To find the official name of the street you can ask the local authority or
whichever body is responsible for naming streets. They may also promise to
update the street signs in due course. In the meantime put the correct data
in OSM, together with a note citing the response you received.
--
Ed
At 2010-05-31 10:57, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Anthony wrote:
By these definitions, something that is able to be confirmed as true or
false in an official online source is actually *more* verifiable than
something written on a street sign in a place where Google Street View
has not yet visited.
At 2010-05-31 13:27, Anthony wrote:
2010/5/31 Ian Dees
ian.d...@gmail.com
I don't think anyone has suggested that we leave out things I'd
they
aren't signposted.
Nathan, who started this thread, has done exactly that, and he's gone
around removing route relations where the routes were not
2010/5/31 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
If they are not marked, how do the locals know what and where they are?
They look at a map!
No, they don't have to look at a map, that's the point: they simply
_know_ it, they use the name
2010/5/31 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
2010/5/31 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com
I don't think anyone has suggested that we leave out things I'd they
aren't signposted.
Nathan, who started this thread, has done exactly that, and he's gone around
removing route relations where the routes were not
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Right now, the only mention of the on the ground rule on the wiki is
here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule
Should a separate page be created about how it applies more generally?
The on
On 1 June 2010 23:30, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
The on the ground rule is only appropriate for disputes, and
shouldn't be used as an instruction of what should or should not be
mapped (for that, see the guidelines on verifiability).
The on the ground rule is that when two
On 2 June 2010 12:08, Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com wrote:
this reminds me of a situation i've come across in auckland, which i
don't know the solution to. there's a major road, which apparently has
three names:
The Strand (on signposts)
Shipwright Lane (on different signposts)
On 2 June 2010 12:08, Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com wrote:
this reminds me of a situation i've come across in auckland, which i
don't know the solution to. there's a major road, which apparently has
three names:
The Strand (on signposts)
Shipwright Lane (on different signposts)
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
I guess the suggestion to map what's on the ground is good advice as
long as it's not exclusionary. But my beef is with people who tell us
to map what's on the ground to the exclusion of everything that isn't
on the ground.
Problem is that whatever is not on the ground
2010/5/31 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 31 May 2010 08:56, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, we already map stuff that is not found on the ground but still
fits perfectly into our data (e.g. borders).
Borders isn't a good example, some/many of these are marked
On 31 May 2010 18:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
so you're suggesting to map borders as single unconnected nodes
(some/many of these which are marked on the ground)?
Nope, I'm just saying that there is a variety of method to mark
borders (or border crossings) on the
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I guess the suggestion to map what's on the ground is good advice as
long as it's not exclusionary. But my beef is with people who tell us
to map what's on the ground to the exclusion of everything that isn't
on the ground.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
I guess the suggestion to map what's on the ground is good advice as
long as it's not exclusionary. But my beef is with people who tell us to
map what's on the ground to the exclusion of
Liz edodd at billiau.net writes:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I guess the suggestion to map what's on the ground is good advice as
long as it's not exclusionary. But my beef is with people who tell us
to map what's on the ground to the exclusion of
This brings up another question. On the tagging list, there is currently a
discussion of whether or not to tag areas that have frequent traffic jams. If
something is only verifiable part of the time, such as having traffic jams or
being the site of a market on the weekends, does it count as
2010/5/31 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
This brings up another question. On the tagging list, there is currently a
discussion of whether or not to tag areas that have frequent traffic jams.
If something is only verifiable part of the time, such as having traffic jams
or being the
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote:
If anything is unclear on the ground the mapper needs to provide a source.
That
way other mappers can judge whether the source is legitimate.
That's a great point. I hate fixing an area of map which is already in
place and
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
By these definitions, something that is able to be confirmed as true or
false in an official online source is actually *more* verifiable than
something written on a street sign in a place where Google Street View
has not yet visited. It certainly is verifiable, and it
Well, some people in the traffic-jam discussion seem to be taking the viewpoint
that if something is not verifiable by people in other geographical locations,
without actually visiting the location under discussion, then it should not be
classified as being verifiable at all.
--
John F.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
By these definitions, something that is able to be confirmed as true or
false in an official online source is actually *more* verifiable than
something written on a street sign in a place where
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Something that is available from an official online source but not
verifiable on the ground should not - in my personal opinion - be
included in OSM.
No borders? No national parks? No nature reserves? No voltage on
On 31 May 2010 19:57, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
By these definitions, something that is able to be confirmed as true or
false in an official online source is actually *more* verifiable than
something written on a street sign in a place where Google Street View
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.orgwrote:
Something that is available from an official online source but not
verifiable on the ground should not - in my personal opinion - be
included in
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
No borders? No national parks? No nature reserves? No voltage on power
lines? No named farms (unless the owner puts up a sign)? No names for peaks?
