Re: [Talk-hr] POI na karti grada
jhabijan wrote: Koje bi sve POI (Point Of Interest) interesantne za turiste trebalo stavit na gradsku kartu? hvala, joža benzinske bolnice (doktor, zubar u manjim mjestima) policija muzeji... u biti sve sto ide s amenity im je interesantno :) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Amenity ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
Re: [OSM-talk-be] EGNOS works, mail to the EU??
Marc Coevoet wrote: Hi, Since 1 oct, Egbos is available (is the EU variant of the GPS system). It is not (the EU variant of the GPS system). It is an augmentation system for the existing GPS system. Would it be an idea to mail Mr Antonio Tajani, European Commission Vice-President for Transport Policy, to obtain the EU map data, like it happened in the US?? There is no 'EU map data', but feel free to mail him. you don't have to pay taxes, until the data is free. I will not recommend that you try, but I also won't stop you. -- Lennard ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
[OSM-legal-talk] OSM IDs as foreign keys (was: ODbL virality questions)
Hi, (for those on dev; this started out as a discussion on whether or not we want to put any legal/license restrictions on external users linking to OSM objects for identification, e.g. a restaurant guide saying this pub is OSM node #12345) Matt Amos wrote: i would hope so too, as it makes OSM data more attractive for those users who don't need to manipulate the data, but need to annotate it or reference it. i, for one, would really like to see the next beerintheevening or tripadvisor based on OSM data, not just the tiles. My problem with this is that while I'd gladly allow anybody to do that from a licensing point of view, I'd rather not have people do that from a technical point of view (and that's why I'm switching over to dev with this). Personally I view OSM object IDs as quite frail, and subject to change without notice at any time. I do not think that OSM object IDs should be used as foreign keys in any application. I even object to all those lists on the Wiki which point to hard-coded relation IDs - I, for one, will delete and re-create an object any time without much thought if it makes sense to me, breaking any such external entry point. I fear that if many people treat OSM IDs as permanent, this will have a restraining influence on us editing our own data (I wanted to replace this restaurant node by a building outline for the restaurant but then I got complaints from users of 15 restaurant guides and Flickr because the restaurant had suddenly vanished there, and so I reverted my edit). Until now, if someone asked me a question in that direction, I always said they should make their own ID a foreign key and tag the OSM object with something like restaurant_guide_xyz_id:1234. Which is not ideal from a data access perspective of course, but allows people editing OSM to properly work with that. If we really want to head in a direction where external users refer to OSM objects, then I think it would be wise to manifest that in the database somehow, and create some kind of permanence API or so, where you can request a permanent handle for a certain object from the API, and the API will give you a number, and then if someone deletes and re-creates an object they will be able to transfer that number to the new object somehow. This is of course something for the future, but letting external users refer directly to OSM IDs sounds like asking for trouble to me. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Turner ajtur...@highearthorbit.com wrote: On 2 Oct 2009, at 18:06, Matt Amos wrote: hi legals, i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. however, it was felt that a wider discussion is necessary. first case: a site wishes to use OSM data as a basis for non-geographic data. the example used is a review side, like beerintheevening.com or tripadvisor.com. they might want to use OSM as the source of geographic data by linking its reviews to OSM node IDs (or lat/lons taken from the OSM data). under a GPL-like interpretation of the ODbL, this would taint the database, requiring its release. considering that the records in the database may contain private information (IP/email address of the reviewer) this may mean that the site decides not to use OSM, because releasing the DB would violate their own privacy policy. second case: OSM data is downloaded to a handheld device (e.g: iphone). this is likely (given the screen size of the device) to be an insubstantial amount. the data is locally used for reference when entering other information (e.g: abovesaid reviews). the reviews are uploaded to a non-OSM site, linked to the OSM-derived node ID or lat/lon. if many people do this, does that constitute repeated extraction and therefore require release of the non-OSM DB under the ODbL? i.e: can 3rd party sites use OSM IDs or lat/lons from OSM as keys into their database? I've had these very same questions. The in-person responses have typically been of course that's ok to do without releasing the review data but never in any way that I thought would make a large company feel comfortable. I understand that typically copyright law like this is at the behest of 'best practices' and prior cases - but obviously this is not the model OSM follows in general and is in fact trying to break out of. Really, it is akin to linking to a URL (if you consider any node in OSM is a Resource and could have a URI). My linking to a Wikipedia definition of Map does not change the copyright of my material. What can we do to make it very clear if this is acceptable use of OSM? Can we make it very clear that the equivalent of 'linking' to OSM data that doesn't alter it (or effectively replace primary data within OSM) does not virally release all data linked to it? we can make this very clear by: 1) discussing it here, 2) forming a consensus, 3) documenting the results (e.g: on the license FAQ on the wiki) when i have discussed the question of grey areas with lawyers the answer has always been that we can make up our own rules in those areas. the prerequisites for it having a good chance of standing up in court are that it is easy to find these guidelines in association with the license and that it represents a consensus view of the community. so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform fuzzy linking? my view is that all the linked-to OSM information would have to be released; the list of (location, name, ID) tuples. but that it would still be OK to not release the linked-by proprietary information. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
Matt Amos wrote: as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM, which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the (name/location/ID) records - that's not up for discussion. should i also have to release the reviews, comments and photos records despite the fact that they have no OSM-derived data in them? should i have to release my entire database, including my users table? I sincerely hope this is not the case. It would greatly restrict what people could do with the data. That really doesn't sound like free data, if that is the case. Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
Hi, no-one is suggesting that the extraction of names, locations and IDs would be somehow outside of the ODbL. any site using these as lookup keys would have to release that data under the ODbL. [...] as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM, which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the (name/location/ID) records Wait a minute. If I run beerintheOSM as a crowdourced project - say, a Wiki - and people can enter new pubs, and the names are entered by those who create the entries, and I don't even store lat/lon locations, I just allow my users to add an OSM node id in some kind of template which I then use to retrieve and display the map for the area, then surely I do not have to release the records? * The name was not taken from OSM * the location is not even stored in my database * the OSM ID... well yes this would have to be released but not with context, i.e. I could simply release a list of OSM IDs saying these are used in beerintheOSM somewhere If anyone doubts the above then think what would happen if I didn't use the OSM ID to draw a map, instead the OSM ID would just be listed there in the text (by the way, this pub is OSM node #1234) - which is the same from a database perspective. Surely such reference cannot trigger any viral effect? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
2009/10/6 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM, which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the (name/location/ID) records - that's not up for discussion. should i also have to release the reviews, comments and photos records despite the fact that they have no OSM-derived data in them? should i have to release my entire database, including my users table? I would say that related information like reviews, comments, etc. that were added to beerintheOSM shouldn't need to be released, but we should encourage any information that *could* live in OSM (e.g. if users added opening hours) to be released so it could be re-incorporated. What would happen if the beerintheOSM site encouraged their users to add new pubs to their site, would that data - the equivalent of what would have come from OSM, had they come from there - need to be released as well, or again something we should just encourage the site to release? Dan -- Dan Karran d...@karran.net www.dankarran.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] reciprocal data agreements
Dear legal-talk, I wonder if either cc-by-sa, or ODbL anticipate a reciprocal data agreement between OSM and another project with a different license? Imagine a data provider using perhaps cc-by, or a BSD style permissive license contributes their data to OSM. Imagine then that they would like to monitor changes in OSM to data that originated from their source. Imagine then that they would like to incorporate those changes, with or without further vetting, back into their dataset under their license. My understanding is this return of the data to the source would not be permitted, as is, with either license. I suggest that we do want to permit this sort of a reciprocal data agreement. Am I incorrect in my understanding of the licenses and would this be permitted already? Could a community guideline address this and permit it in the ODbL when and if adopted? Thoughts? Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] reciprocal data agreements
Richard, Richard Weait wrote: Imagine a data provider using perhaps cc-by, or a BSD style permissive license contributes their data to OSM. Imagine then that they would like to monitor changes in OSM to data that originated from their source. Imagine then that they would like to incorporate those changes, with or without further vetting, back into their dataset under their license. I agree that this would be very desirable; however it would allow our sacred data to leave the protecting cage of ODbL and live on under a CC-BY-SA or, God forbid, a BSD license which would be unpalatable to many contributors. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:17:37 +1000, John Smith wrote: I thought this was anything goes, why are you dictating something can't be done? I'm also puzzled why it can't be done by a comitee elected BY OSM mappers?!? Why not? -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:29:30 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote: That's okay, too. What I want, what I REALLY want, is for SteveC to be able to exercise leadership without being told that he's evil for doing so. Why only him? Let's choose a few people we all trust and let them come to a agreement. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:33:40 +0100, Jonathan Bennett wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy for what Another Plaice thinks of that idea. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but you can't start writing nonsense or material that is not encyclopedia type texts. For example you can't start writing manuals there, you will be kicked out right away. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm funny poster
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:22:08 -0500, ouɐɯnH wrote: This is any multi language funny poster for OSM. enjoy http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Poster_osm.jpg salu2 Humano Great and funny poster, I love it. Could we get also sources for the poster in Inkscape format so we can translate it into Croatian and print a few of them? Cheers! -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm funny poster
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:52:40 +, Valent Turkovic wrote: Great and funny poster, I love it. Also it would be great to setup a Promote OSM wiki page with different posters, flyers and similar accessories that other OSM mappers could use for mapping parties or for promoting OSM in their cities... Cheers! -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm funny poster
2009/10/6 Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com: On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:52:40 +, Valent Turkovic wrote: Great and funny poster, I love it. Also it would be great to setup a Promote OSM wiki page with different posters, flyers and similar accessories that other OSM mappers could use for mapping parties or for promoting OSM in their cities... There seems to be a number of promotional items in the OSM SVN repository, perhaps these just need to be documented better. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but you can't start writing nonsense or material that is not encyclopedia type texts. For example you can't start writing manuals there, you will be kicked out right away. That's *exactly the same* problem though. Who decides what is encyclopedic or nonsense? Not everyone will agree - hence the existence of Deletionpedia. Tags clearly need namespaces. It's the only way this is going to work, keep everyone happy, and stand a chance of producing some kind of consistent data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm funny poster
