 21:11 schrieb Felix Hartmann:
>
>
>> Waeren es Karten von mir - also http://openmtbmap.org/ dann koennte man
>> dagegen vorgehen, wenn openmtbmap.org nicht neben openstreetmap.org&
>> Contributors genannt wird. gibt man Garmin&  OSM bei ebay in die Suche
>> ein, dann kommen eh mehrere Verkauefer. Dass ist auch komplett okay (und
>> der Preis ist dabei komplett egal). Wenn jedoch spezielle Karten
>> angeboten werden, sollte dem Kaeufer auch klargemacht werden, wer oder
>> wie diese erstellt wurden (beim mkgmap default style - ist dies jedoch
>> AFAIK nicht rechtlich noetig).
>>  
> Unterwirfst du dich nicht dadurch, daß du als Quelle deiner Karten
> (ein abgeleitetes Werk) OSM wählst, dessen CC-BY-SA und verbietet
> diese dir nicht, weitere Bedingungen aufzuerlegen als die von CC-BY-SA
> vorgesehenen?
>
> Das hieße in meinen Augen, wenn man die CC-BY-SA so auslegt, daß jeder
> genannt werden muß, der an der Erstellung beteiligt war, wären das
> Dein Name, meiner und 10 weitere. ;-)
> Legt man sie so aus, daß die Benennung der Community, die beteiligt
> war, ausreicht (was im Moment Konsens zu sein scheint ("osm.org&
> contributers")), dann sollte diese eine Nennung auch im Falle deiner,
> meiner oder der Karten der Autoren des Mapnik-Stiles (der auch nicht
> vom Himmel fiel und fällt) auch der Lizenz genüge tun.
>
> Wenn ich richtig gelesen habe, ist das ja auch einer der Gründe für
> den angestrebten Lizenzwechsel, den Umgang mit abgeleiteten Werken zu
> lockern...
>
Soweit ich das sehe, ist es eben auch prinzipiell so, dass jeder genannt 
werden muesste. Wenn ich also Werke / Datenbearbeitungen basierend auf 
OSM veroeffentliche, dann kann ich AFAIK sehr wohl verlangen, dass das 
"CCBYSA 2.0 openstreetmap.org & Contributors" auf  "CCBYSA 2.0 
openstreetmap.org & Contributors & Blablabla" erweitert wird.
Dass es bei den Daten zurzeit den Konsens gibt, nur openstreetmap.org & 
Contributors zu nennen, ist absolut unabahaengig davon, dass wenn ich 
Werke basierend auf OSM veroeffentliche, ich durch ausdruecklichen 
Hinweis, sehr wohl den Text erweitern darf/kann und dies auch 
respektiert werden muss.

Ich veroeffentlich ja weiter unter CCBYSA 2.0, nur dass ich meine Arbeit 
eben gesondert erwaehnt haben moechte. Es kann ja weiters jeder alles 
machen was unter CCBYSA 2.0 erlaubt ist, nur muss er halt mein Blablabla 
erhalten im Lizenttext
> Gruß,
>
> Martin
>


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

[OSM-talk] Template:KeyDescription on Wiki not working for keys with ":" in their name in tagwatch/osm.doc links

[Felix Hartmann]

Is anyone able to find out why the links to tagwatch/osm.doc are broken 
in the template if the key has a ":" inside the name?


E.g. broken links on page: 
_http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale_

Incorrect: _http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/keystats_mtb%3Ascale.html_
  Correct: _http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/keystats_mtb:scale.html_

The template page is here 
_http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:KeyDescription_ , but looks 
alright.

Is this a bug in the wiki software?

Also the Country links are complete rubbish.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Are we strict enough with imports ?

