Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
2009/7/29 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com: 2009/7/29 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: [snip] - Alternative names (e.g. welsh names) NaPTAN includes this too, I was going to check whether the functionality was required as we started on Welsh/Scottish regions, I can't remember the reason for not implementing it immediately other than awkwardness of the way I was parsing. [snip] I've now done a check on the Feb NaPTAN source files, there are no language sections that seriously need to be considered, there are only two regions that used them - East Sussex and Perth Kinross. The East Sussex reference was Indicator xml:lang=gaadj/Indicator, which is obviously rubbish. All the Perth Kinross references were on the Name element, and referenced /Welsh/, a few examples: Name xml:lang=cySouth Street/Name Name xml:lang=cyPost Office/Name Name xml:lang=cyMain Entrance/Name A look through shows others, such as road names, but none that are obviously in Welsh. Thus it's fairly safe to disregard the functionality NaPTAN provides for alternative languages at this point. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Thomas Thanks for this - the East Sussex one is clearly wrong (not a lot of Gaelic spoken there) ... and is something we don't check on, and it hadn't been spotted before. I have asked the editor to correct it (to blank or en). I don't have that influence with Perth Kinross - though I will try. One of the NaPTAN editors used by some authorities had a propensity to default to CY - which presumably is what has happened in this case. As you say, having alerted me to these issues, you can just ignore language flags at present. Best wishes Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Wood Sent: 31 July 2009 16:14 To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import 2009/7/29 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com: 2009/7/29 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: [snip] - Alternative names (e.g. welsh names) NaPTAN includes this too, I was going to check whether the functionality was required as we started on Welsh/Scottish regions, I can't remember the reason for not implementing it immediately other than awkwardness of the way I was parsing. [snip] I've now done a check on the Feb NaPTAN source files, there are no language sections that seriously need to be considered, there are only two regions that used them - East Sussex and Perth Kinross. The East Sussex reference was Indicator xml:lang=gaadj/Indicator, which is obviously rubbish. All the Perth Kinross references were on the Name element, and referenced /Welsh/, a few examples: Name xml:lang=cySouth Street/Name Name xml:lang=cyPost Office/Name Name xml:lang=cyMain Entrance/Name A look through shows others, such as road names, but none that are obviously in Welsh. Thus it's fairly safe to disregard the functionality NaPTAN provides for alternative languages at this point. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: But the point I was trying to make was more that of 'We get stopped and told we have to ask permission' while Goggle stick two fingers up and just carry on regardless. It is about time there was a level playing field, and just because one can throw silly amounts of money at a problem to make it go away should not be acceptable :( From what I understand the rules are as much about intent as they are about anything else, google's intent is to photograph streets for use on the web, they aren't intentionally going out of their way to invade privacy. If you were to do the same thing I doubt you'd get stopped either, if on the other hand you were specifically aiming to invade privacy that is another matter. So from a legal point of view I don't think there is an issue, morally however it is a lot more merky but there is no laws specifically about it. On the other hand people have filled legal complaints about them doing street view down private access roads and they should be taken to task over these things. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes
John Smith wrote: --- On Fri, 31/7/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: But the point I was trying to make was more that of 'We get stopped and told we have to ask permission' while Goggle stick two fingers up and just carry on regardless. It is about time there was a level playing field, and just because one can throw silly amounts of money at a problem to make it go away should not be acceptable :( From what I understand the rules are as much about intent as they are about anything else, google's intent is to photograph streets for use on the web, they aren't intentionally going out of their way to invade privacy. If you were to do the same thing I doubt you'd get stopped either, if on the other hand you were specifically aiming to invade privacy that is another matter. So from a legal point of view I don't think there is an issue, morally however it is a lot more merky but there is no laws specifically about it. On the other hand people have filled legal complaints about them doing street view down private access roads and they should be taken to task over these things. Yep ... But they COULD achieve their aim without pushing the camera up to a height that provides a view that the normal man in the street would not easily be able to achieve. They are providing a view of the world that is intentionally more inclusive than is necessary. So from my perspective they ARE intentionally going out of their way to invade privacy by showing views that are simply not normally visible? If we want to see what is over a wall we can now go to google . -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layer transitions
Hi! to make my question more precise, please have a look at this tunnel that crosses a railway track (the railway is a subway that runs at ground level): http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=48.1325961lon=16.3109488zoom=19way=29205957 The tunnel tag implies layer=-1 and that leads to a junction of ways on different layers on both ends of the tunnel. On the western end of the tunnel the adjacent way ends, this should be no problem with the layers; on the eastern end there is a T junction. Do you think, this tunnel is OK the way it is or should someone add a small piece of way on layer 0 at the eastern end next to the T-junction to avoid a T-junction of different layers? Thank you, Harald find more examples here: http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=13lat=48.13292lon=16.31121layers=B00Tch30=0ch40=0ch50=0ch60=0ch70=0ch90=0ch100=0ch110=0ch120=0ch130=0ch150=0ch160=0ch170=0ch180=0ch191=0ch192=0ch193=0ch194=0ch201=0ch202=0ch203=0ch204=0ch210=0ch220=0ch231=1ch232=1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: more inclusive than is necessary. So from my perspective they ARE intentionally going out of their way to invade privacy by showing views that are simply not normally visible? If we want to see what is over a wall we can now go to google . Maybe so, but I doubt the law would cover such things in most places, however people can get laws changed and they could in effect be retro active simply because the information is widely viewable. However as is I don't think there is any laws that would cover this, most data is being collected on public property etc so yea it comes down to intent and their primary intent isn't the same thing as a peeping tom even if the outcome is the same. You didn't intend to kill someone but they still died, is the difference between man slaughter and murder. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layer transitions
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Harald Kleinere9625...@gmx.at wrote: Do you think, this tunnel is OK the way it is or should someone add a small piece of way on layer 0 at the eastern end next to the T-junction to avoid a T-junction of different layers? What is the situation at that T-junction in reality? If the tunnel doesn't start *immediately* at the T-junction, then yes, I would say add a small piece at layer 0. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Question about gps coordinates 001W0547 convert to -1.0547
Frederik Ramm schreef: Hi Marc Coevoet wrote: 004E4800,47N2000 002W2300,57N 001W0547,51N4823 013E2600,47N3400 013E2600,47N3400 013E2600,47N3400 013E2600,47N3400 013E2500,47N3343 to something where 001W0547 becomes -1.0547 That can actually be done with sed on the Unix command line: % sed -e s/\\([0-9]*\\)[WS]/-\\1./g; s/[EN]/./g; s/^0*//g; s/;0*//g; s/-0*/-/g input.txt output.txt But do check your input data to find out whether the stuff after the letter is really fractions of degrees (if you find that you never have the digits 6-9 following one of the letters but only 0-5 then that would indicate you're dealing with minutes and seconds, which would render above conversion invalid). Bye Frederik Nice, I was thinking about looking for my shell prog book, and trying awk some manips on the degrees and minutes, as there is no number 59 A larger sample: 005E5536,49N2426 006E0058,49N1948 005E5434,48N3934 006E0724,48N3948 006E0847,48N4638 006E0618,49N2150 006E1340,49N0523 006E0644,48N4140 005E5134,49N2738 006E1035,49N2034 006E0615,49N1839 006E0643,49N0210 006E0226,48N4131 006E1032,49N1202 006E0635,48N5533 006E0529,48N5140 005E4447,49N3102 006E0939,49N0650 006E0639,49N2421 006E1018,49N1700 009E2700,55N0200 009E2300,54N5900 009E4846,57N0925 009E4500,57N1100 009E4846,57N0925 006E1435,50N4644 006E1435,50N4644 006E1435,50N4644 006E1435,50N4644 006E1435,50N4644 006E1435,50N4644 006E0237,50N4446 006E0236,50N 006E0447,50N4707 006E0413,50N4717 017E0406,59N1336 014E5500,55N0500 -- Shortwave transmissions in English, Francais, Deutsch, Suid-Afrikaans, Urdu, Cantonese, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, ... http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/radio/swlist/ Stations list: http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/radio/txlist/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
add a mode tag to see what the [[OSM Server Side Script]] is returning for each one: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=-33.87lon=151.21mode=raw in this case, the only state information seems to be in the Is_In tag on the city boundary On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:23 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 30/7/09, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: I put a wrapper around the rather excellent http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script which can tell you which town/county/state/country something is in: I haven't looked at the script but it doesn't cope well with US locations at all... http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=40.75lon=-74 And it didn't like Australian state borders. I'm not sure if the script needs an update or the way the borders were tagged. http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=-33.87lon=151.21 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: add a mode tag to see what the [[OSM Server Side Script]] is returning for each one: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=-33.87lon=151.21mode=raw in this case, the only state information seems to be in the Is_In tag on the city boundary Where was that derived from? I also checked the Australian state borders and they are marked as admin_level=4;10 which may interfere with things if the script was only looking for a single number, however the boundary is used for local and state. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:16 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I also checked the Australian state borders and they are marked as admin_level=4;10 which may interfere with things if the script was only looking for a single number, however the boundary is used for local and state. the 4;10 number sounds like a good place to start investigating - is that why they're not showing-up on the map of australia? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-24.1lon=139.5zoom=4layers=B000FTF there area some debug tools available on the website I'm getting data from: http://78.46.81.38/#section.debug_area ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
OJ W wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:16 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I also checked the Australian state borders and they are marked as admin_level=4;10 which may interfere with things if the script was only looking for a single number, however the boundary is used for local and state. the 4;10 number sounds like a good place to start investigating - is that why they're not showing-up on the map of australia? Does the script also take boundaries in relations into account? I'm a little puzzled by http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=42.8145lon=20.365 which is inside Kosovo with two relations as border, #1057;#1088;#1073;#1080;#1112;#1072;, admin_level 2, which is seen and Kosovo, admin_level 3, which is not seen. Two boundary relations is also the way to map the Australian example. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Two boundary relations is also the way to map the Australian example. I actually merged boundaries because there was 2 slightly wrong ones and I made one correct one from them both. Using a relation for the state boundary information seems like a better idea then splitting both into 2 different but identically placed boundaries. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layer transitions