the one that I tend to use is at http://svn.openstreetmap.org/misc/pr_material/recruitment_poster/poster.pdfhttp://short.ie/osmposter k. On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:52:40 +, Valent Turkovic wrote: Great and funny poster, I love it. Also it would be great to setup a Promote OSM wiki page with different posters, flyers and similar accessories that other OSM mappers could use for mapping parties or for promoting OSM in their cities... Cheers! -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://blogs.linux.ie/kenguest/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: On 05/10/09 11:04, Dave Stubbs wrote: As the person whose first came up with a no-names map for London (well, actually it was a named map of London, turned into a nonames map on SteveC's suggestion), I have an *official leadership announcement* to make: There shall be no tagging of unnamed roads. It is not important. They show up on the no-names map -- big deal -- its a mapping aid not a holy grail of there shall be no highlighted roads. Just deal with it. So why did you make the noname map in the first place, if it's not important? Have you changed your mind about its usefulness? As a mapping aid, to find large chunks of unnamed roads from traced aerial imagery etc. Single roads were never really the intended target, not for me anyway. I originally thought a noname like tag would be useful and should be implemented, but I was convinced otherwise by some very persuasive arguments and now think it's completely not worth doing and not at all important. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] GPX Manager
Hi, I have written a small command-line-tool mainly for extracting specific tracks together wit its way-points out of a large gpx-file. I use it to get the tracks from one day out of my always growing Current.gpx (Garmin nüvi 550). Download and Documentation: http://ingo.lantschner.name/downloads/osm/GPX-Manager/documentation.html http://ingo.lantschner.name/downloads/osm/GPX-Manager/GpxManager-0.2.6.tar.gz cheers Ingo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Thanks to those who responded to this thread. Advice gratefully received. There seems to be a clear majority preference for option (b) - the more detailed approach that avoids superimposing boundaries of areas (and their nodes) on an adjacent way (and its nodes). I fully understand the two caveats: 1. It is only worth being precise if there is precise data available. 2. There are a few exceptions where, for example, the character of the adjacent area has access features more like that of a normal linear way - the pedestrian area is a good example. I am persuaded that the advantages of forward compatibility and a higher standard of mapping justify my small efforts (where I have good GPS data) in separating out superimposed areas/ways and using option (b). I am particularly pleased to receive support for splitting single large landuse areas (e.g. =residential or =farm) that cross large numbers of ways. It is a minor irritant and I didn't want to do the work - or mess with other people's mapping - without a bit of a 'reality check' with more experienced folk in the community. Thanks again Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 October 2009 15:52 To: Marc Schütz Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as b) Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the mappers whether they want to use a way or an area for a road. it will be much harder to add this detail, if all areas are merged though. Not really. JOSM supports disconnecting ways since a long time now. But anyway: doing things wrong just to make editing easier is not a good thing. +1. That's why adjacent landuses (see topic) shouldn't be extented to the center of the road. But with option (b) and a linear way you would have a gap next to the road. In the case of landuse, this is not a problem in practice, but if there is a place, there you need to insert artificial ways that are not there in reality, just to get the connectivity between the two objects: http://osm.org/go/0JUKytHID-- which objects are you referring to? parkings usually have those ways (for crossing the sidewalk) so they won't be artificial, and pedestrian areas are the exception I mentioned above. Look at the google sat image: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=degeocode=q=bayreuths ll=37.0625,-95.677068sspn=59.856937,107.138672ie=UTF8hq=hnear=Bayr euth,+Bayern,+Deutschlandll=49.946316,11.577148spn=0.000754,0.001635 t=kz=20 That's the mentioned pedestrian area. I agree with you here. Mapping it the way it is done there does not really make sense: Either the exact geometry is important for you, then you should convert both the plaza and the road to areas. Or it isn't, but then there shouldn't be a problem with extending the plaza so that it borders to the road. +1. but that's still pedestrian areas / highway areas. In these cases the areas _do_ connect to the road. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm funny poster
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Ken Guest k...@linux.ie wrote: the one that I tend to use is at http://svn.openstreetmap.org/misc/pr_material/recruitment_poster/poster.pdf k. Same question; is the source file available for editing and translation? Or at least clipart objects so I can arrange a similar poster in my language. Cheers! -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging schema
Mike N. schrieb: The delay in rendering is irritating but understandable. A sandbox with a limit of a view ways/areas to allow immediate render would be extremely useful. I read somewhere today that someone is working on this - a web site where you'll be able to designate a bounding rectangle with near immediate rendering. I'm working on this as a VirtualBox image. You may still want to use panman's styleedit [1] to play around a little. Peter [1] http://dev.openstreetmap.nl/~panman/styledit/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm funny poster
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:02:30 +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote: Same question; is the source file available for editing and translation? Found the sources in: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/misc/pr_material/ recruitment_poster/ Thanks! -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging schema
On 05/10/2009, at 7:54 PM, David Earl wrote: * Three new primitives, tagkey for describing the k part of tags, tagvalue for the v part of tags and tagdescription separated off to allow for multiple descriptions in multiple languages without having to download all the data for languages you're not interested in. (tagkey etc can be anything we want, don't get too hung up on the terminology, I just use it for didactic purposes). I'd been thinking something along these lines for a while, due to having used a similar system at an old job. There everything in the database was described my metadata in The Dictionary, and The Dictionary lived in the database too. Essentially, we'd just allow the tagging of tags (keys and values) in the same way that we tag nodes, ways and relations. I think being able to add arbitrary metadata to tags would be handy, because you can come up with cool new things. For example, you could tag the proposed incline=up tag with edit:reverse_way=value_flip or similar, which says the value needs to be flipped if the way is reversed. If an editor knew what to do for that tag it could do it automatically, and if it didn't it could present a warning to the user. Control would be an issue though, as someone accidentally or maliciously breaking tag metadata could really screw things up, if editor and renders went straight off it rather than verified copied. (d) the meaning of newly introduced or changed tags goes along with them, so that the intention is described to others. I can see things getting ickier than they are now if you can just go around adding new shop= values, without having some prior discussion to what it means. If I saw a suggested option in an editor, I would generally assume that there is some agreement as to what it is supposed to mean. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On 2 Oct 2009, at 18:06, Matt Amos wrote: hi legals, i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. however, it was felt that a wider discussion is necessary. first case: a site wishes to use OSM data as a basis for non-geographic data. the example used is a review side, like beerintheevening.com or tripadvisor.com. they might want to use OSM as the source of geographic data by linking its reviews to OSM node IDs (or lat/lons taken from the OSM data). under a GPL-like interpretation of the ODbL, this would taint the database, requiring its release. considering that the records in the database may contain private information (IP/email address of the reviewer) this may mean that the site decides not to use OSM, because releasing the DB would violate their own privacy policy. second case: OSM data is downloaded to a handheld device (e.g: iphone). this is likely (given the screen size of the device) to be an insubstantial amount. the data is locally used for reference when entering other information (e.g: abovesaid reviews). the reviews are uploaded to a non-OSM site, linked to the OSM-derived node ID or lat/lon. if many people do this, does that constitute repeated extraction and therefore require release of the non-OSM DB under the ODbL? i.e: can 3rd party sites use OSM IDs or lat/lons from OSM as keys into their database? I've had these very same questions. The in-person responses have typically been of course that's ok to do without releasing the review data but never in any way that I thought would make a large company feel comfortable. I understand that typically copyright law like this is at the behest of 'best practices' and prior cases - but obviously this is not the model OSM follows in general and is in fact trying to break out of. Really, it is akin to linking to a URL (if you consider any node in OSM is a Resource and could have a URI). My linking to a Wikipedia definition of Map does not change the copyright of my material. What can we do to make it very clear if this is acceptable use of OSM? Can we make it very clear that the equivalent of 'linking' to OSM data that doesn't alter it (or effectively replace primary data within OSM) does not virally release all data linked to it? Thanks, Andrew ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On 05/10/2009, at 8:18 PM, Marc Schütz wrote: IMO (a) is the correct way to do this. ... For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this is the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by using an area. In both cases, however, the object in our database represents the entire road (i.e. not only the middle line). Because in reality, there is no gap between the road and the areas next to it, there shouldn't be one in the database either. I agree with this, for things like landuse (which is what is mentioned in the topic) where the road is represented by a way. A residential area or farming area abuts the road reserve, so the polygon should abut the road's area or way. If you're actually mapping the road and not the road reserve, so putting things like footpaths as separate ways, you obviously wouldn't want to have the landuse cover those, but for just a single way it makes sense. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging schema
On 06/10/2009 13:35, James Livingston wrote: I can see things getting ickier than they are now if you can just go around adding new shop= values, without having some prior discussion to what it means. If I saw a suggested option in an editor, I would generally assume that there is some agreement as to what it is supposed to mean. You can already add new shop values willy nilly with no discussion, and lots of people do (and value this capability and would be loathe to give it up). I hope that when this happens in the future (a) the editor would already know what other people have used, so you'd be able to see immediately whether the first person to previously see a joke shop (say) labelled it shop=joke or shop=jokes and you can follow suit rather than inventing a similar tag (or if you are perverse or don't like the one they chose, you can introduce a new one and mark one of them a synonym of the other so a renderer can know about both without any recoding), or if none you can add your own, and (b) you are aware you are doing this and it is not just a spelling error. The action to add a new tag/value ought still to be simple in an editor, so you're not held up for lack of anyone adding shop=joke previously, but it should at least ask you to describe what you mean so you can spread the word and at least minimally document your tag. (Of course, you could code an editor to bypass all of this, but that would be rather unhelpful to everyone else). David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging schema
On 06/10/2009, at 10:58 PM, David Earl wrote: On 06/10/2009 13:35, James Livingston wrote: I can see things getting ickier than they are now if you can just go around adding new shop= values, without having some prior discussion to what it means. If I saw a suggested option in an editor, I would generally assume that there is some agreement as to what it is supposed to mean. You can already add new shop values willy nilly with no discussion, and lots of people do (and value this capability and would be loathe to give it up). Sure, and I uses that all the time. I was just trying to say that I think a lot of people (myself included) would tend to assume that suggestions being offered by an editor had at least some vaguely consistent meaning, which a lot of the shop tags don't. The action to add a new tag/value ought still to be simple in an editor, so you're not held up for lack of anyone adding shop=joke previously, but it should at least ask you to describe what you mean so you can spread the word and at least minimally document your tag. (Of course, you could code an editor to bypass all of this, but that would be rather unhelpful to everyone else). I think that being able to document your tag would be useful, even (or especially) when someone else has already done so. It would allow us to collect more data about how people are actually using the tags, and might help to find things that need to be ironed out. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