[Felix Hartmann]

On 12.02.2010 12:01, Oliver Kuehn (skobbler) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Another helpful feature could be an "expiry date". Each import can not be
> valid longer than e.g. 12 months. After this period the dataset needs update
> and receives a new validity data. Otherwise the data will become inactive.
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
It would be nice to be able to tell if imports are used or not. Sadly 
this is not the case. If we removed untouched objects from the Austrian 
plan.at import, then we would surely break even more, because people 
connected other streets to the imported data, without correcting the 
imports

In general I think data that is easily recordable/traceable shouldn't be 
imported. So streets and their like should have very low priority. In 
the US I think the Tiger Import is at least partly responsible for the 
low interest (it's more fun to enter something new, than to correct old 
stuff). Austria had before the imports actually a on par or better 
coverage than Germany. Then with plan.at imports virtually 80% of all 
roads were inside OSM - but with very low quality. 15 month later 
Austria really lacks in quantity and quality compared to Germany, and 
still IMHO around 30-40% of the Imports are more or less incorrect. I 
think it will take another year or two to recover the damage and get 
down to 3-5% uncorrected import data.

If however we had high-resolution orthophotos cleaning up the import 
would be largely over and only very few bits and pieces would be left 
over and the import probably by now considered as a success.

On the other hand data that is very hard to source, like maybe exact 
postal codes, drains, small rivers, detailed data about landuse (as 
imported in France and Latvia) that without  - or even with - good 
resolution orthophotos cannot be mapped, lower quality could be accepted 
because we stand a hard chance of ever getting it otherwise.

I think the rule, if it is easily mapable (no matter the effort and 
probability of it being done), then we should be a lot stricter and make 
sure that the quality of the import is at least as good as good mapping 
practice allows (Tiger Data is IMHO not good enough quality for 
example). If however it is not easily mapable then imports can be 
introduced.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render

[Felix Hartmann]

On 17.01.2010 11:43, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>>> Then we need a differentiation between oneday roundtrip routes (local)
>>> from A to B to A, and routes spanning multiple days (usually regional)
>>> from A to B to C.
>>>
>> Do we? For starters, that seems pretty arbitrary: there are routes
>> that some people would do in one day, that others would do in several.
>> And can't you tell from the distance anyway?
>>
>>  
> there are well known trails in australia like that, and it is common for
> people to do them as day walks or rides and over a number of weeks actually
> cover the entire trail.
> so dividing them up in into single day and multiday is quite artificial
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
I have started a wiki page here to gather thoughts: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keys_for_relation:route

For the topic of network=mtb and differentiation I think we should wait 
a few days to see what new keys are needed in general for relation=route 
and then start a discussion (well especially your own favourite non 
signposted routes will need some thought - because this would really 
boost usefulness of osm for mountaibikers).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render

[Felix Hartmann]

On 17.01.2010 11:43, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>>> Then we need a differentiation between oneday roundtrip routes (local)
>>> from A to B to A, and routes spanning multiple days (usually regional)
>>> from A to B to C.
>>>
>> Do we? For starters, that seems pretty arbitrary: there are routes
>> that some people would do in one day, that others would do in several.
>> And can't you tell from the distance anyway?
>>
>>  
> there are well known trails in australia like that, and it is common for
> people to do them as day walks or rides and over a number of weeks actually
> cover the entire trail.
> so dividing them up in into single day and multiday is quite artificial
>
>
Well then we should have some other difference key that will allow 
differentiation between shorter and longer routes (so renderers can put 
long routes into lower resolutions, than the 50km 2000m altitude+ plus 
routes).
Maybe let's have routes with less than 3000m vertical ascent (typical 1 
day routes), up to 10,000m and over 10,000m vertical ascent. Or maybe 
better we should have keys for length of a route (gps tracks often cut 
corners, pieces of the relation may be missing) and a key for total 
vertical ascent/descent). This way I can render long distance mtb routes 
/ multiple days routes more prominent than one day routes.
Furthermore we really need to have a seperation between routes with the 
same town as start/end place and routes which are not intended for 
sleeping/staying at the same place.
> ___
> 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] TAG-Suggestion: highway:trailer_shipment

[Felix Hartmann]

I think the main part that has to be done here is that ferries, or 
motorails however as well aerialways get connected to the main road 
network using lines (routing over polygons is so complicated that no 
router will soon master it in a useful way).