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Harald Kleinere9625...@gmx.at wrote: Hi! to make my question more precise, please have a look at this tunnel that crosses a railway track (the railway is a subway that runs at ground level): http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=48.1325961lon=16.3109488zoom=19way=29205957 The tunnel tag implies layer=-1 and that leads to a junction of ways on different layers on both ends of the tunnel. On the western end of the tunnel the adjacent way ends, this should be no problem with the layers; on the eastern end there is a T junction. Do you think, this tunnel is OK the way it is or should someone add a small piece of way on layer 0 at the eastern end next to the T-junction to avoid a T-junction of different layers? that's how I was doing Milton Keynes - it would be much quicker to map if you didn't need to create 3 ways for every underpass, but it doesn't seem technically correct to make the tunnel end at the centreline of the road it joins with (and that would make the rendering look weird) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.01666lon=-0.744547zoom=18layers=B000FTF if only there were a 'make x a bridge over y' tool in the editor that could sort it all out for you... (splitting the way, adding the bridge/tunnel tag to centre section, and figuring-out the minimum layer required) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
El día Thursday 30 July 2009 13:31:25, Maarten Deen dijo: I have never seen a different sign for mopeds, HGV's or vehicles with a caravan, it is always the maximum for all vehicles. http://www.joseramonmartinez.com/2005/11/25/senales-para-tanques/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/katiegoldstein/1194592039/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbcmundohispano/2380735560/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/drivefaster/2128057572/sizes/l/ (note: ónibus = bus; caminhôes = trucks) Cheers, -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta compleja. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cartinuscarti...@xs4all.nl wrote: For three reasons: 1) In the part of my e-mail you did not quote I just pointed out lots of people don't read those definitions. The difference between the words maxheight and maxheight:physical is not explicit enough. 2) Because the old definition of maxheight didn't explicitly state it was a legal and not a physical limitation. Just changing the definition now doesn't magically transform all the places where people already tagged a physical maxheight with the maxheight tag into a maxheight:physical tag. At least not until somebody invents a mindreading osm-bot. 3) The people who do not care/know about the difference are still going to tag a physical maxheight with the maxheight tag. The endresult is that you will never know whether something tagged with just maxheight is a physical and/or legal limitation. +1 No, no, no. maxheight until now was clearly the legal maxheight. It is not explicitely writen on the wiki because you don't see the physical height in many countries here in Europe but only the legal traffic sign and the max height traffic sign is displayed on the Map Features page since january 08. I don't find any controversy about this interpretation in the archives on this ML, so we can assume that maxheight was until now the legal maxheight. We just need to clarify this point on the wiki and add a new tag for the physical maxheight for countries where it is available (call it maxheight:physical if you want) Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:59:27 +0200, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cartinuscarti...@xs4all.nl wrote: For three reasons: 1) In the part of my e-mail you did not quote I just pointed out lots of people don't read those definitions. The difference between the words maxheight and maxheight:physical is not explicit enough. 2) Because the old definition of maxheight didn't explicitly state it was a legal and not a physical limitation. Just changing the definition now doesn't magically transform all the places where people already tagged a physical maxheight with the maxheight tag into a maxheight:physical tag. At least not until somebody invents a mindreading osm-bot. 3) The people who do not care/know about the difference are still going to tag a physical maxheight with the maxheight tag. The endresult is that you will never know whether something tagged with just maxheight is a physical and/or legal limitation. +1 No, no, no. maxheight until now was clearly the legal maxheight. It is not explicitely writen on the wiki because you don't see the physical height in many countries here in Europe but only the legal traffic sign and the max height traffic sign is displayed on the Map Features page since january 08. I don't find any controversy about this interpretation in the archives on this ML, so we can assume that maxheight was until now the legal maxheight. We just need to clarify this point on the wiki and add a new tag for the physical maxheight for countries where it is available (call it maxheight:physical if you want) Pieren No, you can only ASSUME that the current maxheight only use the legal form. Have you counted usages in countries where the physical maxheight are signed? Do you even know which countries such signs are available? Without any statistics, you cannot know. -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote: No, you can only ASSUME that the current maxheight only use the legal form. Have you counted usages in countries where the physical maxheight are signed? Do you even know which countries such signs are available? Without any statistics, you cannot know. Even if it does mean physical height any existing tags would need to be updated if it doesn't mean legal max height so I see no problem clarifying the fact the maxheight is the legal meaning, and maxheight:physical is for the physical clearance, if both are signed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layer transitions
to make my question more precise, please have a look at this tunnel that crosses a railway track (the railway is a subway that runs at ground level): http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=48.1325961lon=16.3109488zoom=19way=29205957 The tunnel tag implies layer=-1 No, it doesn't. and that leads to a junction of ways on different layers on both ends of the tunnel. Which wouldn't be a problem either. Layer is only relevant for defining the relative order of intersecting (crossing) objects. If the objects don't intersect, or have a common node, their layers don't imply anything about their relative or absolute height. On the western end of the tunnel the adjacent way ends, this should be no problem with the layers; on the eastern end there is a T junction. Do you think, this tunnel is OK the way it is or should someone add a small piece of way on layer 0 at the eastern end next to the T-junction to avoid a T-junction of different layers? It is ok as it is. Regards, Marc -- Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken
Wrong, osm2pgsql does process relations properly. If they aren't then Jon Burgess is happy to take a look to see if he can fix the problem with osm2pgsql. Second there has been no planet reload for a few weeks now. There's definitely something wrong here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.93906lon=10.9213zoom=17layers=B000FTF The building called Angewandte Informatik is a multipolygon, which has been moved one and a half weeks ago. Both the old and the new shape are rendered now, and the hole is filled too. I know that there have been problems with multipolygons and diffs. Are they supposed to be fixed? Regards, Marc -- Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken
2009/7/31 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: Wrong, osm2pgsql does process relations properly. If they aren't then Jon Burgess is happy to take a look to see if he can fix the problem with osm2pgsql. Second there has been no planet reload for a few weeks now. There's definitely something wrong here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.93906lon=10.9213zoom=17layers=B000FTF The building called Angewandte Informatik is a multipolygon, which has been moved one and a half weeks ago. Both the old and the new shape are rendered now, and the hole is filled too. I know that there have been problems with multipolygons and diffs. Are they supposed to be fixed? Please file a trac ticket with the details and assign it to me. Lots of issues have been fixed but there are still several possible reasons why things some times don't work correctly. It takes time to analyse, diagnose fix each example. -- Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] maxspeed tagging Was: Best-practice-idea traffic_sign
John Smith wrote: It's basically there to decide whether to use colons as in your example or switch to something like maxspeed[wet][forward][motorcycle]. Why? Well, because those time conditions tend to have colons in You split based on the equal sign and it doesn't matter that the time condition or key uses colons. Read the proposal first, please. It requires that you add the condition as _part_ of the key, for example bicycle[10:00-18:00] = no It has been suggested to add them to the value instead, but you will always need to deal with substrings of either key or value string. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken
The building called Angewandte Informatik is a multipolygon, which has been moved one and a half weeks ago. Both the old and the new shape are rendered now, and the hole is filled too. I know that there have been problems with multipolygons and diffs. Are they supposed to be fixed? Please file a trac ticket with the details and assign it to me. Lots of issues have been fixed but there are still several possible reasons why things some times don't work correctly. It takes time to analyse, diagnose fix each example. Done: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2116 BTW, the link I gave was wrong; here is the correct one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.926286lon=11.585866zoom=18layers=B000FTF Regards, Marc -- Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Question about gps coordinates 001W0547 convert to -1.0547
Hi, Marc Coevoet wrote: Nice, I was thinking about looking for my shell prog book, and trying awk some manips on the degrees and minutes, as there is no number 59 In that case I'd use a famous write-only language and do something like % perl -ne '/(\d\d\d)(E|W)(\d\d)(\d\d),(\d\d)(N|S)(\d\d)(\d\d)/; printf %07.5f,%07.5f\n, ($1 + $3/60 + $4/3600)*($2 eq E?1:-1), ($5 + $7/60 + $8/3600)*($6 eq N?1:-1);' input.txt output.txt Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
...or locally-maintained rural roads that are important for local navigation, such as connecting a shortcut between two nearby highways which don't intersect. I'm happy that there seems (until now, few contribution in this thread) a consensus on the proposed modification of the basic highway-definition (mainly importance and not physical state of a road). I'll wait a little bit, but if there is no contradiction I will change the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway according to this. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com writes: --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: it's a different meaning in urban areas as in rural areas. Many of what you tag as primary and secondary in rural areas (especially low density ones) has 2 (1+1) lanes, while in a metropolitan area will very often be at least 2+2. Does mapnik know the difference? Primary and secondary are about importance. In rural areas, a 1+1 lane can be very important, and I think the point is that in the city if it were that important it probably would be bigger. If you are about #lanes, there's a lanes tag for that. pgpYzPVVotabG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: were that important it probably would be bigger. If you are about #lanes, there's a lanes tag for that. Does any renders currently use the number of lanes to vary the outputted images, or should this be something submitted as a wish list, that not only does type of road output differently but the number of lanes are important too? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] England's coastal path