2009/10/6 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: On 05/10/2009, at 8:18 PM, Marc Schütz wrote: IMO (a) is the correct way to do this. ... For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this is the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by using an area. In both cases, however, the object in our database represents the entire road (i.e. not only the middle line). Because in reality, there is no gap between the road and the areas next to it, there shouldn't be one in the database either. I agree with this, for things like landuse (which is what is mentioned in the topic) where the road is represented by a way. A residential area or farming area abuts the road reserve, so the polygon should abut the road's area or way. If you're actually mapping the road and not the road reserve, so Does anyone actually map the road reserves? Some people are marking the landuse hard up against roads, but this isn't correct since the property boundary never touches any roads, at least none that I'm aware of, and foot paths etc use the same land use area as roads. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
Valent Turkovic writes: On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:17:37 +1000, John Smith wrote: I thought this was anything goes, why are you dictating something can't be done? I'm also puzzled why it can't be done by a comitee elected BY OSM mappers?!? Why not? It could ... but that committee would need to establish a reputation, and SteveC already has one. It's quite possible, and even likely, that he would delegate the actual decision-making to someone(s) else. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
Dave Stubbs writes: I was convinced otherwise by some very persuasive arguments and now think it's completely not worth doing and not at all important. I'm not convinced. Could you share them? -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On 06/10/2009 14:09, John Smith wrote: Some people are marking the landuse hard up against roads, but this isn't correct since the property boundary never touches any roads, at least none that I'm aware of, and foot paths etc use the same land use area as roads. I keep adjacent areas separate, a small number of metres away from the way for the road, which essentially reflects a model of reality without being over pedantic about the exact distance. This includes grass in the middle of islands and the like. Because road widths are exaggerated in the renderers that means areas neatly abut them when drawn, which is just the way it should be IMO. If the road moves (due to inaccurate mapping) it does mean the area has to be moved too, which is somewhat inconvenient. On the other hand selecting an area which shares edges with ways is a pain, so there is also some loss of convenience (not to mention lack of reality) in sharing edges. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm funny poster
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:22:08 -0500, ouɐɯnH wrote: This is any multi language funny poster for OSM. enjoy http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Poster_osm.jpg salu2 Humano Great and funny poster, I love it. tnks Could we get also sources for the poster in Inkscape format so we can translate it into Croatian and print a few of them? you can find the sources http://qwerty.com.co/osm/ Please send the modified copy and a nice photograph of the poster printed and displayed Cheers! salu2 Humano -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://GaleNUx.com es el sistema de información para la salud --///-- Teléfono USA: (347) 688-4473 (Google voice) skype: llamarafredyrivera ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Marc Schütz wrote: IMO (a) is the correct way to do this. We are trying to represent reality in our database. I'm not sure that's true. A map is a representation of reality, not reality itself. With the tools available to us at the moment attaining reality is a lot of work For instance the majority of mappers don't draw an area for, lets say, an 1800mm wide pavement/sidewalk, they would use a linear way to represent it. In order to achieve this, certain abstractions are necessary. For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this is the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by using an area. In both cases, however, the object in our database represents the entire road (i.e. not only the middle line). I Disagree In the database a linear way /does /represent the centreline of the road. It's up to the renderer to decide how 'real world' it looks by deciding how thick to render that line. If a) was used in this case the abutting area would overlap with the road render as it would be attached to the centre of the way. Because in reality, there is no gap between the road and the areas next to it, there shouldn't be one in the database either. If you want to do real world with no gaps then whole road (highway,footpaths,verges, barriers etc) needs to be mapped. Leaving a gap as in b) implies that the whole highway does have some width, it's just not been mapped yet. In other words, we should keep the topology intact, even if we choose to simplify the geometry. With option a) I think the topology is deformed inaccurately as it attached to the centreline of the simplified highway geometry. Cheers Dave F. Regards, Marc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
2009/10/6 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: On 06/10/2009 14:09, John Smith wrote: Some people are marking the landuse hard up against roads, but this isn't correct since the property boundary never touches any roads, at least none that I'm aware of, and foot paths etc use the same land use area as roads. I keep adjacent areas separate, a small number of metres away from the way for the road, which essentially reflects a model of reality without being over pedantic about the exact distance. This includes grass in the middle of islands and the like. Because road widths are exaggerated in the renderers that means areas neatly abut them when drawn, which is just the way it should be IMO. If the road moves (due to inaccurate mapping) it does mean the area has to be moved too, which is somewhat inconvenient. On the other hand selecting an area which shares edges with ways is a pain, so there is also some loss of convenience (not to mention lack of reality) in sharing edges. We now have property boundaries for about 1/4 of Australia, so this makes it perfectly obvious the property boundaries, and the road usually runs down the middle however that isn't always the case. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On 06/10/2009, at 11:30 PM, Matt Amos wrote: so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform fuzzy linking? my view is that all the linked-to OSM information would have to be released; the list of (location, name, ID) tuples. but that it would still be OK to not release the linked-by proprietary information. That sounds good in theory, but I think at some point getting out the locations and names of things could be Extraction and Re-utilisation of the a Substantial part of the Contents. Am I allowed to mine the database for the name and location of all the pubs and restaurants in the world, without having the data fall under the ODbL? If not, how could it become okay if I claim to just be using them as lookup keys? I guess you could have a database with all of your proprietary data, and second one which acts as a link between the fuzzy-OSM data and IDs in your database, and only release the second. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Marc Schütz wrote: IMO (a) is the correct way to do this. We are trying to represent reality in our database. I'm not sure that's true. A map is a representation of reality, not reality itself. True, but the database is not the map. The database is used to create a map. With the tools available to us at the moment attaining reality is a lot of work For instance the majority of mappers don't draw an area for, lets say, an 1800mm wide pavement/sidewalk, they would use a linear way to represent it. Personally I'd say that's because the way doesn't represent the sidewalk, it represents a path of travel which happens to coincide with a sidewalk. But I think I'm in the minority there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: With the tools available to us at the moment attaining reality is a lot of work For instance the majority of mappers don't draw an area for, lets say, an 1800mm wide pavement/sidewalk, they would use a linear way to represent it. Personally I'd say that's because the way doesn't represent the sidewalk, it represents a path of travel which happens to coincide with a sidewalk. But I think I'm in the minority there. By the way, so long as the linear way has a width tagged, it can be treated as an area subject to certain constraints (must be constant width). Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it (not at intersections, though). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Dave Stubbs writes: I was convinced otherwise by some very persuasive arguments and now think it's completely not worth doing and not at all important. I'm not convinced. Could you share them? a) what are you actually marking? - no name in OSM -- we know that already - the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again? - the road definitely hasn't got a name -- it definitely hasn't got a swimming pool in the middle of it either, but I'm not putting swimming_pool=no - you don't want validators checking this b) what are you actually trying to achieve? - mappers don't go looking for unnamed streets that definitely have no name -- well, whatever, they can put the post boxes and address data in while they're there. If a street has a post box, addresses, all the shops, amenities and power cables then I'm sure eventually the next mapper will realise what's going on. plus you can add a note tag if you want. - a nice orange free map -- go look at the normal layer then - an error free map -- well, despite what the validator tells you, road without name is not actually an error, just potentially unlikely in western europe at least. c) what does it actually tell you if not present? - the road has a name, but we don't know what it is - we don't know if the road has a name or not - the user who mapped it doesn't care for no names tags - hasn't been mapped d) does it help the original point of the no names map? - no, not really -- the no names map was primarily invented to act as a metric of mappedness for areas that had been thoroughly traced from Yahoo imagery. Blocks of orange still stand out, and as most streets in London are named, that's not distracting from the task. That might not be true everywhere, but I'm guessing it's true most places that no names maps are useful metrics at all. So in summary, the arguments against are that you don't know what you're trying to mark, you don't really have a good reason, and it doesn't tell you very much. YMMV obviously and there are other opinions out there. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it (not at intersections, though). There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding property boundaries. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it (not at intersections, though). There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding property boundaries. I'm quite aware of that, and that's why I think there should be a landuse=right_of_way, completely separate from the highway. I wonder, how do others define highway, if not as a path of travel? It contains such things as roads, sidewalks, and dirt paths, and presumably also includes paths of travel which are completely unbuilt (the unpaved grass on the side of the road gets a highway tag, right?). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:55 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: On 06/10/2009, at 11:30 PM, Matt Amos wrote: so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform fuzzy linking? my view is that all the linked-to OSM information would have to be released; the list of (location, name, ID) tuples. but that it would still be OK to not release the linked-by proprietary information. That sounds good in theory, but I think at some point getting out the locations and names of things could be Extraction and Re-utilisation of the a Substantial part of the Contents. yes, i think it is. Am I allowed to mine the database for the name and location of all the pubs and restaurants in the world, without having the data fall under the ODbL? If not, how could it become okay if I claim to just be using them as lookup keys? I guess you could have a database with all of your proprietary data, and second one which acts as a link between the fuzzy-OSM data and IDs in your database, and only release the second. no-one is suggesting that the extraction of names, locations and IDs would be somehow outside of the ODbL. any site using these as lookup keys would have to release that data under the ODbL. the question is, should they have to further release the data in their database which is using those lookup keys? as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM, which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the (name/location/ID) records - that's not up for discussion. should i also have to release the reviews, comments and photos records despite the fact that they have no OSM-derived data in them? should i have to release my entire database, including my users table? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Mike Harris wrote: Thanks to those who responded to this thread. Advice gratefully received. There seems to be a clear majority preference for option (b) - the more detailed approach that avoids superimposing boundaries of areas (and their nodes) on an adjacent way (and its nodes). I fully understand the two caveats: 1. It is only worth being precise if there is precise data available. 2. There are a few exceptions where, for example, the character of the adjacent area has access features more like that of a normal linear way - the pedestrian area is a good example. I am persuaded that the advantages of forward compatibility and a higher standard of mapping justify my small efforts (where I have good GPS data) in separating out superimposed areas/ways and using option (b). I am particularly pleased to receive support for splitting single large landuse areas (e.g. =residential or =farm) that cross large numbers of ways. Let me encourage you to use option a), based on the reasoning of Frederik Ramm. In detailed mapping, everything is an area way which share nodes with its adjacent areas. When roads etc. are linear features, it means they have *indeterminate* width and the only non-arbitrary representation of this in an editor is for the width to be zero, with adjacent areas on both sides sharing the nodes - option a). This makes it consistent with the detailed modelling approach. I would look at the linear road etc. as being, not a centre-line, but an indeterminately wide structure comprising the road surface, sidewalks, verges etc. up to a boundary (which in the British countryside would often be a hedge.) By mapping with option a) you are saying that the golf course, say, comes up to the road's boundary hedge but that you haven't specified exactly where that is. If you do know, you are into a detailed mapping approach. If a linear road is still used then it would now be interpreted as a centre-line, as is sometimes done with rivers. Since I map in the same are as you, I suspect that in most cases you do not have enough information to use the detailed mapping approach. Even with arial photography we have available, poor resolution and interference from tree cover and shadows often does not allow the separation between the hedges to be very reliable. Editor support for ways sharing nodes is certainly poor, but as with inadequate renderers, we should improve them rather than adding artificial data (arbitrarily positioned structures) into the database. Landuse areas which cross a large number of ways are very common. Surely you don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large number of separated areas separated by the paths and tracks? When you do need to do it, separating an area into two at a road is certainly laborious and maybe somebody should build a JOSM plugin to do it. Chris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 October 2009 15:52 To: Marc Schütz Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as b) Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the mappers whether they want to use a way or an area for a road. it will be much harder to add this detail, if all areas are merged though. Not really. JOSM supports disconnecting ways since a long time now. But anyway: doing things wrong just to make editing easier is not a good thing. +1. That's why adjacent landuses (see topic) shouldn't be extented to the center of the road. But with option (b) and a linear way you would have a gap next to the road. In the case of landuse, this is not a problem in practice, but if there is a place, there you need to insert artificial ways that are not there in reality, just to get the connectivity between the two objects: http://osm.org/go/0JUKytHID-- which objects are you referring to? parkings usually have those ways (for crossing the sidewalk) so they won't be artificial, and pedestrian areas are the exception I mentioned above. Look at the google sat image: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=degeocode=q=bayreuths ll=37.0625,-95.677068sspn=59.856937,107.138672ie=UTF8hq=hnear=Bayr euth,+Bayern,+Deutschlandll=49.946316,11.577148spn=0.000754,0.001635 t=kz=20 That's the mentioned pedestrian area. I agree with you here. Mapping it the way it is done there does not really make sense: Either the exact geometry is important for you, then you should convert both the plaza and the road to areas. Or it isn't, but then there shouldn't be a problem with extending the plaza so that it borders to the road. +1. but that's still pedestrian areas / highway areas. In these
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Marc Schütz wrote: IMO (a) is the correct way to do this. We are trying to represent reality in our database. I'm not sure that's true. A map is a representation of reality, not reality itself. True, but the database is not the map. The database is used to create a map. Which is what I said in the second part of my post. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: With the tools available to us at the moment attaining reality is a lot of work For instance the majority of mappers don't draw an area for, lets say, an 1800mm wide pavement/sidewalk, they would use a linear way to represent it. Personally I'd say that's because the way doesn't represent the sidewalk, it represents a path of travel which happens to coincide with a sidewalk. But I think I'm in the minority there. By the way, so long as the linear way has a width tagged, it can be treated as an area subject to certain constraints (must be constant width). Which is what I said in the second part of my post. The abutting render would not be attached to the edge of that width render but the centreline of it. Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it (not at intersections, though). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it (not at intersections, though). There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding property boundaries. I'm quite aware of that, and that's why I think there should be a landuse=right_of_way, completely separate from the highway. I wonder, how do others define highway, if not as a path of travel? It contains such things as roads, sidewalks, and dirt paths, and presumably also includes paths of travel which are completely unbuilt (the unpaved grass on the side of the road gets a highway tag, right?). landuse=road_reserve ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPX Manager
While we're talking about GPX I recently published a script to load GPX files in a postgis database. It's convenient to show a long trace on top of a map for instance. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pov/gpx2postgis Yann Le 6 oct. 2009 à 12:32, Ingo Lantschner a écrit : Hi, I have written a small command-line-tool mainly for extracting specific tracks together wit its way-points out of a large gpx-file. I use it to get the tracks from one day out of my always growing Current.gpx (Garmin nüvi 550). Download and Documentation: http://ingo.lantschner.name/downloads/osm/GPX-Manager/documentation.html http://ingo.lantschner.name/downloads/osm/GPX-Manager/GpxManager-0.2.6.tar.gz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] EGNOS
I have a Garmin unit and from the factory WAAS/EGNOS support was set to 'off'. I turned it on recently. I see little 'D' symbols sometimes appear in satellite status but I haven't seen the promised 1 metre precision so far. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] England, Wales, Scotland borders
Igor Brejc igor.brejc at gmail.com writes: For days now I've been trying to figure out how I could render borders between England, Wales and Scotland using OSM data, 1. Borders between these countries are tagged with the same admin_level=4 as that of subdivisions inside England (example: North East England, http://osm.org/go/evykef-?relation=151164). Now I'm not a constitutional expert, but I think Wales and Scotland represent different level of territorial division than just a collection of England's counties. Agreed. These English regions are largely spurious (they have some kind of 'development agency' with a small budget, but no real political existence or power) and certainly not equivalent to the border between England and Scotland or between federal states in countries like the USA or Germany. They look very odd on the main slippy map. I propose to just retag them as anything other than admin_level=4, any objections? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
Gervase Markham wrote: So why did you make the noname map in the first place, if it's not important? Have you changed your mind about its usefulness? It's useful *as a guide*, or a tool. What some people seem to be unable to grasp is that *it's OK for a road to appear in red on NoNames*. You don't have to eliminate them completely. It's just a guide, not a gospel. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] New mailing list - annou...@openstreetmap.org
Another new mailing list has been created: annou...@openstreetmap.org You can subscribe here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/announce Announce is a moderated list limited to announcements about OSM services, new software versions and any other really, really important news that affects the whole community. This will be a low-volume, no-chatter list that should be safe to subscribe to, even for the smallest of mailbox allowances. Sysadmins, maintainers: Please mail announce when you release new versions or plan downtime. Thanks, Jonathan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it (not at intersections, though). There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding property boundaries. I'm quite aware of that, and that's why I think there should be a landuse=right_of_way, completely separate from the highway. I wonder, how do others define highway, if not as a path of travel? It contains such things as roads, sidewalks, and dirt paths, and presumably also includes paths of travel which are completely unbuilt (the unpaved grass on the side of the road gets a highway tag, right?). landuse=road_reserve ? I'm not sure they're always used for roads, but good enough! I'm planning on implementing this, probably in the next few weeks (though it may be a few months, and I may have a small scale run within a week or two). Should I use landuse=road_reserve, landuse=right_of_way, or not bother tagging those areas at all? On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Morley c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk wrote: Landuse areas which cross a large number of ways are very common. Surely you don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large number of separated areas separated by the paths and tracks? In that case, you shouldn't, because the paths and tracks are part of the forest. Likewise, you wouldn't split the landuse at a service highway which goes through a landuse=commercial. But that's not an example of landuse abutting a highway, it's an example of a highway cutting through a landuse. Landuse and highway are really independent concepts, aren't they? The main counterexample where you *would* have a landuse abutting a highway is in the case of pedestrian areas, which are tagged as highway in addition to being tagged as landuse, right? Whether or not a highway should cut through a landuse=residential or landuse=farm is probably jurisdiction dependent. Where I live there are specific areas of land set aside for roads and other specific areas of land set aside for houses. Seems to me like a clear case for separate landuse areas, no? If you don't have the data to separate out the two, that's fine. I don't mind highway ways cutting through landuse areas so much. But that's not the same as using the highway way as the border to your landuse area. The only way I can see doing that is when the landuse area is *also* a highway area. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: The only way I can see doing that is when the landuse area is *also* a highway area. And then, only if you're sure that's what you want to do. If you have two pedestrian areas separated by a highway, and you use the highway as a shared border between them, you're telling routers that pedestrians are allowed to cross the road at any section (not only at crosswalks). If that's what you want to say, fine. If not, then you need the gap. It seems like something more useful for bicycle ways than pedestrian ways. But I'm sure there's a counterexample to that, just like everything else. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 06/10/09 15:18, Dave Stubbs wrote: a) what are you actually marking? - no name in OSM -- we know that already - the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again? Probably not, no. Just as when a mapper adds a postbox, someone else doesn't think he's added a postbox. I should go and check that there's actually a postbox there. I agree that in this case you are noting a negative, not a positive, and that's more unusual. But I think the same principle applies. You trust other mappers to map sanely unless there's evidence to the contrary. - the road definitely hasn't got a name -- it definitely hasn't got a swimming pool in the middle of it either, but I'm not putting swimming_pool=no Right. But most roads have names, and names are useful for navigation. Names being missing when they shouldn't be is therefore bad. The swimming pool point is a slippery slope argument, but in fact the slope isn't at all slippery. Names are different to swimming pools. AFAIK, no-one has genuinely suggested swimming_pool=no, or in fact any other =no type thing apart from names. - mappers don't go looking for unnamed streets that definitely have no name -- well, whatever, they can put the post boxes and address data in while they're there. Except that many people like to map with a method that gets the map to a base level of usefulness (say, all roads present and correctly named) across an area first, and then add details later. c) what does it actually tell you if not present? - the road has a name, but we don't know what it is - we don't know if the road has a name or not - hasn't been mapped (These three are basically the same.) Yes - so go look, and add it, or add the noname tag. - the user who mapped it doesn't care for no names tags That may also be true, but hopefully someone will put one in, and stop lots of mappers visiting it to complete (to a certain level of detail) the map in that area. What I don't get is why people opposed to marking noname roads as noname actually mind. What offends you about tags you don't care about? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 06/10/09 05:37, John Smith wrote: It sounds like he made it to see which roads needed surveying to acquire their name, however I'm still confused why people use noname=yes when the street does have a name but not a street sign, as I posted before there is actually a few streets near here on the golf course which really aren't named, the buildings a just unit numbers. If you know the street has a name but there's no sign, remove the noname tag and put the name in :-) Anything without a street sign should be reported to someone in local government, they may not be aware that their sign has been damaged/destroyed, and to ask them for the name, there is 2 streets with vandalised signs I keep meaning to annoy council about here. That seems like a fairly European-city-centric view to me. There are loads of unnamed roads across rural England, across Europe, and in other countries around the world. And not all of them are such because their sign has been vandalised. Or have I missed your point? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Chris Despite the well-argued views of a minority, I am persuaded by the equally well-argued views of the (considerable) majority who favour option (b). That is not to say that there isn't room for using a bit of common sense! I wouldn't divide up Delamere Forest into individual areas bounded by paths etc. - the paths in a sense form part of the forest landuse - but I would probably divide a residential area with, say, a major road going through it and would certainly divide landuse=farm either side of a road, for example, if I knew that it was a different farm on either side. Like everything else in OSM, it all a question of judgement! I asked the original question from a neutral standpoint but - in the light of the responses have now developed a preference for option (b) - with exceptions. Of course, nothing is ever final ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Chris Morley [mailto:c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk] Sent: 06 October 2009 15:46 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways Mike Harris wrote: Thanks to those who responded to this thread. Advice gratefully received. There seems to be a clear majority preference for option (b) - the more detailed approach that avoids superimposing boundaries of areas (and their nodes) on an adjacent way (and its nodes). I fully understand the two caveats: 1. It is only worth being precise if there is precise data available. 2. There are a few exceptions where, for example, the character of the adjacent area has access features more like that of a normal linear way - the pedestrian area is a good example. I am persuaded that the advantages of forward compatibility and a higher standard of mapping justify my small efforts (where I have good GPS data) in separating out superimposed areas/ways and using option (b). I am particularly pleased to receive support for splitting single large landuse areas (e.g. =residential or =farm) that cross large numbers of ways. Let me encourage you to use option a), based on the reasoning of Frederik Ramm. In detailed mapping, everything is an area way which share nodes with its adjacent areas. When roads etc. are linear features, it means they have *indeterminate* width and the only non-arbitrary representation of this in an editor is for the width to be zero, with adjacent areas on both sides sharing the nodes - option a). This makes it consistent with the detailed modelling approach. I would look at the linear road etc. as being, not a centre-line, but an indeterminately wide structure comprising the road surface, sidewalks, verges etc. up to a boundary (which in the British countryside would often be a hedge.) By mapping with option a) you are saying that the golf course, say, comes up to the road's boundary hedge but that you haven't specified exactly where that is. If you do know, you are into a detailed mapping approach. If a linear road is still used then it would now be interpreted as a centre-line, as is sometimes done with rivers. Since I map in the same are as you, I suspect that in most cases you do not have enough information to use the detailed mapping approach. Even with arial photography we have available, poor resolution and interference from tree cover and shadows often does not allow the separation between the hedges to be very reliable. Editor support for ways sharing nodes is certainly poor, but as with inadequate renderers, we should improve them rather than adding artificial data (arbitrarily positioned structures) into the database. Landuse areas which cross a large number of ways are very common. Surely you don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large number of separated areas separated by the paths and tracks? When you do need to do it, separating an area into two at a road is certainly laborious and maybe somebody should build a JOSM plugin to do it. Chris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 October 2009 15:52 To: Marc Schütz Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: 2009/10/5 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net: But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until someone with better information (like having aerial photography) remaps it as b) Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the mappers whether they want to use a way or an area for a road. it will be much harder to add this detail, if all areas are merged though. Not really. JOSM supports disconnecting ways since a long time now. But anyway: doing things wrong just to make editing easier is not a good thing. +1. That's why adjacent landuses (see topic) shouldn't be extented to the center of the road. But
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 06/10/09 16:49, Jonathan Bennett wrote: It's useful *as a guide*, or a tool. What some people seem to be unable to grasp is that *it's OK for a road to appear in red on NoNames*. You don't have to eliminate them completely. It's just a guide, not a gospel. A road appearing in red means that there's a possibility of there being missing information in the map. In one sense, of course that's OK. The map has missing information all over the place. But what do we do with missing information we know is missing? We try and put it in, to make the map better and more complete. Basically, opposing the noname stuff is saying you need to keep in your head a list of all the roads in your area which genuinely have no name, in order to prevent yourself visiting them again to add the name in. And every mapper in an area has to do that. Isn't that right? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Yes - I think Anthony makes the case very well and gives a clearer response to Chris than I did! I think the distinction between landuse=forest (where the tracks - and even roads - are normally regarded as part of the forest) and some of the other landuse= is sensible. I also agree that there is a different set of criteria that apply between the abutment and the cut-across cases. As for a new landuse=road_something, that seems helpful for micro-mapping, especially in urban areas. I would counsel against using landuse=right_of_way, however, because the term right of way has specific legal implications in some jurisdictions and might not apply in all cases (e.g. a private or unadopted residential road). In the UK, at least, the highway in law usually extends for the whole area between the adjacent land areas - i.e. it includes the carriageway upon which vehicles travel as well as the verges, which might be grass, dirt, paved footways (with or without cycleways), etc. Thus this area would normally completely fill the real-world 'gap' between adjacent landuse areas, e.g landuse=residential, commercial, farm, forest, etc. [Chris: a nice rural example near you would be the several green lanes in and around Great Barrow; some are private and others are footpaths, bridleways or even restricted byways. Most of the area was owned by the Marquess of Cholmondeley but when he sold most of it to individual farming landowners in 1919 he retained ownership of many of the green lanes - and to the best of my knowledge he is still the landowner of these between the fences/hedges that separate them on either side from the adjacent farmland.] This suggests that the area tag might even be landuse=highway! Mike Harris _ From: Anthony [mailto:o...@inbox.org] Sent: 06 October 2009 17:30 To: John Smith; c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it (not at intersections, though). There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding property boundaries. I'm quite aware of that, and that's why I think there should be a landuse=right_of_way, completely separate from the highway. I wonder, how do others define highway, if not as a path of travel? It contains such things as roads, sidewalks, and dirt paths, and presumably also includes paths of travel which are completely unbuilt (the unpaved grass on the side of the road gets a highway tag, right?). landuse=road_reserve ? I'm not sure they're always used for roads, but good enough! I'm planning on implementing this, probably in the next few weeks (though it may be a few months, and I may have a small scale run within a week or two). Should I use landuse=road_reserve, landuse=right_of_way, or not bother tagging those areas at all? On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Morley c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk wrote: Landuse areas which cross a large number of ways are very common. Surely you don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large number of separated areas separated by the paths and tracks? In that case, you shouldn't, because the paths and tracks are part of the forest. Likewise, you wouldn't split the landuse at a service highway which goes through a landuse=commercial. But that's not an example of landuse abutting a highway, it's an example of a highway cutting through a landuse. Landuse and highway are really independent concepts, aren't they? The main counterexample where you *would* have a landuse abutting a highway is in the case of pedestrian areas, which are tagged as highway in addition to being tagged as landuse, right? Whether or not a highway should cut through a landuse=residential or landuse=farm is probably jurisdiction dependent. Where I live there are specific areas of land set aside for roads and other specific areas of land set aside for houses. Seems to me like a clear case for separate landuse areas, no? If you don't have the data to separate out the two, that's fine. I don't mind highway ways cutting through landuse areas so much. But that's not the same as using the highway way as the border to your landuse area. The only way I can see doing that is when the landuse area is *also* a highway area. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: On 06/10/09 15:18, Dave Stubbs wrote: a) what are you actually marking? - no name in OSM -- we know that already - the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again? Probably not, no. Just as when a mapper adds a postbox, someone else doesn't think he's added a postbox. I should go and check that there's actually a postbox there. I agree that in this case you are noting a negative, not a positive, and that's more unusual. But I think the same principle applies. You trust other mappers to map sanely unless there's evidence to the contrary. - the road definitely hasn't got a name -- it definitely hasn't got a swimming pool in the middle of it either, but I'm not putting swimming_pool=no Right. But most roads have names, and names are useful for navigation. Names being missing when they shouldn't be is therefore bad. Right, that's why we highlight them at all. It doesn't then follow that names being missing when they should be is also bad, which is the point here. The swimming pool point is a slippery slope argument, but in fact the slope isn't at all slippery. Names are different to swimming pools. AFAIK, no-one has genuinely suggested swimming_pool=no, or in fact any other =no type thing apart from names. I agree, simming_pool=yes, incline=yes would definitely be a slippery slope. But actually yes, they have suggested other tags for no. Examples include the language variants so noname:es=yes, refs, to entirely generic systems of tagging designed to specify any tag you like as deliberately not put on. In general we do not tag negatives, you regard name as somehow special in this regard which is of course up to you, but I don't. - mappers don't go looking for unnamed streets that definitely have no name -- well, whatever, they can put the post boxes and address data in while they're there. Except that many people like to map with a method that gets the map to a base level of usefulness (say, all roads present and correctly named) across an area first, and then add details later. Sure, but if you're chasing a single unnamed road then you've already hit that level of completion anyway. Obviously if you don't want to map that extra level of detail you don't have to, but hey, what else you going to do :-) [snip] What I don't get is why people opposed to marking noname roads as noname actually mind. What offends you about tags you don't care about? Personally, nothing. As I said YMMV, there are different opinions, tag how you want. Russ asked for a decision to be made. I made it. He asked for an explanation, I gave it. And I'm almost certain he doesn't agree, but then that's what happens when you ask for someone else's advice :-) Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