Except for borders, all of those things are verifiable on the ground. I
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
No borders? No national parks? No nature reserves? No voltage on power
lines? No named farms (unless the owner puts up a sign)? No names for peaks?
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
No borders? No national parks? No nature reserves? No voltage on power
lines? No
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
If they are not marked, how do the locals know what and where they are?
They look at a map!
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
How do, on the ground, you verify the name of a peak?
You look at the sign. Talk to the hikers you passed on the way up with your
GPS.
Just out of curiosity, where do you live and who is putting signs on the
peaks there?
- Gustav
___
talk
On 31. mai 2010, at 21.13, Ian Dees wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote:
How do, on the ground, you verify the name of a peak?
You look at the sign. Talk to the hikers you passed on the way up with your
GPS.
How do you, on the ground, verify a
On May 31, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote:
How do, on the ground, you verify the name of a peak?
You look at the sign. Talk to the hikers you passed on the way up
with your GPS.
Just out of curiosity, where do you live and who is putting signs on
the peaks
On May 31, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Knut Arne Bjørndal bob+...@cakebox.net
wrote:
On 31. mai 2010, at 21.13, Ian Dees wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com
wrote:
How do, on the ground, you verify the name of a peak?
You look at the sign. Talk to the hikers
On 31 May 2010, at 21:31 , Knut Arne Bjørndal wrote:
On 31. mai 2010, at 21.13, Ian Dees wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote:
How do, on the ground, you verify the name of a peak?
You look at the sign. Talk to the hikers you passed on the way up
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
In the US, most of the peaks are marked at the trailhead you use to get to
them.
I think you will find that most of the peaks in the world are not accessible
from trails. Try places like the Himalayas, Greenland, Antarctica,
2010/5/31 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com
I don't think anyone has suggested that we leave out things I'd they
aren't signposted.
Nathan, who started this thread, has done exactly that, and he's gone around
removing route relations where the routes were not signed on the ground.
On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple
default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are used by the people
on the ground at that location are used in the non-localized tags.
Isn't that kinda asking for
On 30 May 2010 09:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple
default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are used by the people
on the ground at that
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:40 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple
default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are used by the
people
on the ground
On 30 May 2010 23:17, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
From what I can tell, it was actually the solution to such an edit war. How
map what the people on the ground say turned into map what's on the
ground, I can't figure out.
Seems like it would logically go the other way round, from map what
On 30 May 2010 23:12, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Why? By my reading it is to quiet such edit wars, so the exact
Why... simple, you can't verify what is in someone's brain as true, at
best you get a consensus, but that may be limited in scope, I guess it
comes down to the
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:19 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 30 May 2010 23:17, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
From what I can tell, it was actually the solution to such an edit war.
How
map what the people on the ground say turned into map what's on the
ground, I can't
Right now, the only mention of the on the ground rule on the wiki is
here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule
Should a separate page be created about how it applies more generally?
The intention of us devising the On the Ground rule was only for Dispute
Am 30.05.2010 19:09, schrieb Mikel Maron:
Right now, the only mention of the on the ground rule on the wiki is
here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule
Should a separate page be created about how it applies more generally?
The intention of us devising the On
On 30/05/10 14:12, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 30 May 2010 09:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 May 2010 15:39, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple
default rule is that whatever name, designation, etc are
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase map what's on
the ground is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In terms
of its use in excluding verifiable information I think it is quite
problematic.
2010/5/30 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com:
It really shouldn't be taken as a more general rule. Just for instance,
localised names of places are not very often found on the ground.
+1, we already map stuff that is not found on the ground but still
fits perfectly into our data (e.g. borders).
It is not unusual for roads to have signage for both the local name and also an
official route name (sometimes multiple route names).
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to
think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria
On 31 May 2010 08:56, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, we already map stuff that is not found on the ground but still
fits perfectly into our data (e.g. borders).
Borders isn't a good example, some/many of these are marked on the
ground, even if it's just a sign such as
John F. Eldredge wrote:
From: Nathan Edgars II
In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street is officially the A1889,
it might make sense as a separate ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1,
but using the same tagging for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody.
It is not unusual for
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase map what's
on
the ground is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In
terms
(sorry about the duplicate, Anthony; I forgot to send to all)
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street
is officially the A1889, it might make
Right now, the only mention of the on the ground rule on the wiki is
here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule
Should a separate page be created about how it applies more generally?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
It should maybe be referenced when teaching how/what to map.
On a lighter side...
Just a few hours ago I was retelling a story where I found a road name spray
painted on the ground about 3 car-lengths before the end of a road, and
taking up the whole width of it.
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
Right now, the only mention of the on the ground rule on the wiki is
here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule
Should a separate page be created about how it applies more generally?
Well,
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
Right now, the only mention of the on the ground rule on the wiki is
here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule
Should a
55 matches
Mail list logo