This is possibly a bit off-topic, but I'm looking forward to being able to map the new long-distance continuous coastal path around England, which is being proposed via the Marine and Coastal Access Bill! Natural England (the agency that will be responsible for building the paths) have just released an audit of the current coastal path provisions, along with some interesting maps of the different areas of England. See http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/places/coastalaccess/englandscoastpath/default.aspx I've a feeling that OSM will become a key reference for these paths as they arrive (which will probably take decades). Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: - residential roads (just in residential areas, no connecting function, you will not take this if you don't live in the area) - unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they don't exist in urban areas, I personally use them if there are either no residents nearby or if they are slightly bigger than residential streets and are used to access residential streets) Most of what I classify as unclassified roads (not streets) are usually lower on the chain than residential, as they only have 1 lane in most cases, so I wouldn't expect them to exist in urban areas. it's a different meaning in urban areas as in rural areas. Many of what you tag as primary and secondary in rural areas (especially low density ones) has 2 (1+1) lanes, while in a metropolitan area will very often be at least 2+2. I object to the notion that there should be a different relationship between residential/unclassified in urban vs rural areas. We already have too much of that, and I think it's a sign our definitions are off base. There's no clear boundary, and we have to translate this to garmin, etc., use in Free nav programs, and render, so people doing things differently based on where they are or what they're used to seems like trouble. That said, I see the trouble with the secondary/tertiary definition (will send separately about that). To me these are both real streets that you can drive on roads you would probably only use to get to places near them and the only difference is that residential means it's mostly bordered by residences. Arguably the whole notion of highway=residential is somewhat broken, since residences nearby should be landuse=residential polygons, but it does affect the feel of the road and it runs pretty deep in osm, so I won't really object. Perhaps we need a specific highway=alley tag to say this is a road you can drive on, but it's definitely narrow/inferior and you don't want to go there unless you have to in order to get somewhere. pgpFSIGAtrBNE.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
2009/7/31 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: No, no, no. maxheight until now was clearly the legal maxheight. It is not explicitely writen on the wiki because you don't see the physical height in many countries here in Europe but only the legal traffic sign and the max height traffic sign is displayed on the Map Features page since january 08. exactly, it's not about changing the definition, it is about describing it better for people that read the definitions less attentive. The page speaks about height limit and displays a traffic sign. This is clearly legal, otherwise it would state: real height, physical height, just height, clearance or whatever. The sign indicates that we're talking about legal issues. I don't find any controversy about this interpretation in the archives on this ML, so we can assume that maxheight was until now the legal maxheight. We just need to clarify this point on the wiki and add a new tag for the physical maxheight for countries where it is available (call it maxheight:physical if you want) +1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
2009/7/31 Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org: No, no, no. maxheight until now was clearly the legal maxheight. It is not explicitely writen on the wiki because you don't see the physical height in many countries here in Europe but only the legal traffic sign and the max height traffic sign is displayed on the Map Features page since january 08. I don't find any controversy about this interpretation in the archives on this ML, so we can assume that maxheight was until now the legal maxheight. We just need to clarify this point on the wiki and add a new tag for the physical maxheight for countries where it is available (call it maxheight:physical if you want) Pieren No, you can only ASSUME that the current maxheight only use the legal form. Have you counted usages in countries where the physical maxheight are signed? Do you even know which countries such signs are available? Without any statistics, you cannot know. I have checked the statistics. In the whole Australia-Oceania region there are 42 maxheight-tags. http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Australia-oceania/En/grouplist.html In Europe it is used 4039 times. http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/grouplist.html In South-America there is no occurrence as of 23-Jul-2009 00:47. http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/South-america/En/grouplist.html In Asia there are 41 (not sure if some or all of those are the same as in Australia-Oceania), in Africa 2 maxheight-tags. Please check your 42 occurrences, whether they are physical or legal and this issue would be resolved. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
2009/7/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: someone with interest in this topic could set up a page for maxheight:physical, so this discussion doesn't get lost: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Key:maxheight:physicalaction=editredlink=1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Please check your 42 occurrences, whether they are physical or legal and this issue would be resolved. Some of us are in Australia and there will only be one sign posted in Australia which is the legal height, but the person you are responding to is in Brazil and you said none for South America so that answers that I guess. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. Maybe to you, but I don't see it that way based on reading the english language wiki page and mapping out rural roads lesser than residential as unclassified. Neither does the JOSM author(s) for that matter as they didn't treat unnamed unclassified roads as a warning/error until I submitted a patch for it and he/they are in Germany. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: I object to the notion that there should be a different relationship between residential/unclassified in urban vs rural areas. We already have too much of that, and I think it's a sign our definitions are off base. There's no clear boundary, and we have to translate this to garmin, etc., use in Free nav programs, and render, so people doing things differently based on where they are or what they're used to seems like trouble. That said, I see the trouble with the secondary/tertiary definition (will send separately about that). Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. To me these are both real streets that you can drive on roads you would probably only use to get to places near them and the only difference is that residential means it's mostly bordered by residences. nah, not all streets where someone lives nearby are residential streets. They are just then residential streets, if they are small and used only/mainly by residents. Big streets with external traffic are never residential streets, even if people live there. Arguably the whole notion of highway=residential is somewhat broken, since residences nearby should be landuse=residential polygons, but it does affect the feel of the road and it runs pretty deep in osm, so I won't really object. It's an easy way to speed up routing calculation and to improve the results. Perhaps we need a specific highway=alley tag to say this is a road you can drive on, but it's definitely narrow/inferior and you don't want to go there unless you have to in order to get somewhere. we already have this. Highway=service, service=alley. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
David Lynch djly...@gmail.com writes: Motorway: More than one grade-separated intersection in a row, high speed, oncoming traffic separated. A Motorway should meet the physical standards of what the best national Motorway/Interstate/etc. roads are. Generally entirely divided and limited access with on/offramps. If you mean that by 'grade-separated intersections', that's fine. Trunk: Wide, high-speed roads with limited cross traffic. Usually dual carriageways in urban areas. I see Trunk as almost motorway, but a little deficient. Definitely has to be divided by at least some concrete (== dual carriageway), and mostly limited access with infrequent at-grade intersections. Urban areas are so crowded that roads that meet this definition have to be basically motorway like but probably more curvy with lanes that aren't wide enough, and have too many on/offramps. Example for those who know Boston: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.35331lon=-71.10166zoom=15layers=B000FTF Storrow Drive is trunk (limited access), while Memorial Drive is primary (side streets come out to it). Both have underpasses for through traffic, but Memorial Drive sometimes and Storrow Drive ~always. And west of boston; http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4355lon=-71.2795zoom=14layers=B000FTF Here SR2 is divided (Jersey barriers, just 0.5m wide x 1m high concrete), and there is maybe 1 farmstand per km, and perhaps 5km between intersections. To the East it's motoray (you really could not tell it's not an Interstate except for the signs, or maybe there are a few too many exits). (I need to retag 2 inside 128 as motorway.) So for motorway and trunk we are still talking physical, although physical and important correlate very very well. Primary: In rural areas, a major road between cities which does not meet motorway or trunk standards. In urban areas, a major road which is particularly long or heavily traveled, or the extension of a road which is primary outside the urban area. Here the notion of 'cities' is problematic. In Mass, city is a legal term, and some are only 3 people. If you mean 'by city, someplace that's big enough to have a self-identity as an urban center, as opposed to viewing itself as part of some larger urban center, that's fine. Secondary: Other major urban streets not meeting the standards for primary. Also highways in rural areas. I have the notion that secondary should be at least a state highway or a road that goes considerable distance and is used for medium-distance travel, meaning a significant number of people drive 20km or more on it. Tertiary: City streets that have a median, more than two lanes, and/or moderate traffic, but are low speed and primarily residential, or locally-maintained rural roads that are important for local navigation, such as connecting a shortcut between two nearby highways which don't intersect. locally-maintained??? Who paves a road is highly variable by jurisdiction and not relevant to this classification. My real problem with the split urban/rural approach is that we're sort of defining by distance, and sort of by population. Importance (to whom) is some blend of these. I live outside the city, so I see the (existing) primary goes many many towns, secondary goes multiple towns and tertiary goes to the next town, or is a major road for getting around town definition as very natural. In the city, there are vastly more roads, and if this rule were applied there would be a large number of tertiary and then a huge number of residential/unclassified roads. From my country point of view this is correct. But when I look at Cambridge (a city I lived in for 12 years, 6 of them with a car), I see vast numbers of 'secondary' roads that are not in my view even close to secondary status: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.3658lon=-71.0996zoom=14layers=B000FTF and a lot of tertiary roads that seem overrated. The root of the problem is that if you look at Camrbidge and Stow at the same zoom level: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4357lon=-71.504zoom=14layers=B000FTF a road of a length marked tertiary in Cambridge goes by 15 little streets is just a road with 20 houses on it and maybe a cross street. So, from the distance point of view, roads in Cambridge are grossly overmarked. If you are in Cambridge and trying to go someplace 25 km away, this tagging is not helpful. If you are trying to get someplace in Cambridge, it makes a lot of sense. I think what's really going on is that there is a bigger hierarchy of roads than our present categorization supports. If you took Cambridge and downgraded all the tertiary to quarternary(!) and then 80% of secondary to tertiary, it would seem about right. I think people tagging in cities want (and need) a category for roads that are of local importance within a neighborhood that's only 1-2km across. The alternative is to redefine 'gets you to the next big area' in terms of population,