2009/10/7 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net: On 06/10/09 16:49, Jonathan Bennett wrote: It's useful *as a guide*, or a tool. What some people seem to be unable to grasp is that *it's OK for a road to appear in red on NoNames*. You don't have to eliminate them completely. It's just a guide, not a gospel. A road appearing in red means that there's a possibility of there being missing information in the map. In one sense, of course that's OK. The map has missing information all over the place. But what do we do with missing information we know is missing? We try and put it in, to make the map better and more complete. Basically, opposing the noname stuff is saying you need to keep in your head a list of all the roads in your area which genuinely have no name, in order to prevent yourself visiting them again to add the name in. And every mapper in an area has to do that. Isn't that right? Yes and keep it to yourself, don't bother telling anyone else since they really want to waste their time finding out there is no name, after the 10th person does this I'm sure someone has a right to be upset. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
2009/10/7 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net: On 06/10/09 05:37, John Smith wrote: It sounds like he made it to see which roads needed surveying to acquire their name, however I'm still confused why people use noname=yes when the street does have a name but not a street sign, as I posted before there is actually a few streets near here on the golf course which really aren't named, the buildings a just unit numbers. If you know the street has a name but there's no sign, remove the noname tag and put the name in :-) My point was to distinguish streets with no name, verses streets with no sign, due to slack councils or vandelism or what not. That seems like a fairly European-city-centric view to me. There are loads of unnamed roads across rural England, across Europe, and in other countries around the world. And not all of them are such because their sign has been vandalised. I have no idea about Europe/England to be honest, never been in any European countries. Also euro-centric views tend to clash on occasion with Australian views. Most roads in Australia tend to be named, even some basic concrete slab colvets that aren't even real bridges get named. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] England, Wales, Scotland borders
The regional development agencies have quite big budgets, actually. But I'd agree that England needs to have it's own level. Richard On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Igor Brejc igor.brejc at gmail.com writes: For days now I've been trying to figure out how I could render borders between England, Wales and Scotland using OSM data, 1. Borders between these countries are tagged with the same admin_level=4 as that of subdivisions inside England (example: North East England, http://osm.org/go/evykef-?relation=151164). Now I'm not a constitutional expert, but I think Wales and Scotland represent different level of territorial division than just a collection of England's counties. Agreed. These English regions are largely spurious (they have some kind of 'development agency' with a small budget, but no real political existence or power) and certainly not equivalent to the border between England and Scotland or between federal states in countries like the USA or Germany. They look very odd on the main slippy map. I propose to just retag them as anything other than admin_level=4, any objections? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote: This suggests that the area tag might even be landuse=highway! Hey, I could go for that. I've already clearly separated the meaning of the term highway when dealing with OSM from the meaning of the term highway that I'd use in non-OSM situations. landuse=highway an area of land set aside for public use in transportation Should I add it to the wiki as a proposal? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
2009/10/6 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Yes and keep it to yourself, don't bother telling anyone else since they really want to waste their time finding out there is no name,a after the 10th person does this I'm sure someone has a right to be upset. If you have 10 people in the same area chasing an unnamed road then a noname tag isn't going to solve the actual problem. A road in OSM that has been surveyed by a single person is tagged identically to a road that has a dozen gps tracks and has been checked by several people. The fact that a road has no name is irrelevant. A road with a name is also potentially incorrect and needs to be checked. Currently those 10 people will end up checking the same areas multiple times while some areas don't get checked at all. The problem is that there is no way to communicate the verification level or an object in the database. If the 10 people want to verify the data in an efficient and systematic way then they they need to organise between themselves and store information outside the database. It's a problem that needs a general solution not a single tag that works in a very specific case. -- DavidD ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] England, Wales, Scotland borders
2009/10/6 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: The regional development agencies have quite big budgets, actually. But I'd agree that England needs to have it's own level. I think admin_level=5 and an update to the wiki might be the best move. Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
2009/10/7 DavidD thewi...@gmail.com: 2009/10/6 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Yes and keep it to yourself, don't bother telling anyone else since they really want to waste their time finding out there is no name,a after the 10th person does this I'm sure someone has a right to be upset. If you have 10 people in the same area chasing an unnamed road then a noname tag isn't going to solve the actual problem. A road in OSM that has been surveyed by a single person is tagged identically to a road that has a dozen gps tracks and has been checked by several people. The fact that a road has no name is irrelevant. A road with a name is also potentially incorrect and needs to be checked. Currently those 10 people will end up checking the same areas multiple times while some areas don't get checked at all. The problem is that there is no way to communicate the verification level or an object in the database. If the 10 people want to verify the data in an efficient and systematic way then they they need to organise between themselves and store information outside the database. It's a problem that needs a general solution not a single tag that works in a very specific case. That's assuming they aren't just doing this as a side thing as they travel about, potentially going out of their way to get the name of a street that has no name or no street sign, so communicating that is important beyond any local grouping. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
Why not - it seems as good as any other idea - of course someone is going to object (;) but ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: dipie...@gmail.com [mailto:dipie...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: 06 October 2009 19:03 To: Mike Harris Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote: This suggests that the area tag might even be landuse=highway! Hey, I could go for that. I've already clearly separated the meaning of the term highway when dealing with OSM from the meaning of the term highway that I'd use in non-OSM situations. landuse=highway an area of land set aside for public use in transportation Should I add it to the wiki as a proposal? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New mailing list - annou...@openstreetmap.org
Jonathan Bennett wrote: Another new mailing list has been created: annou...@openstreetmap.org You can subscribe here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/announce Announce is a moderated list limited to announcements about OSM services, new software versions and any other really, really important news that affects the whole community. This will be a low-volume, no-chatter list that should be safe to subscribe to, even for the smallest of mailbox allowances. Sysadmins, maintainers: Please mail announce when you release new versions or plan downtime. I welcome this addition. To keep this low volume and to facilitate discussion on the subjects of the posts in the correct place, would it be conducive if the senders recommend an appropriate forum, maybe even starting a discussion thread in said forum? Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New mailing list - annou...@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Dave F. wrote: I welcome this addition. To keep this low volume and to facilitate discussion on the subjects of the posts in the correct place, would it be conducive if the senders recommend an appropriate forum, maybe even starting a discussion thread in said forum? It's a moderated forum, so they moderator will either be overwhelmed by junk postings or allow only suitable individuals to post. So a note in any mail which will point to the place where discussion is expected would be helpful. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
Gervase Markham wrote: On 06/10/09 15:18, Dave Stubbs wrote: a) what are you actually marking? - no name in OSM -- we know that already - the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again? Probably not, no. Just as when a mapper adds a postbox, someone else doesn't think he's added a postbox. I should go and check that there's actually a postbox there. Yes! We should!! I've seen postboxes, shops, pubs restaurants placed on the wrong road let a lone in the incorrect place on the right road! I don't even trust my own mapping (especially my GPS recording) would welcome people checking my data. I'm gob-smacked by an attitude I've seen in OSM of believing blindly that the first only trace of a route is automatically spot on!! This laissez faire attitude to accuracy within OSM astounds me. The more uploaded GPX traces/checks of a route the better. Surely? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway
Tagging: landuse=highway Applies-to: area Definition: an area of land set aside for public use in transportation Land which is set aside for public use as a roadway, footway, cycleway, etc. The actual road or path may or may not have already been built. This tag should not be used for areas of land within a larger area of land already designated for public use, such as a path through a park. It also should not be used on privately owned land where use is not restricted by the state (e.g. private roads, private driveways, private parking lots). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fwd: [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway
Im forwarding this to the tagg...@openstreetmap.org list for discussions. Cheers, Sam -- Forwarded message -- From: Anthony o...@inbox.org Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:58:03 -0400 Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway To: openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org Tagging: landuse=highway Applies-to: area Definition: an area of land set aside for public use in transportation Land which is set aside for public use as a roadway, footway, cycleway, etc. The actual road or path may or may not have already been built. This tag should not be used for areas of land within a larger area of land already designated for public use, such as a path through a park. It also should not be used on privately owned land where use is not restricted by the state (e.g. private roads, private driveways, private parking lots). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway
Sorry, I forgot the URL: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote: Im forwarding this to the tagg...@openstreetmap.org list for discussions. Cheers, Sam -- Forwarded message -- From: Anthony o...@inbox.org Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:58:03 -0400 Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway To: openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org Tagging: landuse=highway Applies-to: area Definition: an area of land set aside for public use in transportation Land which is set aside for public use as a roadway, footway, cycleway, etc. The actual road or path may or may not have already been built. This tag should not be used for areas of land within a larger area of land already designated for public use, such as a path through a park. It also should not be used on privately owned land where use is not restricted by the state (e.g. private roads, private driveways, private parking lots). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans ___ Tagging mailing list tagg...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
2009/10/7 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: The more uploaded GPX traces/checks of a route the better. Surely? It would be more useful to know what created the traces also, some units are bound to be better than others and knowing this you would be able to weight the tracks rather than treat them all as equal. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] huisnummers controle
Philip Homburg wrote: Ik zou in moeilijke gevallen gewoon alle huisnummers individueel taggen. Dat is ook het uiteindelijke doel. De interpolatielijnen zijn bedacht als tijdelijke oplossing, totdat elk huis individueel is gemapt. Dat laatste is echter stukken makkelijker en sneller te doen in gebieden met goede yahoodekking, wat het in grote stukken van NL nog niet realistisch maakt. -- Lennard ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] huisnummers controle
In your letter dated Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:03:44 +0200 (CEST) you wrote: individueel taggen gaat niet lukken want het probleem is dat sommige huizen in die straten dus 2 nummers hebben. ze staan ook echt beide op de deuren. Je kan dan toch twee nodes vlak naast elkaar maken voor die twee nummers? ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] huisnummers controle