How they are connected should be dependant on the transport mode to use. 
Image huge ferries with different, but consistent places to enter.

We could have
highway=footway & pier=yes (or similar)for pedestrians entering the 
ferry (this is actually one of the rare cases I like to see footway and 
not path),
highway=service &  motorcycle=yes & foot=no & bicycle=yes
highway=service & access=no & motorcar=yes & hgv=yes

And the ferry route should connect all three.

Another example would be a cable_car.
We should have highway=footway (or another key) to connect the street 
network to the cable_car. If there are steps inside the building, well 
then lets add a section highway=steps..


The principle should be no matter what kind of line there is that can be 
used somehow, it should be interconnected with all other transport 
usable lines. This means that we should also connect railways to roads, 
because otherwise no autorouter can calculate routes using busses and 
trains (with walking from one to another) for example. Only airports I 
would rather just connect by having a relation list to which other 
airports you can get from airport XY.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render

[Felix Hartmann]

On 16.01.2010 14:04, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Felix Hartmann
>   wrote:
>
>> Network=mtb makes not much sense in my eye (and was never discussed,
>> approved, proposed...) as we can't differentiate then anymore between
>> local and regional mtb routes.
>> The question therefore is, what values do we want to use for network?
>>
>> Should we use ncn/rcn/lcn (because this is already quite commonly used
>> for route=mtb and the differentitation to cycle routes can be done
>> because we use route=mtb and not route=bicycle) or maybe nmn/rmn/lmn
>> (this would go in accoradance with "ncn" Cycle Network and "nwn" Walking
>> Network), or maybe go without accronyms and use "network=regional_mtb",
>> "network=local_mtb" .
>>  
> How many places have local/regional/national mountain biking networks?
> How would you tag routes that are both hiking and mountain biking?
> Would a "local mtb network" be something like a set of trails that
> link to each other at a ski resort or dedicated mountain bike park? Or
> perhaps even towns that are lucky enough to have mtb trails used as a
> form of transport...
>
> The general idea that mountain biking routes should be route=mtb, not
> route=bicycle, does seem sound to me; the needs of mountain bikers and
> normal cyclists are quite different and don't overlap much.
>
> Steve
>
Well I think route=mtb is more or less a consensus. Differentiation to 
route=bicycle is in 99% of all routes clear. It's more on the 
route=bicycle side where "they" have to think about differentiations on 
trekking routes, commuter routes (routes for tourists vs commuters have 
completely different objectives), routes for race cyclists,.

What we have to think about are inofficial routes. OSM would really 
profit if nice and popular Transalp routes are included into the 
database (we are free mtbikers, we don't need no stinking signs to tell 
us that we are using a mtb route). However I do think we could should 
have some differentiation between mtb routes that are "flagged" out (be 
it only in official tourist brochures, be it on signs,...) and mtb 
routes that are not made by official authorities but by users (e.g. my 
friday afternoon workout route, my favourite transalp route). Often 
official routes are lame anyhow because they have to be 100% legal. This 
is especially true for Germany and Austria, stringent in parts of Italy 
(you not only face hefty fines, but the chance to be fined is also big) 
and less of a problem in France or Switzerland where laws related to 
mtbiking are much friendlier and not dictated by the green dwarf and his 
Jeep.

Then we need a differentiation between oneday roundtrip routes (local) 
from A to B to A, and routes spanning multiple days (usually regional) 
from A to B to C. Just to answer how many regional routes I know, I do 
know a lot of regional and even official multiple days routes in the 
European Alps.