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: Some of us are in Australia and there will only be one sign posted in Australia which is the legal height, but the person you are responding to is in Brazil and you said none for South America so that answers that I guess. there were no occurrences by 23th of July 2009, maybe in the meantime someone added one or two ;-). I added the word legal to the maxheight definition and ask anyone interested and familiar with those additional physical-height-signs to set up a page (might contain an explanatory photo, but his could also be added later). Can be also very short, but I don't want to loose the outcome of this discussion as often happens in OSM. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Key:maxheight:physicalaction=editredlink=1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. Maybe to you, but I don't see it that way based on reading the english language wiki page and mapping out rural roads lesser than residential as unclassified. I don't know where you are mapping and which streets you are mapping as residential. Maybe you could post an example so I can try to understand you better. The English page for residential states: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. This is a useful guideline if you are not sure whether to use residential or unclassified for streets in towns: * unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic * residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. so maybe you should think about your tagging habits. Neither does the JOSM author(s) for that matter as they didn't treat unnamed unclassified roads as a warning/error until I submitted a patch for it and he/they are in Germany. Well, I'm in Italy but occasionally also mapping in Germany. No road at all (maybe residential) does have to have a name. There are warnings in cases they are not valid and there are cases where no warnings are displayed. Those warnings are hints, and it is a question of personal preferences which warnings should be displayed. I don't see your point in this regard. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know where you are mapping and which streets you are mapping Sorry, I was thinking of the Australian guidelines... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging Well, I'm in Italy but occasionally also mapping in Germany. No road I wasn't implying you were in Germany, just saying the JOSM guy(s) which are in Germany, thought most unclassified roads were really minor and didn't throw a warning/information error until I submitted a patch for it. http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/2806 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. Maybe to you, but I don't see it that way based on reading the english language wiki page and mapping out rural roads lesser than residential as unclassified. I don't know where you are mapping and which streets you are mapping as residential. Maybe you could post an example so I can try to understand you better. The English page for residential states: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. This is a useful guideline if you are not sure whether to use residential or unclassified for streets in towns: * unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic * residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. so maybe you should think about your tagging habits. Sorry - I had missed that in all the discussion about unclassified. In that case I think unclassified meets what I was talking about for quarternary ( below tertiary, above residential). So probably the renderers need a way to show unclassified as less important than tertiary. And perhaps 'residential' should be redefined as only used by people who are traveling to a location on that road or a less important road that branches off it, removing the 'residential' notion. pgpeX1PsKJiut.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] question about untagged green points
Some of the areas where I am mapping show untagged green nodes in Potlatch, and I delete these, but where do they come from? In one case, I think a series of them may have been generated when my computer lost the connection to the OSM server while I was tracing a way, and then could not restore the connection, requiring that I quit editing and start a new session. But the untagged green nodes did not appear immediately. They first showed up in a later session the next day. And I've had similar disconnects that did not produce any untagged green nodes This has been just a minor mystery until now, but one of the students in our GPS class is entering data into OSM as part of her summer project. She asked about these points in the area where she is contributing data, and I don't have an answer. Now that we have some students involved, I expect to be getting more questions like this. Thanks in advance for your help. Ed Edward L. Hillsman, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 Fowler Ave., CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 813-974-2977 (tel) 813-974-5168 (fax) hills...@cutr.usf.edu mailto:pol...@cutr.usf.edu http://www.cutr.usf.edu blocked::http://www.cutr.usf.edu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Promoting mini-map event
I'm currently trying to do up a flier to promote a mini-map event, and I wondering if I would be able to use a couple of images from SteveC's key note talk? Specifically the 20 live 20 minutes from somewhere example given. Those images were really striking in showing the benefits that can be gained from both supporting OSM and in what the data is useful for. The true benefits aren't in making a better looking map but removing the restrictions and not just licensing restrictions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: So probably the renderers need a way to show unclassified as less important than tertiary. they (t...@h, mapnik, cyclemap) are already doing this. And perhaps 'residential' should be redefined as only used by people who are traveling to a location on that road or a less important road that branches off it, removing the 'residential' notion. no, redefinition of widely used main tags (used according to the existent definition, not updating the definition to common usage) doesn't seem a good idea to me. I suggest to update your local tagging guidelines (can't check them now due to problems of the wiki-server, or your link was misspelled). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question about untagged green points
Hi Martin, Thanks for the suggestion. I have not tried JOSM yet, but mean to, and this is another reason for me to move that up my list of things to do. For the student projects, I'll leave the choice up to them at this stage. But my real reason in writing was to be able to answer a question about what these points are and where they come from. Ed -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: July 31, 2009 10:11 To: Hillsman, Edward Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] question about untagged green points did you give JOSM a try? It doesn't suffer from partly loaded data, which might be the issue in your case. cheers, Martin 2009/7/31 Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu: Some of the areas where I am mapping show untagged green nodes in Potlatch, and I delete these, but where do they come from? In one case, I think a series of them may have been generated when my computer lost the connection to the OSM server while I was tracing a way, and then could not restore the connection, requiring that I quit editing and start a new session. But the untagged green nodes did not appear immediately. They first showed up in a later session the next day. And I’ve had similar disconnects that did not produce any untagged green nodes This has been just a minor mystery until now, but one of the students in our GPS class is entering data into OSM as part of her summer project. She asked about these points in the area where she is contributing data, and I don’t have an answer. Now that we have some students involved, I expect to be getting more questions like this. Thanks in advance for your help. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: So probably the renderers need a way to show unclassified as less important than tertiary. they (t...@h, mapnik, cyclemap) are already doing this. Sorry, I meant 'lower than tertiary and more important than residential'. I don't see unclassified showing up more than residential, and I don't see it in the map key on the main osm site. And perhaps 'residential' should be redefined as only used by people who are traveling to a location on that road or a less important road that branches off it, removing the 'residential' notion. no, redefinition of widely used main tags (used according to the existent definition, not updating the definition to common usage) doesn't seem a good idea to me. I suggest to update your local tagging guidelines (can't check them now due to problems of the wiki-server, or your link was misspelled). In that case we need a parallel tag to unclassified, meaning local-only but without the residential notion. But around me there aren't enough such roads to worry about, and they're all tagged residential from massgis import anyway :-) pgpqpaHMxnPxy.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: In that case we need a parallel tag to unclassified, meaning local-only but without the residential notion. But around me there aren't enough such roads to worry about, and they're all tagged residential from massgis import anyway :-) well. Propose what you like, but in this case AFAIR this was already decided to not do it (use unclassified instead), but decisions in the past don't mean you can't give it another try now. IMHO we already have all highway-classes that we need. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question about untagged green points
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: did you give JOSM a try? It doesn't suffer from partly loaded data, which might be the issue in your case. I doubt that very much indeed. Potlatch can't load a way without loading its constituent nodes; nor can it find a node which is part of a way without loading the way. Ed - generally, such nodes are a sign that saving a way was interrupted somehow. If you can consistently find something that's not behaving as it should then let me know. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/question-about-untagged-green-points-tp24756966p24757840.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Layer transitions
I saw some strange rendering effects when a side road was straight onto a bridge. The bridge was layer=1, so the side road was rendered on top of the main road. That's why all the ways approaching a junction should be on the same layer. You can either achieve this by inserting a short way between the bridge and the junction, or by altering the layer of the thing that is bridged (ie making the stream layer=-1) Richard On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net wrote: to make my question more precise, please have a look at this tunnel that crosses a railway track (the railway is a subway that runs at ground level): http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=48.1325961lon=16.3109488zoom=19way=29205957 The tunnel tag implies layer=-1 No, it doesn't. and that leads to a junction of ways on different layers on both ends of the tunnel. Which wouldn't be a problem either. Layer is only relevant for defining the relative order of intersecting (crossing) objects. If the objects don't intersect, or have a common node, their layers don't imply anything about their relative or absolute height. On the western end of the tunnel the adjacent way ends, this should be no problem with the layers; on the eastern end there is a T junction. Do you think, this tunnel is OK the way it is or should someone add a small piece of way on layer 0 at the eastern end next to the T-junction to avoid a T-junction of different layers? It is ok as it is. Regards, Marc -- Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser ___ 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] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: I don't know where you are mapping and which streets you are mapping as residential. Maybe you could post an example so I can try to understand you better. The English page for residential states: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. This is a useful guideline if you are not sure whether to use residential or unclassified for streets in towns: * unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic * residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. so maybe you should think about your tagging habits. This definition od residential/unclassified was added not long ago by some person from the german mailing list(at least he started the discussion. maybe someone else changed it, can't check at the moment, the wiki is under maintenance...). I think you know that. We had residential and unclassified as equal classes for ages now and the only difference was the question wether or not it is in some residential area. Then suddenly this person came up with desperately needing a road class between tertiary and residential. This is not a problem, just add some new class..., one may think, but instead he wanted to re-define a tag that was in use for a very long time with another definition and this, in my eyes, is _not_ OK and a very bad idea. It's basically the same mistake as suddenly, all highway=footway are a shortcut for highway=path, foot=designated, which is simply not true, because footway has been used with some other definition before highway=path *=designated came up... -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question about untagged green points