++ 06/10/09 15:03 +0200 - Floris Looijesteijn: ik blijf voor de normale straten voorlopig geloven in de interpolatielijnen. het kan mij echt niet boeien waar een huis precies is, 100 meter is goed genoeg. je kunt in de steden toch bijna nooit voor de deur parkeren. [...] Hoe wel ik denk ik iets nauwkeurig werk dan 100 meter is mijn overweging gelijk. Dingen die in dit stadium interesant zijn, is bijvoorbeeld weten of voor een bepaald huisnummer op een kruising of T-splitsing links of rechts moet, aan welk straatkant de even nummers zijn, etc. IMHO is het belangrijk (essentieel eigenlijk) dat die huisnummers er in komen te staan. De nauwkeurigheid op de meter (kan dat eigenlijk wel, anders dan met een overlay van een satelietfoto?) en dergelijke zijn wat mij betreft een latere zorg. -- Rejo Zenger . r...@zenger.nl . 0x21DBEFD4 . https://rejo.zenger.nl GPG encrypted e-mail prefered. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] huisnummers controle
de 100 meter nauwkeurigheid was een wilde gok aan de hand van de langste straten die ik tot nu toe heb ingevoerd en de ranges van huisnummers. ik probeer ook zo nauwkeurig mogelijk te werken bij het invoeren maar als ik met de auto aan kom rijden is binnen 100 meter van het huisnummer beland voor mij goed genoeg. als ie inderdaad maar wel in juiste stuk van de straat uitkomt. http://floris.nu/osm/amsterdam/huisnummers/huisnummers.png is gister trouwens weer geupdate :) ik ga vanavond weer aan de slag om te proberen rejo in te halen :) groet, floris Rejo Zenger wrote: ++ 06/10/09 15:03 +0200 - Floris Looijesteijn: ik blijf voor de normale straten voorlopig geloven in de interpolatielijnen. het kan mij echt niet boeien waar een huis precies is, 100 meter is goed genoeg. je kunt in de steden toch bijna nooit voor de deur parkeren. [...] Hoe wel ik denk ik iets nauwkeurig werk dan 100 meter is mijn overweging gelijk. Dingen die in dit stadium interesant zijn, is bijvoorbeeld weten of voor een bepaald huisnummer op een kruising of T-splitsing links of rechts moet, aan welk straatkant de even nummers zijn, etc. IMHO is het belangrijk (essentieel eigenlijk) dat die huisnummers er in komen te staan. De nauwkeurigheid op de meter (kan dat eigenlijk wel, anders dan met een overlay van een satelietfoto?) en dergelijke zijn wat mij betreft een latere zorg. -- Rejo Zenger . r...@zenger.nl . 0x21DBEFD4 . https://rejo.zenger.nl GPG encrypted e-mail prefered. ___ 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] huisnummers controle
Quoting Philip Homburg pch-osm-tal...@u-1.phicoh.com: In your letter dated Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:03:44 +0200 (CEST) you wrote: individueel taggen gaat niet lukken want het probleem is dat sommige huizen in die straten dus 2 nummers hebben. ze staan ook echt beide op de deuren. Je kan dan toch twee nodes vlak naast elkaar maken voor die twee nummers? De Map features page vermeldt het volgende voor huisnummers: The house number (may contain non-digits). If a single entry has multiple house numbers, separate them by ,. e.g. 12b,12c. Only required key for an address (except when addr:housename is used), all others are optional. Ik heb dat zelf ook toegepast: http://osm.org/go/ckzm...@q- Hier zijn huisnummers zo onregelmatig dat ik ze maar allemaal individueel tag. Gelukkig is er wel Yahoo coverage, maar de kwaliteit is zo belabberd dat ik vaak geen individuele huizen kan ontdekken... Overigens snap ik niet waarom voor de komma als separator is gekozen. Voor highway refs wordt daarentegen vaak de puntkomma gebruikt. Ik heb deze zelf ook toegepast. Groeten, Frank ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] huisnummers controle
Quoting Rejo Zenger osm-talk...@subs.krikkit.nl: De Map features page vermeldt het volgende voor huisnummers: The house number (may contain non-digits). If a single entry has multiple house numbers, separate them by ,. e.g. 12b,12c. Only required key for an address (except when addr:housename is used), all others are optional. Ja, dat is inderdaad ook een manier, maar die heeft een ander nadeel je kunt geen interpolatie toepassen. Wat je wilt werkt wel, maar niet als je massa's aan nummers wilt of moet invoeren. Dit is bedoeld voor losse huisnummers. Voor interpolatie heeft dit geen zin. Overigens snap ik niet waarom voor de komma als separator is gekozen. Voor highway refs wordt daarentegen vaak de puntkomma gebruikt. Ik heb deze zelf ook toegepast. Die heb je toegepast voor de highway refs, of voor de huisnummers? Puntkomma voor de highway refs, en komma voor de huisnummers. In beide gevallen heb ik de methode gevolgd die me gangbaar leek. Het is al te lang geleden om na te gaan waar ik het gebruik van puntkomma's voor highway refs vandaan haalde. Frank ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelnetwerk twente
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Rik de Landloper schreef: Ik vind het zelf het leukste / zinvolste om puur de fysieke eigenschappen van wegen en paden in OSM te mappen. Om alle bordjes en paaltjes met ingewikkelde coderingen te gaan noteren, zie ik de lol niet echt van in. Eigenlijk zou je gewoon een Coutour HD mee moeten hebben ;) Direct de hele route op film. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREKAAYFAkrLwOoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3YpACeMUpGAjBkW2cGczfhrnTXhx0v FRUAn2b49z4aKcO3CKt1DSTmIIQuehXs =jfMB -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelnetwerk twente
On Tuesday 06 October 2009 23:40:25 Rik de Landloper wrote: een dienst genaamd routeyou http://www.routeyou.com die die dit als ik het goed zie onder een CC-licentie doet: http://www.routeyou.com/page/view/23/terms-of-use.nl Bovenaan die pagina: RouteYou grants you permission to display, download and copy the materials and information on this web site provided that: * It is used for noncommercial use only and it is not modified in any way. * You make only copies for your personal non commercial use * You do not remove any copyright notice or proprietary notices from the materials * You do not transfer materials on this web site to other persons En een stukje verderop: Routes, information or any materials that you create, add or post on this site are considered to fall under the license of creative commons attribution 2.0 of Belgium as defined by the creative commons organization on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/be. Er staat helemaal niets over sa (Share Alike) op die pagina. Bovendien maken die personal non commercial regels het helemaal incompatible met OSM. Dus alsjeblieft niet uploaden naar OSM. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelnetwerk twente
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:12 +0200, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Rik de Landloper schreef: Ik vind het zelf het leukste / zinvolste om puur de fysieke eigenschappen van wegen en paden in OSM te mappen. Om alle bordjes en paaltjes met ingewikkelde coderingen te gaan noteren, zie ik de lol niet echt van in. Eigenlijk zou je gewoon een Coutour HD mee moeten hebben ;) Direct de hele route op film. Pas op wat je zegt. Als ik die helm opzet, dan zet ik zo een hele batterij OSM-ers aan het editen, terwijl ik lekker buiten loop te struinen. Wat zullen we vandaag eens gaan taggen, hmm ... grassprietjes ? - Not all those who wander are lost http://www.landloper.org ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelnetwerk twente
Rik de Landloper wrote: Hallo, Ik ga komend weekend in Twente wandelen en ben mijn route aan het voorbereiden. Ik kwam op de wiki de wandelroutes-pagina tegen: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Nederland_Wandelroutes Hierdoor kwam ik op het spoor van het wandelroutenetwerk in Twente http://www.wandelenintwente.nl die zijn gehele netwerk via gpx-files aanbiedt via een dienst genaamd routeyou http://www.routeyou.com die die dit als ik het goed zie onder een CC-licentie doet: http://www.routeyou.com/page/view/23/terms-of-use.nl Ik vind het zelf het leukste / zinvolste om puur de fysieke eigenschappen van wegen en paden in OSM te mappen. Om alle bordjes en paaltjes met ingewikkelde coderingen te gaan noteren, zie ik de lol niet echt van in. Maar ik vind het aan de andere kant wel handig als die routes als achtergrondruis in mijn gps geladen staan. Kortom ik ben nu dus bezig die routes naar binnen te halen en in een groot gpx bestand te zetten. Vinden de routelopers het zinvol als ik die gpx meteen in de OSM kaart laadt met tags type=route,route=walking,network=rwn,name=wandelnetwerk_twente erop ? Dag Rik, Helaas kunnen wij niet zomaar die informatie overnemen. Ze gebruiken wel CC, maar niet onder de share-alike versie. Dit is minimaal vereist om in OSM te hergebruiken. Verder melden ze bovenin al dat het alleen voor niet-comercieel gebruik is, en dat je de data niet elders voor mag gebruiken (overnemen in OSM bijvoorbeeld). Wat je wel zou kunnen doen is hen aanschrijven met de vraag of ze hun data wel aan OpenStreetMap ter beschikking willen stellen. Ik kan niet inschatten of ze hiervoor open zouden staan, maar niet geschoten is altijd mis. Verder kun je natuurlijk ook deze vraag voorleggen aan Wandelnetwerk Twente. Ook al zou RouteYou of Wandelnetwerk Twente wel een OSM-compatible CC-licentie gebruiken (dus commercieel, gelijk delen, al dan niet met attributie), dan zou dit strikt genomen niet hoeven, maar het is wel netter om hen op de hoogte te stellen. Misschien zijn ze wel geneigd om zelf de OSM kaart als achtergrond te gebruiken :) Dat kan ook met de Google Maps API. Tenslotte veel plezier. Als je in de omgeving van Oldenzaal of Ootmarsum gaat wandelen, kan ik een deel van de tags checken, omdat ik daar redelijk goed bekend ben. Alhoewel dat misschien niet voor alle wandelpaden geldt ;) Groeten, Frank ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelnetwerk twente
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Rik de Landloper schreef: Pas op wat je zegt. Als ik die helm opzet, dan zet ik zo een hele batterij OSM-ers aan het editen, terwijl ik lekker buiten loop te struinen. Wat zullen we vandaag eens gaan taggen, hmm ... grassprietjes ? En je helpt mensen zoals Tijs aan data voor eventueel verkeersbordjes, ANWB paddestoelen etc. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREKAAYFAkrLxQYACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn212QCeICb/upIRn47rhyqC0aCwmtlq 5cYAninpJLjDoy8wwnCB/kforAMNlhHj =NqHw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelnetwerk twente
2009/10/7 Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org: Helaas kunnen wij niet zomaar die informatie overnemen. Ze gebruiken wel CC, maar niet onder de share-alike versie. Dit is minimaal vereist om in OSM te hergebruiken. Verder melden ze bovenin al dat het alleen voor niet-comercieel gebruik is, en dat je de data niet elders voor mag gebruiken (overnemen in OSM bijvoorbeeld). Geen share-alike is geen probleem: van share-alike naar niet kan niet, maar van niets naar share-alike wel. Die andere voorwaarden zijn echter wel problematisch. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelnetwerk twente
Frank en Cortinus bedankt voor de attentie op het ontbreken van SA. Wat je wel zou kunnen doen is hen aanschrijven met de vraag of ze hun data wel aan OpenStreetMap ter beschikking willen stellen. Ik kan niet inschatten of ze hiervoor open zouden staan, maar niet geschoten is altijd mis. Verder kun je natuurlijk ook deze vraag voorleggen aan Wandelnetwerk Twente. Ook al zou RouteYou of Wandelnetwerk Twente wel een OSM-compatible CC-licentie gebruiken (dus commercieel, gelijk delen, al dan niet met attributie), dan zou dit strikt genomen niet hoeven, maar het is wel netter om hen op de hoogte te stellen. Misschien zijn ze wel geneigd om zelf de OSM kaart als achtergrond te gebruiken :) Dat kan ook met de Google Maps API. Ik ben inderdaad van plan om dit soort akties te gaan ondernemen. Maar ik wil eerst even de wiki doorspitten, want ik herinner me dat er ergens een plek was waar dit soort akties gecoordineerd werd. In plaats van mijn helm neem ik iig mijn mobieltje met camera en voice-recorder mee. Als het aantal bordjes en routeaanduidingen een beetje binnen de perken blijft zal ik ze iig fotograferen. Ik zal eens kijken of het handig is om ze via openstreetphoto.org te plaatsen. Groet, Rik - Not all those who wander are lost http://www.landloper.org ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelnetwerk twente
Andre Engels wrote: 2009/10/7 Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org: Helaas kunnen wij niet zomaar die informatie overnemen. Ze gebruiken wel CC, maar niet onder de share-alike versie. Dit is minimaal vereist om in OSM te hergebruiken. Verder melden ze bovenin al dat het alleen voor niet-comercieel gebruik is, en dat je de data niet elders voor mag gebruiken (overnemen in OSM bijvoorbeeld). Geen share-alike is geen probleem: van share-alike naar niet kan niet, maar van niets naar share-alike wel. Die andere voorwaarden zijn echter wel problematisch. Klopt. Ik dacht even dat het ontbreken van share-alike betekent dat je het niet wilt delen, maar dan moet je no derivative gebruiken. Maar betekent het dan niet dat als je een afgeleid werk maakt (zeg OSM) dat dat niet per se onder dezelfde licentie hoeft, dus voor het theoretische geval dat we deze data in OSM willen overnemen, vervalt de non commercial clausule? ;) Blij dat ik geen advocaat ben... Frank ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelnetwerk twente