And there is no problem of all if several routes use the same way, I 
think by now it has become clear to most that routes will have to be 
using relations, because otherwise we get into trouble with multiple 
values for unique keys.
I think the network key would be good to be used for differentiation of 
the different routes. We simply have to think about unified tagging so 
that renderers know what kind of route they are analyzing.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render

[Felix Hartmann]

On 16.01.2010 01:27, Cartinus wrote:
> On Saturday 16 January 2010 00:47:43 Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> Suggestion: if the Cycle Map supports a given tag, then we should
>> document that fact. Now, whether we want to deprecate it is a separate
>> question, but removing correct, relevant information doesn't really
>> help the cause.
>>  
> If renderer XYZ renders amenity=llibrary with a library icon (to catch
> a "common" typo), then we could document that somewhere on a page about
> renderer XYX. However we definitely should not document this as a valid tag
> on the amenity page.
>
>
I have had some e-mails about this with Richard Mann too.

Network=mtb makes not much sense in my eye (and was never discussed, 
approved, proposed...) as we can't differentiate then anymore between 
local and regional mtb routes.
The question therefore is, what values do we want to use for network?

Should we use ncn/rcn/lcn (because this is already quite commonly used 
for route=mtb and the differentitation to cycle routes can be done 
because we use route=mtb and not route=bicycle) or maybe nmn/rmn/lmn 
(this would go in accoradance with "ncn" Cycle Network and "nwn" Walking 
Network), or maybe go without accronyms and use "network=regional_mtb", 
"network=local_mtb" .

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle route won't render

[Felix Hartmann]

On 15.01.2010 11:22, Richard Mann wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Adrian Moisey 
mailto:adr...@changeover.za.net>> wrote:


I've managed to get pieces of it to render on the cycle map:
http://osm.org/go/kaIGiwl?layers=00B0FTF'

Interestingly this appears as a GREEN cycle route, presumably because 
it's tagged route=bicycle+network=mtb. I wish these things were 
documented a bit more obviously.
I've added network=mtb to the Relation table on the Cycle Routes wiki 
page, as a start.

Richard

I took it out again. I will be too confusing to have network=mtb.
a) there are also networks for mtb routes. (e.g. Alpentour Austria, a 21 
day mtb route going from Vienna, over Lower Austria into Styria )
b) route=mtb is already in wide use. Even though there could be 
borderline cases of what is a supereasy mtb route, or a bicycle route 
along very badly maintained tracks the decision should usually be easy. 
At least in Europe the route maintainer will allways classify as bicycle 
or mtb route.



___
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] openmaps.eu

[Felix Hartmann]

On 14.01.2010 14:56, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> Emilie Laffray wrote:
>
>> Unless they remove their NC (Non Commercial Use Only) clause,
>> colloborating with openmaps.eu  is a non sequitur.
>>  
> Zaka, what do you think ? Is there any way that Openmaps.eu might in the
> future evolve toward removing the non-commercial clause, or is that a
> fundamental tenet of the project ?
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
You should know that openmaps.eu Polygons are based on commercial map 
data which they bought for openmaps.eu use. I don't think that is 
possible to put that data under CCBYSA or the new odbl license, meaning 
the main "Plus" point of openmaps.eu cannot be integrated into OSM 
anyhow. Their streets and ways have not great quantity compared to OSM. 
So for openmaps.eu to drop their nice landuse polygons and move to 
openstreetmap polygons might be not really attractive.

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

[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key=Cycleworth

[Felix Hartmann]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleworth

As many of you know on http://openmtbmap.org I offer bicycle / mtb / 
hiking maps for Europe to downlad (mainly used by Garmin GPS owners). 
But even with the current wealth of keys, it is still impossible to know 
whether I should give priority to a way or not. I propose key=cycleworth 
to remedy that situation, and also have another key besides 
route=bicycle (which should be used for officially declared cycleroutes) 
to quickly allow for picking out the ways that are good to cycle.

This is clearly a subjective not objective key and not intended to be as 
objective as possible!!

There are some subkeys, that further specify the usage class whenever 
needed (or in general). Theese are
cycleworth_mtb
cycleworth_touring
cycleworth_rr (road cycling)
cycleworth_destination (getting from A to B quickly).

See the page here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleworth

Please help getting this useful quickly, so that bicycledesignated maps 
/ map authors can start using it

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