Hillsman, Edward wrote: Some of the areas where I am mapping show untagged green nodes in Potlatch, and I delete these, but where do they come from? Those untagged nodes sometimes show up quite a lot, depending on the area. In one case there were a lot of untagged nodes along a way, each very close to another node belonging to the way. All untagged ones were created by a potlatch user, I think someone tried to draw another way on top of the first one, but failed doing so. There are also some untagged nodes distributed randomly over a certain area; all of them were created by potlatch (this is what I experienced). If I remember correctly in earlier versions of potlatch such mistakes could happen quite easily when trying to select a node or a way or trying to move around in the area and clicking slightly aside. This may also be the cause why potlatch is hated by some people... although the respective user is the one to blame for editing not that careful as he/she should. Regards ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
John Smith wrote: I also checked the Australian state borders and they are marked as admin_level=4;10 which may interfere with things if the script was only looking for a single number, however the boundary is used for local and state. We usually Tag only the highest (1=highest) admin_level on a border in Germany because an admin_level=2 (country) border is always the same border for the lower admin_levels. The different admin_levels have of course always their own relation. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken
Jon Burgess wrote: 2009/7/31 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: Wrong, osm2pgsql does process relations properly. If they aren't then Jon Burgess is happy to take a look to see if he can fix the problem with osm2pgsql. Second there has been no planet reload for a few weeks now. There's definitely something wrong here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.93906lon=10.9213zoom=17layers=B000FTF The building called Angewandte Informatik is a multipolygon, which has been moved one and a half weeks ago. Both the old and the new shape are rendered now, and the hole is filled too. I know that there have been problems with multipolygons and diffs. Are they supposed to be fixed? Please file a trac ticket with the details and assign it to me. Lots of issues have been fixed but there are still several possible reasons why things some times don't work correctly. It takes time to analyse, diagnose fix each example. Done. See: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2118 I add add tickets for the other two issues I referred to later today. Thanks! Andy -- Andy PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Question about gps coordinates 001W0547 convert to -1.0547
Frederik Ramm schreef: Hi, Marc Coevoet wrote: Nice, I was thinking about looking for my shell prog book, and trying awk some manips on the degrees and minutes, as there is no number 59 In that case I'd use a famous write-only language and do something like % perl -ne '/(\d\d\d)(E|W)(\d\d)(\d\d),(\d\d)(N|S)(\d\d)(\d\d)/; printf %07.5f,%07.5f\n, ($1 + $3/60 + $4/3600)*($2 eq E?1:-1), ($5 + $7/60 + $8/3600)*($6 eq N?1:-1);' input.txt output.txt Bye Frederik Many thanks, I made a csv / ov2 file POI for the FM transmitter sites in the EU (20544 stations, see: http://users.fulladsl.be/~spb13810/ukweu/ (I did not see many reactions to my question about putting these into osm ..) On a Tomtom, it works like, this: http://users.fulladsl.be/~spb13810/service/ (bad pictures, I know ..) The TT is the only system I know of that will handle your own POIs like the standard ones, and will allow a location search and then show you the POIs, closest first.. I have Tomtom, navman, michelin, VDO, ign.fr, but no garmiin, and maybe that's the one to fetch if osm maps work with garmin ;-) Marc -- Shortwave transmissions in English, Francais, Deutsch, Suid-Afrikaans, Urdu, Cantonese, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, ... http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/radio/swlist/ Stations list: http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/radio/txlist/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
Does the script also take boundaries in relations into account? I'm a little puzzled by http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=42.8145lon=20.365 which is inside Kosovo with two relations as border, #1057;#1088;#1073;#1080;#1112;#1072;, admin_level 2, which is seen and Kosovo, admin_level 3, which is not seen. Two boundary relations is also the way to map the Australian example. Basicallly, the OSM3S takes into account any relation that has a tag with key admin_level (no matter what value) and name (no matter what value). Then it tries to make one or several polygons from the way members of the relation. If the way members constitute proper polygons, an area is made from these. The tagging of the ways doesn't matter. If not, you can spot the problems by a query like id-query type=relation ref=53295/ report/ Just send this by a post request like wget -O - --post-data=id-query type=\relation\ ref=\53295\/report/ http://78.46.81.38/api/interpreter or just paste the query in an arbitrary form on http://78.46.81.38/ Concerning the Kosovo example, there is something odd at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.8362124lon=20.3513993zoom=16 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.8362313lon=20.351468zoom=16 Concerning Australia, a query like coord-query lat=-34.7758269 lon=149.6918631/ print mode=body/ does find relation 80500 which represents Australia. So please specify where in Australia the script fails. Then I'll try to fix it as fast as possible. Cheers, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Sometimes it's physical, sometimes administrative. Generally it's administrative where that is clearly defined (ie the higher road classes in developed countries), and more physical when it isn't. So saying either is correct wouldn't be entirely true. Richard On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, reading the English page for tag highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway and comparing it to the German version, I found some inconsistencies. Whilst I generally would have tried to transfer the English content to the German page, in this particular case I think that the German version is better. The main definition in English is: The '''highway tag''' is the primary tag used for highways. It is often the only tag. It is a very general and sometimes vague ''description of the physical structure of the highway''. This goes back to an edit from 27th Oct. 2007 (Etric Celine). Until then (from March 06) there was just this: Applying to feature type: Physical . The German version defines: Das highway Tag ist das Haupt-tag für Straßen. Oftmals ist es auch das einzige Tag. Es ist recht allgemein und bestimmt in etwa die Verkehrsbedeutung der Straße. (translates ~ The tag highway is the primary tag for highways. Often it is the only one. It is quite general and defines ~ the importance of the road for the traffic There are then 2 examples to show the advantage of a physical classification in respect to an administrative one (on the English page, dating back to the same edit): Here are two examples where the highway tag differs from the legal status: Some roads in the UK that were legally classified as trunk roads have been detrunked and are no longer designated by the government as trunk roads. These roads should still have the tag highway=trunk. /* This first example is valid for a classification according to the importance as well, while the 2nd would result in different tagging: */ A road which is legally designated as trunk road has a section where the road is not built to trunk standards, e.g. a single lane with passing areas. The section that is not built to trunk standards should be given a different value for highway other than trunk. _ If the highway-tag was the only tag on a road, I would agree with this approach, but as we are meanwhile tagging physical attributes as supplementory tags (e.g. lanes, surface, traffic-lights), as we do for administrative classification (ref), I am in favour of changing the definition for highway (no longer mainly physical but mainly according to importance / logical position in the grid). The other properties and attributes will still persist (ref, lanes, dual-carriageways, surface, tracktype, ...) and describe the situation. Also there won't be many changes / tagging-modifications necessary, because bigger roads are generally more important roads. What do you think about this? cheers, Martin ___ 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] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com: 2009/7/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. This is a useful guideline if you are not sure whether to use residential or unclassified for streets in towns: * unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic * residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. This definition od residential/unclassified was added not long ago by some person from the german mailing list(at least he started the discussion. maybe someone else changed it, can't check at the moment, the wiki is under maintenance...). I think you know that. no, actually I am not aware that there were some recent changes, but I was myself seeing and using this hierarchy (unclassified above residential) since I am mapping (Jan 08), so I would also agree to this modification if it was (formally in the wiki) just a recent one, which I doubt (I remember some personal talk with local mappers here in the last year who saw this exactly the same way, so I don't think this is just my personal believe. I also remember that Frederik Ramm wrote in the German ML that he doesn't use unclassifieds in towns or villages. We had residential and unclassified as equal classes for ages now and the only difference was the question wether or not it is in some residential area. Then suddenly this person came up with desperately needing a road class between tertiary and residential. This is not a problem, just add some new class..., one may think, but instead he wanted to re-define a tag that was in use for a very long time with another definition and this, in my eyes, is _not_ OK and a very bad idea. I don't really see, why this is so bad in this case. IMHO there won't be any change of tags necessary in the maps (unclassified was before and after the lowest class (of real roads, i.e. not service and tracks) in both: urban and rural areas, so where's the problem?). It's basically the same mistake as suddenly, all highway=footway are a shortcut for highway=path, foot=designated, which is simply not true, because footway has been used with some other definition before highway=path *=designated came up... never used path in my life (I tag them footway and if bikes are allowed bicycle=yes) so don't see the point. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
OJ W wrote: I put a wrapper around the rather excellent http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script which can tell you which town/county/state/country something is in: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.51lon=-0.05 - which replies that the specified numbers are in Tower Hamlets and London and the UK Something's not quite right here in Denmark. There should be a admin_level=7 boundary in Helsingør: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/184034 However, it seems not to work as expected - in fact it breaks the service quite horrifically: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=56.0366lon=12.514 What's going wrong here? -- Jonas Häggqvist rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: Sometimes it's physical, sometimes administrative. Generally it's administrative where that is clearly defined (ie the higher road classes in developed countries), and more physical when it isn't. So saying either is correct wouldn't be entirely true. actually my point was neither administrative nor physical but according to the importance. Both, administrative and physical we are already tagging with specific tags, so why should we double them? The only class that is derived from administrative criteria in Germany and Italy is motorroad. In Italy there is also a discussion about trunks, but the rest (from primary on) is tagged independantly from who cares for the maintenance (administrative class). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question about untagged green points