Frank Steggink wrote: Andre Engels wrote: 2009/10/7 Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org: Helaas kunnen wij niet zomaar die informatie overnemen. Ze gebruiken wel CC, maar niet onder de share-alike versie. Dit is minimaal vereist om in OSM te hergebruiken. Verder melden ze bovenin al dat het alleen voor niet-comercieel gebruik is, en dat je de data niet elders voor mag gebruiken (overnemen in OSM bijvoorbeeld). Geen share-alike is geen probleem: van share-alike naar niet kan niet, maar van niets naar share-alike wel. Die andere voorwaarden zijn echter wel problematisch. Klopt. Ik dacht even dat het ontbreken van share-alike betekent dat je het niet wilt delen, maar dan moet je no derivative gebruiken. Maar betekent het dan niet dat als je een afgeleid werk maakt (zeg OSM) dat dat niet per se onder dezelfde licentie hoeft, dus voor het theoretische geval dat we deze data in OSM willen overnemen, vervalt de non commercial clausule? ;) Blij dat ik geen advocaat ben... Frank Ach, wat weet ik nou van licenties af. Mocht ik ooit tegen een interessante bron aanlopen, dan ga ik zelf wel contact opnemen, en niet de gehanteerde licentie naar eigen goeddunken interpreteren. Wel zo veilig. Frank ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] natural=land v natural=coastline
2009/10/6 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com: On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:32:49 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Lake Gairdner and Lake Torrens are natural=coastline Well there both now natural=water as they are both single ways less than 1000 nodes and there's no need for them to be natural=coastline. Since the number of nodes is so low I can only guess it may have been a tagging mistake or was intentional to get it to render at z5 or lower... Also Lake Eyre renders for me at z6 on maps.bigtincan.com... The other lakes render before that, up to z2... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] natural=land v natural=coastline
I just updated all the world boundaries and shore lines etc on maps.bigtincan.com and this is the dates of files: -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 3461233 Mar 10 2007 builtup_area.dbf -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001279020 Mar 10 2007 builtup_area.index -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 513 Mar 10 2007 builtup_area.prj -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 13378292 Mar 10 2007 builtup_area.shp -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001291556 Mar 10 2007 builtup_area.shx -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 15440 Mar 10 2007 places.dbf -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 333 Mar 10 2007 places.prj -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 7128 Mar 10 2007 places.shp -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 2108 Mar 10 2007 places.shx -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4587079 Oct 6 00:20 processed_p.dbf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2139804 Oct 6 00:21 processed_p.index -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 410634792 Oct 6 00:20 processed_p.shp -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3669660 Oct 6 00:20 processed_p.shx -rw-r--r-- 1 1004 1004 3078665 Oct 3 12:58 shoreline_300.dbf -rw-r--r-- 1 1004 1004 1332456 Oct 3 12:58 shoreline_300.index -rw-r--r-- 1 1004 1004 89770164 Oct 3 12:58 shoreline_300.shp -rw-r--r-- 1 1004 1004 2052500 Oct 3 12:58 shoreline_300.shx -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 4145601 Mar 9 2007 world_bnd_m.dbf -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001250968 Sep 10 2007 world_bnd_m.index -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 355 Mar 9 2007 world_bnd_m.prj -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 48495316 Mar 9 2007 world_bnd_m.shp -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001249444 Mar 9 2007 world_bnd_m.shx -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001673969 Mar 31 2008 world_boundaries_m.dbf -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 86700 Mar 31 2008 world_boundaries_m.index -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 355 Mar 31 2008 world_boundaries_m.prj -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 6669352 Mar 31 2008 world_boundaries_m.shp -rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1001 30556 Mar 31 2008 world_boundaries_m.shx I think the processed_p files are coastlines, z10- I think. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Twitter like emails
G'day all, Any chance folks could take some conversations offline, or batch up their 15 emails into a single email? I presume I'm not the only one who has pretty well stopped paying any real attention to the talk-au list because its carrying on like a Twitter feed. Jeff.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Twitter like emails
2009/10/6 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Jeff Price wrote: G'day all, Any chance folks could take some conversations offline, or batch up their 15 emails into a single email? I presume I'm not the only one who has pretty well stopped paying any real attention to the talk-au list because its carrying on like a Twitter feed. Jeff. if you get the list emailed as a digest ( an option you can set at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ) you have that easily. Alternatively emails can be either sent to a new mail account just for mailing list(s) emails or filtered differently from personal emails. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] natural=land v natural=coastline
On 06/10/2009, at 2:12 PM, John Smith wrote: Lake Eyre etc is so big they used natural=coastline... Although this comes back to the question the other day, where does the coastline start/end, legally speaking it cuts across bays, it doesn't go round them or up rivers... I looked into this a while back and it's somewhat contentious. The best I could figure out (which is quite possibly wrong) is that a coastline ends and a river starts when there are no longer any tidal significant effects. It's easiest to see if you have a slope, such as a sandy beach. Consider the following, where at some point the high and low tide levels get close enough to be negligable 1 sand 2 high tide ---\ 3 sand / water -- 6 4 low tide --- / 5 water (1) is a polygon with natural=beach;surface=sand (2) is the way with natural=coastline (3) is a polygon with water=tidal;surface=sand (6) is waterway=riverbank At the point where it changes from coastline to riverbank, you obviously need to have the coastline run across the river, so as to form closed shape. Whether you're supposed to have the riverbank do the same to form a closed shape, I don't know. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Why not to change coastlines automatically to ABS data.
On 05/10/2009, at 3:59 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote: So PLEASE look at the sat photos and already entered data before you go removing the coastline and using the ABS data automatically as the coastline. As a +1 comment, I'd also like to note that in many places the ABS follow the sand-grass/tree/dirt line, rather than the high-tide line that natural=coastline is supposed to represent. If there is a place where the ABS data is a consistently a bit inland of the PGS data for a stretch, check if it's a beach. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] natural=land v natural=coastline
2009/10/6 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: On 06/10/2009, at 2:12 PM, John Smith wrote: Lake Eyre etc is so big they used natural=coastline... Although this comes back to the question the other day, where does the coastline start/end, legally speaking it cuts across bays, it doesn't go round them or up rivers... I looked into this a while back and it's somewhat contentious. The best I could figure out (which is quite possibly wrong) is that a coastline ends and a river starts when there are no longer any tidal significant effects. It's easiest to see if you have a slope, such as a sandy beach. Consider the following, where at some point the high and low tide levels get close enough to be negligable I realise this is potentially a very contensious issue. If you look at this from the point of view of territorial waters the coastline is from either the high or low tide marks, they spell it out in legalese and I can't remember off the top of my head, but the coast line cuts across any river/delta/bay mouths, except where the bay is partially inhabited by another country and then it's usually by seperate agreement. I honestly don't know which way is best to go here, since all definitions are reasonably subjective and would also depend on average tide conditions and so on and so forth. Another way we could look at this is to find out where salt and fresh water mix, but this too is probably tide and rainfall related. We also have the SRTM data which could be used to estimate elevation of water above mean sea levels, which would also depend on tide/rainfall at the time the STRM mission flew. At the point where it changes from coastline to riverbank, you obviously need to have the coastline run across the river, so as to form closed shape. Whether you're supposed to have the riverbank do the same to form a closed shape, I don't know. Actually it's the opposite, coastlines aren't really closed ways as there is no single coastline polygon or multipolygon, riverbanks on the other hand must be closed and must be either less than 2000 nodes or have a multipolygon relation. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] natural=land v natural=coastline
For OSM purposes (as opposed to general mapping) the answer should not
be complicated. If at high tide you drive into the water, you have
driven over a functional coast into the sea... :)
Of course, this won't work for mariners and lawyers... :)
My favourite estuary is the Fly River in PNG. It just gets gradually
wider and wider and wider. Somewhere the river becomes the ocean.
And there is no way to tell where it happens...
jim
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:35 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/6 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
On 06/10/2009, at 2:12 PM, John Smith wrote:
Lake Eyre etc is so big they used natural=coastline... Although this
comes back to the question the other day, where does the coastline
start/end, legally speaking it cuts across bays, it doesn't go round
them or up rivers...
I looked into this a while back and it's somewhat contentious. The
best I could figure out (which is quite possibly wrong) is that a
coastline ends and a river starts when there are no longer any tidal
significant effects. It's easiest to see if you have a slope, such as
a sandy beach. Consider the following, where at some point the high
and low tide levels get close enough to be negligable
I realise this is potentially a very contensious issue.
If you look at this from the point of view of territorial waters the
coastline is from either the high or low tide marks, they spell it out
in legalese and I can't remember off the top of my head, but the coast
line cuts across any river/delta/bay mouths, except where the bay is
partially inhabited by another country and then it's usually by
seperate agreement.
I honestly don't know which way is best to go here, since all
definitions are reasonably subjective and would also depend on average
tide conditions and so on and so forth.
Another way we could look at this is to find out where salt and fresh
water mix, but this too is probably tide and rainfall related.
We also have the SRTM data which could be used to estimate elevation
of water above mean sea levels, which would also depend on
tide/rainfall at the time the STRM mission flew.
At the point where it changes from coastline to riverbank, you
obviously need to have the coastline run across the river, so as to
form closed shape. Whether you're supposed to have the riverbank do
the same to form a closed shape, I don't know.
Actually it's the opposite, coastlines aren't really closed ways as
there is no single coastline polygon or multipolygon, riverbanks on
the other hand must be closed and must be either less than 2000 nodes
or have a multipolygon relation.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
--
_
Jim Croft ~ jim.cr...@gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] natural=land v natural=coastline
On 06/10/2009, at 11:37 PM, Jim Croft wrote: Of course, this won't work for mariners and lawyers... :) No, but there are (proposed) tags to indicate the low-tide mark, and the OpenSeaMap guys might have something for other various maritime boundaries. My favourite estuary is the Fly River in PNG. It just gets gradually wider and wider and wider. Somewhere the river becomes the ocean. And there is no way to tell where it happens... Yep, the problem with saying where the tidal effect are no longer significant or where fresh and sea water meet is that they're continuous, so you need some arbitrary limit. I'd say the only definite boundary would be to take the convex hull of the land mass. Of course, that means the Great Australian Bight would be a river, along with the Gulf of Carpentaria and the similar places and the like. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New CC-BY datasets due Monday 28 September on Government 2.0 Taskforce website
I forget who mentioned about some 15m error that was fixed in the property boundary data, but I actually found another error, is there some where we should report these errors? It looks like the road was realigned, the previous road was turned into a car park and the property boundary for the park wasn't updated, and that park seems a little out on number of sides, I assume it's council being slack. http://osm.org/go/ueTQqKQYc-- This screen shot shows where the road crossing into the park, or what was the park. http://map-data.bigtincan.com/data/realigned-road.png ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Mapping railway lines
Has anyone had success using a GPS unit inside a metal railway carriage to map a railway line? I notice that parts of the main line between Sydney and Melbourne are missing, eg: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.7446lon=147.886zoom=14layers=B000FTF I'd consider doing the trip on the XPT if someone has proven it's viable. And I've also had to move the railway line aside quite a distance when accurately adding roads in the Yass area. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