2009/7/31 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: did you give JOSM a try? It doesn't suffer from partly loaded data, which might be the issue in your case. I doubt that very much indeed. Potlatch can't load a way without loading its constituent nodes; nor can it find a node which is part of a way without loading the way. might be, that I didn't understand exactly how this error is caused, but it definitely is a Potlatch-error. Also I can tell you that I was quite pleased to see the recent progress of potlatch. It also has some cool unique features (like undelete). It is stylish. It is NOT a piece of shit. It was not my intention to express this. But there is some problems that result from not using the API that insert errors in the data. As I tried to explain you in another thread, in my area / network conditions / backbone connection (or whatever, no idea where it comes from, possibly from the local ISP, db-overload, etc.) potlatch shows some problems with the database connection but still allows you to draw (maybe even in the without save-mode, which I would never use for the potential risk) without having downloaded the database content for the current screen. Ed - generally, such nodes are a sign that saving a way was interrupted somehow. If you can consistently find something that's not behaving as it should then let me know. that's the point: not using the API which would prevent this from happen (at least I guess this). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
Dear OJ, I put a wrapper around the rather excellent http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script which can tell you which town/county/state/country something is in: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.51lon=-0.05 - which replies that the specified numbers are in Tower Hamlets and London and the UK It does mean you can get all the admin levels for a place using just one line of PHP: $MyArray = explode(\n, file_get_contents(sprintf(http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?l at=%flon=%f, 51.51, -0.05))); (so $MyArray[1] would then contain the country name. Apparently this is ISO 3166-1) first of all, thank you for concise way of getting country information. After some playing around, I get some error messages with http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=-34.7758269lon=149.6918631 (should be somewhere in Australia) ---8--- br / bWarning/b: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in b/home/ojw/public_html/WhatCountry/index.php/b on line b45/bbr / ---8--- If the problem is on the OSM3S side, I'll try to fix things as fast as possible. Cheers, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 23:40, Cartinuscarti...@xs4all.nl wrote: 3) The people who do not care/know about the difference are still going to tag a physical maxheight with the maxheight tag. Agreed. In countries where there are separate signs for a warning about the physical height of an object above the road, and a legal prohibition on vehicles over a certain height, I would have tagged both as maxheight before this discussion and, if I wasn't participating in it enough to read this debate, would continue to tag both as maxheight. In my part of the United States, the warnings outnumber the prohibitions by tens, perhaps hundreds, to one. Technically, it is only illegal to hit the low bridge, not to try to drive under it (unless there is another sign indicating otherwise,) but there isn't really a practical difference - if you're too tall to fit under the bridge, you don't want to drive along that section of road, whether it's legally prohibited or not. If the initial descriptions didn't say that it was for legal restrictions only, even if that was the intent, then I don't see how it can be redefined now once it has been out in the wild. Let maxheight be the tallest a vehicle can be to legally pass along a way without hitting an overhead obstacle, and you're not changing the interpretation that people could make from what's there. Use maxheight:legal and maxheight:physical if someone wants to make a distinction between the tallest a vehicle can legally be and the tallest it can be to pass without hitting something. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
2009/7/30 OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com: I put a wrapper around the rather excellent http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script which can tell you which town/county/state/country something is in: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.51lon=-0.05 - which replies that the specified numbers are in Tower Hamlets and London and the UK It does mean you can get all the admin levels for a place using just one line of PHP: Something that would also be very cool would be if the script told you all polygons or multipolygons you're in regardless of whether they are a relation or normal polygon, and you could filter the result for country boundaries or other type of areas. It could for example tell you you're in a building in a school area in a residential area in a county in a province in a country on an island. The complexity of the check should be the same, just way more input data to consider. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
that would be a lack of disk space on dev's /home - I'll see if it's anything of mine that I can delete On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Roland Olbrichtroland.olbri...@gmx.de wrote: After some playing around, I get some error messages with http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=-34.7758269lon=149.6918631 (should be somewhere in Australia) ---8--- br / bWarning/b: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in b/home/ojw/public_html/WhatCountry/index.php/b on line b45/bbr / ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
should be working again now? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website) - localised
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.8478lon=9.0282lang=es http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.8478lon=9.0282lang=de http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.8478lon=9.0282lang=nl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
Jonas Häggqvist wrote: However, it seems not to work as expected - in fact it breaks the service quite horrifically: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=56.0366lon=12.514 Okay, it no longer breaks - it just doesn't list the point as being in Helsingør (rel#184034). -- Jonas Häggqvist rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question about untagged green points
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: might be, that I didn't understand exactly how this error is caused, but it definitely is a Potlatch-error. Also I can tell you that I was quite pleased to see the recent progress of potlatch. It also has some cool unique features (like undelete). It is stylish. It is NOT a piece of shit. It was not my intention to express this. Sure, don't worry, I didn't think you had. :) But there is some problems that result from not using the API that insert errors in the data. No. Please, please stop guessing unless you've read the code or talked to someone who knows how it works. You keep guessing things which just aren't true and confusing people in the process. As of API 0.6, the AMF API (used by Potlatch) has exactly the same constraints as the XML API. There are only two differences. One is the encoding. XML is textual, AMF is binary. This doesn't have any implications for data, only for speed and language support. The other is the way that the actions are grouped. The XML API, for example, groups node, way, and relation fetches for a given bbox in the 'map' call. The AMF API splits this out over three calls - 'whichways', 'getway' and 'getrelation' - which are quicker in the live editor environment. Conversely, the AMF API groups node and way writes in one call, 'putway', whereas the XML API has them as two separate ones. All of these, in both APIs, are transactional so a call will either succeed in its entirety or not at all. Now, as it happens, if you have an editor - any editor using any API - which saves by making a succession of calls, and you pull the plug out from your computer halfway, then yes, some of these calls will have been executed and some won't. Conversely, if you have a bug in your editor, all the API in the world won't stop wrong (but correctly formatted) data being entered. The fact that it speaks XML didn't stop JOSM from uploading lat and long the wrong way round! On the subject of poor connectivity: I know. You might think we all have super-fast broadband in the UK, but we don't. I have very poor Internet connectivity two-thirds of the time. Flash Player gives the client, in this case Potlatch, limited control over the connection in such circumstances. As soon as a connection error is reported to Potlatch, the little /!\ flashes. It does what it can. Out of interest, though, I have never lost data in edit with save mode because of poor connectivity: I tell it to retry, and it does. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: But, as I understand trunk, it's meant to be a physical upgrade from primary, which is a national-level highway. Well, you could argue that it would be valid to adopt this standard in a country where it was deemed useful. But that's not how it is here. Ireland has two grades of National road, primary and secondary (corresponding fairly well to how the UK has two types of A road). Like the UK, we use trunk and primary to differentiate between the two (trunk for primary, primary for secondary, and yes, I know this isn't how you'd ideally design the terminology...). But primary and secondary are measures of the route's significance, not of the actual build standard, which can vary widely. I've driven in .ie, and don't remember the numbering scheme, but the non-motorway main roads between towns that are not divided and have at-grade junctions and have national-type numbering seem like they ought to be 'primary'. Again, it's an argument that could be had, but that's not how we do it and not how most other cartographers do either. Not even Michelin, which in other respects does heed a road's quality and certainly its significance over actual classification. Cartographic norms here tend to favour blue (motorway), green (national primary) green-striped or red (national secondary), orange (regional), which, usefully, with our tagging scheme is what OSM renderers give us. This is not really a co-incidence if we consider the UK bias of the renderers and the closeness of our hierarchy of road types to theirs. And going with your suggestion would leave us without a useful differentiation between the primary and secondary national roads. What we have works, and build quality can be inferred by other means. And it seems that's how it is - the N62 from Thurles to the M8 (amusingly, someplace I've been to - the horse and jockey pub shows up at z12) is tagged as primary. That's because N-roads of 51 and above are national secondary routes. So far, none of these have had motorway upgrades and I'm not holding my breath. The N8 is trunk when it isn't M8, and I'm guessing N/M is a hint that it doesn't quite meet motorway standards, but I don't remember this well enough. Well, we've had N roads since before we had motorways, and for a long time we had very few motorways. So it's more a case of a motorway being a part of a national route that _is_ at motorway standard _and_ has been so classified (since we also have a now-dying[1] tradition of building motorway-standard roads and leaving them classified as N roads). In fact, on this last point, it's a good reason _not_ to tag for road quality. If you did, Ireland would have plenty of roads appearing on the map as motorway but not identifiable as such on the ground. Confused yet? Dermot [1] The majority of motorway-grade road not previously classified as motorway is being redesignated as motorway on 28th August, and most already appear as such on the ground. OSM is once again the first map to reflect this reality. -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com: 2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: Well, you could argue that it would be valid to adopt this standard in a country where it was deemed useful. But that's not how it is here. Ireland has two grades of National road, primary and secondary (corresponding fairly well to how the UK has two types of A road). Like the UK, we use trunk and primary to differentiate between the two (trunk for primary, primary for secondary, and yes, I know this isn't how you'd ideally design the terminology...). But primary and secondary are measures of the route's significance, not of the actual build standard, which can vary widely. This is exactly my point. The highway class already represents the importance of the road, not it's physical build standard, but the wiki defines the latter to be relevant. I was suggesting to update the definition according to best-practise, not to change the meaning of existing tagging. If the administrative class in your country coincides with the importance: fine. Nothing changes. Unfortunately this is neither in Italy nor in Germany the case: some roads have been downgraded / passed to a lower maintenance entity for administrative reasons (now somebody else pays and cares for the maintenance, what was before a nation / federal road has sometimes become a regional / Landstraße). Others, like Kreisstraßen in Germany (comunal roads) have been upgraded and are now almost Autobahn-Standard. As result of this, it has been agreed not to corelate administrative status and highway-class. But there is a problem with tagging pure physical state as well: it depends on the context. In a rural area a secondary or primary street will be much smaller than in a highly dense urban area. This is why importance of the road seems most useful (be it for routers or to structure visually and according to significance on rendered maps). And going with your suggestion would leave us without a useful differentiation between the primary and secondary national roads. What we have works, and build quality can be inferred by other means. again: build quality is what the wiki _already defines for 2 years now_, it is not what seems reasonable or actual practise, that's why I started this thread. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: This is exactly my point. The highway class already represents the importance of the road, not it's physical build standard, but the wiki defines the latter to be relevant. I was suggesting to update the definition according to best-practise, not to change the meaning of existing tagging. Lest there be any confusion, I agree with your goal here. I was hoping to add weight to it :) Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
for some reason my javascript isn't working so well - anyone want to try and make this more reliable? http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/PlaceBrowser/?lat=51.51lon=-0.12zoom=14 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, John Smith wrote, replying to Martin Koppenhoefer: Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. Maybe to you, but I don't see it that way based on reading the english language wiki page and mapping out rural roads lesser than residential as unclassified. I've done a lot of work in rural Australia, and after having lots of difficulty classifying roads was drummed into shape by the other mappers on talk_au. In Au we are not using unclassified in towns. We use unclassified rurally only for roads of least importance - the same ones we would tag residential in towns. The wiki is not in any way simple to comprehend on this - that's where I got lost. English around the world is used in many different ways, and what may be very clear to someone is 'as clear as mud in another branch of the language. This is before we bring in other languages. After this we wrote our own Au specific pages, because we have a whole continent and can bend the rules/guidelines our own way. Martin mentions http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential The history for this shows that was written after we wrote our Australian tagging guidelines - nearly a year later. Certainly by the time unclassified is being suggested for use in towns where Au mappers use tertiary the Australian practice is well entrenched. We mark out roads in commercial and industrial areas as residential too, even though dwellings are not the prime buildings. Liz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net: Martin mentions http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential The history for this shows that was written after we wrote our Australian tagging guidelines - nearly a year later. yes, this page is indeed dating back just to April 2008, what means, there has already been 4 years of tagging before ;-) Certainly by the time unclassified is being suggested for use in towns where Au mappers use tertiary the Australian practice is well entrenched. We mark out roads in commercial and industrial areas as residential too, even though dwellings are not the prime buildings. Well, you can do this, but most routers will try not to use residential roads if there is another way. This protects residential areas from through-traffic and travellers from slowly traversable residential areas, but both of these are IMHO not valid for industrial areas, that's why your aussie-way might produce slightly worse routing results (don't know, just an idea). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
Works great for me, what would you like to enhance/correct ? Le 31 juil. 09 à 23:12, OJ W a écrit : for some reason my javascript isn't working so well - anyone want to try and make this more reliable? http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/PlaceBrowser/?lat=51.51lon=-0.12zoom=14 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
Le vendredi 31 juillet 2009 à 03:23, Roy Wallace a écrit : What about a way that has either a physical limitation or a legal limitation (not both). Perhaps there is some argument that the tag should differentiate between these situations? Though I admit I can only think of a weak one - that it makes it clearer for users and mappers I have a very good example: For an ambulance, many legal limitations (like speed limit) don't apply, so if a road has a legal limitation for the maximum height of 2m but you can actually physically take that road with a 3m ambulance, that is a useful information for the ambulance driver who then knows he can actually take that road, although regular users may not. -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
2009/8/1 Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com: Le vendredi 31 juillet 2009 à 03:23, Roy Wallace a écrit : What about a way that has either a physical limitation or a legal limitation (not both). Perhaps there is some argument that the tag should differentiate between these situations? Though I admit I can only think of a weak one - that it makes it clearer for users and mappers I have a very good example: For an ambulance, many legal limitations (like speed limit) don't apply, so if a road has a legal limitation for the maximum height of 2m but you can actually physically take that road with a 3m ambulance, that is a useful information for the ambulance driver who then knows he can actually take that road, although regular users may not. This is a nice theory, but can I see some example? I doubt that there is any bridge with 3 m height and 2 m restriction. And I doubt that the ambulance driver would (in case of emergency) have the time and nerves to check if a bridge with 2m- restriction will still have enough space for him to pass. And I won't recommend him to rely on OSM data. Can you imagine what happens to him, if he gets stuck under a bridge with designated maxheight (and he's bigger) with an emergency patient on board? I don't neglect the usefullness of this tag though: there might be special transports (accompagnied by local police) that might pass (with special permission and controll) a bridge that legally is restricted e.g. to 2,80 but physically allows even 3,00 m to pass. They will even get rid of some air in their tires if it is needed ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:36 -0700, Andrew Ayre wrote: Done. See: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2118 I add add tickets for the other two issues I referred to later today. Thanks! As Shaun mentioned in another email, this seems to be another instance of nodes missing from the minutely diffs. This is a known issue but I'm not sure if we have a trac ticket for it. I have put more details into the trac ticket. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken
Jon Burgess wrote: On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:36 -0700, Andrew Ayre wrote: Done. See: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2118 I add add tickets for the other two issues I referred to later today. Thanks! As Shaun mentioned in another email, this seems to be another instance of nodes missing from the minutely diffs. This is a known issue but I'm not sure if we have a trac ticket for it. I have put more details into the trac ticket. Jon Is there a history of when full imports where made listed somewhere, or is it on a predictable schedule? I'm wondering if some other things I've seen are the same problem or something else. Andy -- Andy PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken
Jon Burgess wrote: On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:36 -0700, Andrew Ayre wrote: Done. See: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2118 I add add tickets for the other two issues I referred to later today. Thanks! As Shaun mentioned in another email, this seems to be another instance of nodes missing from the minutely diffs. This is a known issue but I'm not sure if we have a trac ticket for it. I have put more details into the trac ticket. Jon Jon, Thanks for the details added to the ticket. I think if the OSM API was improved so it could accept large changesets faster then that would greatly help out the people who are trying to add large amounts of data. So far I haven't see a fast and reliable method. Perhaps people can apply for access to a second API for large changesets only? Andy -- Andy PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken
On 31/07/09 23:55, Andrew Ayre wrote: I think if the OSM API was improved so it could accept large changesets faster then that would greatly help out the people who are trying to add large amounts of data. So far I haven't see a fast and reliable method. Excuse me a minute while I find my magic wand... [ time passes ] ...found it! fx: waves wand There you go, changeset processing is now 100 times faster. Perhaps people can apply for access to a second API for large changesets only? How exactly is that supposed to help? Will this API have access to some magic accelerator technology that the current API doesn't use? Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question about untagged green points
On 01/08/2009, at 1:36 AM, SLXViper wrote: Those untagged nodes sometimes show up quite a lot, depending on the area. In one case there were a lot of untagged nodes along a way, each very close to another node belonging to the way. All untagged ones were created by a potlatch user, I think someone tried to draw another way on top of the first one, but failed doing so. I've seen this once before, about three or four months ago, and I also probably performed the action (in Potlatch) that lead to it occurring. I made a note to myself to report it when I'd finished the task I was currently doing, but seem to have forgotten to pay attention to the note. Oops :( What happened in my case was that there was an existing way (riverbank) which was not particularly accurate, and we had gotten some much more accurate data. So I copied the tags from the existing way to my new one, editing all the places where it joined to anything, and then deleted the old way. In Potlatch it looked fine. When I came back to the area about a week later, I saw that all the nodes that were part of the old (now deleted) way were still on the map. It looks like the way had been deleted but the nodes, unused by anything else and with no tags, had not been deleted. As SLXViper noted the nodes appeared very close to the current way, which was because they were just from a less accurate version of the same thing. Sorry for not reporting this earlier, it had slipped by mind due to being a bit busy at the time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
Jonas Häggqvist wrote: However, it seems not to work as expected - in fact it breaks the service quite horrifically: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=56.0366lon=12.514 Okay, it no longer breaks - it just doesn't list the point as being in Helsingør (rel#184034). I fixed a bug in your relation, 2 not connected relation-members with http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1999106 I hope that it will fix the issue. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Photos
Is there any method of adding photos etc. to OSM like there is for Google Maps. For instance, if you navigate to somewhere on Google Maps, it comes up with user submitted geo-tagged photos. Is there anything similar for OSM? If not, should there be? Regards ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Photos
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Tristan Thomas wrote: Is there any method of adding photos etc. to OSM like there is for Google Maps. For instance, if you navigate to somewhere on Google Maps, it comes up with user submitted geo-tagged photos. Is there anything similar for OSM? If not, should there be? http://www.openstreetphoto.org/map.html user submitted geotagged photos are basically stored now in one by KML file. Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Something Might be Broken
Tom Hughes wrote: On 31/07/09 23:55, Andrew Ayre wrote: I think if the OSM API was improved so it could accept large changesets faster then that would greatly help out the people who are trying to add large amounts of data. So far I haven't see a fast and reliable method. Excuse me a minute while I find my magic wand... [ time passes ] ...found it! fx: waves wand There you go, changeset processing is now 100 times faster. Perhaps people can apply for access to a second API for large changesets only? How exactly is that supposed to help? Will this API have access to some magic accelerator technology that the current API doesn't use? It would help because people could upload large data sets as fast as they can prepare them, then tweak any problems quickly and efficiently. I was perhaps thinking of a dedicated machine/bandwidth for large uploads. But then I don't know what the bottleneck is in the current system. Is it users, bandwidth, processing power, something else or a combination? A couple of weeks ago JOSM told me it would take 15 hours to upload a 5Mb OSM file. It seems a bit better recently though. Anyway, just throwing out ideas borne of frustration. Andy -- Andy PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Matthias Versen s...@mversen.de wrote: We usually Tag only the highest (1=highest) admin_level on a border in Germany because an admin_level=2 (country) border is always the same border for the lower admin_levels. The different admin_levels have of course always their own relation. That sounds saner than splitting the boundaries into 2 separate ways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: areas, that's why your aussie-way might produce slightly worse routing results (don't know, just an idea). The navit routing engine prefers residential to tertiary in some cases... So not all poor routing is because we use unclassified for lower than residential. The navit routing engine also tried to get me to go the wrong way along a correctly tagged one way dual carriage way... :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Matthias Versen s...@mversen.de wrote: I also checked the Australian state borders and they are marked as admin_level=4;10 which may interfere with things if the script was only looking for a single number, however the boundary is used for local and state. We usually Tag only the highest (1=highest) admin_level on a border in Germany because an admin_level=2 (country) border is always the same border for the lower admin_levels. The different admin_levels have of course always their own relation. I've redone all the admin_levels=4 like you suggested, however I'm not sure if the NSW/ACT state borders are correct and would like a second opinion or third on this. This is the relation for the NSW state border. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/80372 Contained within this border is the ACT. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/80411 I've labeled the respective relations outer and inner on relation 80372 but JOSM shows 2 unjoined sections, while that seems to be a JOSM bug I want to make sure that I've done the correct thing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
OJ W wrote: I put a wrapper around the rather excellent http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script which can tell you which town/county/state/country something is in: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.51lon=-0.05 There is really something broken, compare : http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.8478lon=9.0282lang=demode=raw and http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry//?lat=51.894lon=9.1909mode=raw both are only a few kilometers apart and the admin_level 2,4 and 8 are missing. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Finding what country something is in (new website)
John Smith wrote: I've redone all the admin_levels=4 like you suggested, however I'm not sure if the NSW/ACT state borders are correct and would like a second opinion or third on this. This is the relation for the NSW state border. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/80372 Contained within this border is the ACT. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/80411 I've labeled the respective relations outer and inner on relation 80372 but JOSM shows 2 unjoined sections, while that seems to be a JOSM bug I want to make sure that I've done the correct thing. The relation looks ok according to http://betaplace.emaitie.de/webapps.relation-analyzer/index.jsp I will take a closer look if I'm at home and after sleeping (currently at work in a nightshift). Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:33:53 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: Some of us are in Australia and there will only be one sign posted in Australia which is the legal height, but the person you are responding to is in Brazil and you said none for South America so that answers that I guess. there were no occurrences by 23th of July 2009, maybe in the meantime someone added one or two ;-). I added the word legal to the maxheight definition and ask anyone interested and familiar with those additional physical-height-signs to set up a page (might contain an explanatory photo, but his could also be added later). Can be also very short, but I don't want to loose the outcome of this discussion as often happens in OSM. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Key:maxheight:physicalaction=editredlink=1 cheers, Martin Two reasons I have not made a description of Key:maxheight:physical yet 1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/clearance My proposal page, I'll let that process go, with input bouth from the wiki and the mailing list 2) I am stuck at work for another 4 weeks with a slow, unreliable, and limited internet connection, so my time on internet is very limited When the process is completed, I will also make brazilian translations of Key:makheight any variation of maxheight that will be implemented. -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk-nl] Tileservers
Beste OpenStreetMappers, Laat ik me eerst even voorstellen, omdat ik (bijna) nieuw ben op de mailinglijst. Ik ben Willem, op OpenStreetMap is mijn account Willem1, ik ben sinds september 2008 OSM-lid. Ik woon in Zuid-Limburg en ik ben daar bezig met het mappen van gebouwen in de buurt van Sittard van de luchtfoto; verder ben ik bezig om mijn omgeving te voorzien van GPS-tracks om de AND-data te verbeteren. Ook heb ik enkele fietsroutes gemapt. Ik heb direct een (beginners)vraag over de Nederlandse tileservers. Wat is nu het verschil tussen nieuw.openstreet.nl en tile.openstreetmap.nl? Met vriendelijke groet, Willem1 ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Tileservers
Welkom! Volgens mij is er behalve de url geen verschil. nieuw.openstreet.nl was een testlocatie die uiteindelijk is gebruikt op openstreetmap.nl groet, floris Willem Sonke wrote: Beste OpenStreetMappers, Laat ik me eerst even voorstellen, omdat ik (bijna) nieuw ben op de mailinglijst. Ik ben Willem, op OpenStreetMap is mijn account Willem1, ik ben sinds september 2008 OSM-lid. Ik woon in Zuid-Limburg en ik ben daar bezig met het mappen van gebouwen in de buurt van Sittard van de luchtfoto; verder ben ik bezig om mijn omgeving te voorzien van GPS-tracks om de AND-data te verbeteren. Ook heb ik enkele fietsroutes gemapt. Ik heb direct een (beginners)vraag over de Nederlandse tileservers. Wat is nu het verschil tussen nieuw.openstreet.nl en tile.openstreetmap.nl? Met vriendelijke groet, Willem1 ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Tileservers
oh ja, en ze liggen momenteel beide erg achter. http://www.openstreetmap.org/ is momenteel actueler. de beheerder van de .nl tileserver is geloof ik op vakantie. groet, floris Willem Sonke wrote: Beste OpenStreetMappers, Laat ik me eerst even voorstellen, omdat ik (bijna) nieuw ben op de mailinglijst. Ik ben Willem, op OpenStreetMap is mijn account Willem1, ik ben sinds september 2008 OSM-lid. Ik woon in Zuid-Limburg en ik ben daar bezig met het mappen van gebouwen in de buurt van Sittard van de luchtfoto; verder ben ik bezig om mijn omgeving te voorzien van GPS-tracks om de AND-data te verbeteren. Ook heb ik enkele fietsroutes gemapt. Ik heb direct een (beginners)vraag over de Nederlandse tileservers. Wat is nu het verschil tussen nieuw.openstreet.nl en tile.openstreetmap.nl? Met vriendelijke groet, Willem1 ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Tileservers
Ja, dat heb ik gemerkt ja. Jammer, het is leuk om je wijzigingen direct te zien. Met vriendelijke groet, Willem1 -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Floris Looijesteijn Verzonden: vrijdag 31 juli 2009 15:23 Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Tileservers oh ja, en ze liggen momenteel beide erg achter. http://www.openstreetmap.org/ is momenteel actueler. de beheerder van de .nl tileserver is geloof ik op vakantie. groet, floris Willem Sonke wrote: Beste OpenStreetMappers, Laat ik me eerst even voorstellen, omdat ik (bijna) nieuw ben op de mailinglijst. Ik ben Willem, op OpenStreetMap is mijn account Willem1, ik ben sinds september 2008 OSM-lid. Ik woon in Zuid-Limburg en ik ben daar bezig met het mappen van gebouwen in de buurt van Sittard van de luchtfoto; verder ben ik bezig om mijn omgeving te voorzien van GPS-tracks om de AND-data te verbeteren. Ook heb ik enkele fietsroutes gemapt. Ik heb direct een (beginners)vraag over de Nederlandse tileservers. Wat is nu het verschil tussen nieuw.openstreet.nl en tile.openstreetmap.nl? Met vriendelijke groet, Willem1 ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Tileservers
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Willem Sonke wrote: Ja, dat heb ik gemerkt ja. Jammer, het is leuk om je wijzigingen direct te zien. Het probleem zit hem in 1) de changesets uit Engeland beginnen utf8 fouten te bevatten. Dat moet iemand handmatig fixen, anders loopt het update programma er op vast. 2) mensen zijn om vakantie, handmatig fixen is iets wat je sowieso weinig doet, en zeker niet op vakantie. Stefan ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] LCA2010
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:34:52 +1000 Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: ok, I've put my name down. it was a 5 minute effort so if they want us we'll be asked and if they needed convincing we will have to try again. I think that means you did it, right? If so, well done! Certainly didn't seem like a 5-minute job. All I saw were barriers to entry and curb your enthusiasm, but that's me. better get a new passport in case of being accepted :-) Yes (to John), we do need them again since nine-eleven and all that. Cheers and good luck! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] LCA2010
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Hugh Barnes list@hughbris.com wrote: Yes (to John), we do need them again since nine-eleven and all that. You don't keep up then, they recently announced you'd only need a drivers license to go to and from NZ as NZ flights would be treated as domestic, I'm just not sure when it came/comes into effect though. http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/deal-opens-sky-to-cheap-nz-airfares-20090221-8e6r.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Perth WA mentioned in SoTM09 video :)
I'm still going through all the videos from the SoTM09 and in the presentation I'm watching at the moment they mention the agency for the WA Govt is putting their POIs on the web for crowd sourcing, wonder if they'll be free with the data and submit it to OSM and vice versa... http://www.vimeo.com/5589282 About 29:15 in for those not interested in the rest of the talk... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Need help wording flyier
Currently thinking of doing up a simple flier and/or text based email to send out to clubs/user groups in and around the sunshine coast to promote the mapping party to those that may not be aware of OSM, or may have seen the map when it was a blank canvas, or to just generate some interest in OSM even if people may not be able to attend on the day. I just realised that 2 weeks away was probably a little soon to do this kind of promotional type work but oh well thems the breaks. Also I've sent off for a quote on a vinyl sign I can stick up so I don't look a complete dork waiting round in maccas for everyone to figure out where everyone is :) There is a couple of places around Gympie that do signs, otherwise there is always plenty of businesses on the Sunshine Coast next week I can ring round. In any case help with a flier would be nice :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
