On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>
> What harm could come from defining them?
Oh, I have nothing against proposing new shop values. I just think
that method might not result in the best outcome.
The way I see it, tagwatch is the ultimate vote counter for simple
things li
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Liz wrote:
>
> So its not that I'm disinterested in the wiki, I haven't got time to follow
> every part through an undifferentiated feed and so just ignore wiki votes.
The calls for voting sent via the list work for me...
_
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:53 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/13 Liz :
>> In Australia these places are rarely used for cars. There are plenty of them,
>> and in any town there will be at least one or two of these areas with "self-
>> storage sheds". Some people will store cars in them, but you can
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:11 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/9/14 Roy Wallace :
>
>> Or amenity=garages? IMO if it's an amenity, it should be tagged
>> amenity. Have a look at current documented values of landuse=* -
>> they're not amenities (except maybe landuse=ce
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM, "Marc Schütz" wrote:
>> > Since they're buildings wouldn't using a building=* tag be more
>> > accurate in describing them?
>>
>> Sure, they're buildings - but that just means a building tag should be
>> used *in addition to* tags giving more details.
>
> Not neces
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Valent Turkovic
wrote:
>
> How do you differentiate from path and footpath tag? What is the
> difference between them? Can you show me an example?
As the wiki says, briefly:
highway=path is "a generic path" (i.e. any path)
highway=footway (not "footpath") is "a
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2009/9/16 Shaun McDonald :
>
>> Oh please don't reopen the debate about the highway=path tag. Please read
>> the archives, there are some very, very, very long topics on this recently.
>
> I missed that as I was in holiday. What did you
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> There's a far larger issue, which I noticed on Garmin's proprietary map
> data. When searching for A, how does one map the desire A to the
> category scheme, and then enter it, and get the right answer? For
> restaurants, is it "American"
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem
> arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections,
> etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a
> geometrically reduced sys
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> I wasn't suggesting to map each lane separately, however an editor
> could display lanes and it would be so much better to display them as
> parallel ways which could be edited if they needed to be.
John, do you concede that there are some si
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> Because that's the primary purpose for which maps are created. To inform us
> how to get from place to place.
Be careful...big assumption.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.op
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:27 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> it simply isn't treated that way in all
> situation or each residential street would be 2 parallel ways, instead
> we use a single way to indication a pair of lanes, so which is it
> going to be do we need to split residential streets or do we
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:09 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> If we are tagging lanes not ways then we need to do so en masse, not
> have 2 different systems that exists at present.
First things first - 1) propose a way to tag lanes, 2) start using it
in parallel to the current system, and see if it wor
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:09 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/9/21 Anthony :
>> > Define "physically separated".
>>
>> The road base finishes or there is a concreate barrier or other form
>> of barrier that would prevent a car crossing, legall
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>
> > Can I check? Are there people here who are suggesting that, in my case,
> > they want to draw all four ways (yes, I know the footpath hasn't been
> > mapped yet) as a single way & specify the differences with lane tags?
>
> Camp one is -
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> John seems to combine everything into a single way and treat the individual
> "lanes" (some of the substructures aren't even really lanes) as
> substructures. Some people want to break every lane into a separate way,
> and combine them into sup
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> A bridge should probably have its
> own geometry. And if a bridge has its own geometry (polygon or line and
> width) and a layer tag you don't even need the relation, do you? Anything
> in the area of the bridge with the same layer is located
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> Camp three: multiple ways representing paths of travel, grouped with a
>> "bridge" relation to indicate they share a common bridge. This could
>> probably be seen as a compromise, and is (I think) a good interim
>> solution, if not a ver
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Dave F. wrote:
> Hi Peter
>> I can suggest to add bridge's physical form to this. Otherwise yeah,
>> why not. It would also help to indicate where bridge actually starts
>> and ends to help routing software logic.
>>
>>
> Why would routing software need to know the
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Dave F. wrote:
> Roy
>> Therefore, a
>> "bridge" relation would still be useful to indicate that multiple ways
>> share a bridge, for when the bridge geometry is unknown.
>>
>>
> 1. Why do the ways need to indicate they share a bridge?
No particular reason other
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>>> Camp one is - single way with lanes=4 + bridge section
>>> Camp two would prefer all elements mapped in which case the bridge WOULD
>>> be a separate element.
>>
>> Camp three: multiple ways representing paths of travel, grouped with a
>> "b
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Mike N. wrote:
>
> Since I haven't heard any counter points of view, how do we proceed with
> this? Based on previous comments, it should not just be "Edit the wiki
> page", or is this change small enough to just update the wiki?
If you're referring to defining
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Matt Williams wrote:
>
> Thoughts/comments/suggestions?
First, I am assuming you are interested in solutions that are possible
now, without major changes to the OSM database structure. etc.
In that case, use a relation. Two options:
1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Roy Wallace wrote:
>> In that case, use a relation. Two options:
>> 1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_Tag
>> 2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Dave F. wrote:
>
> Also, in this instance, how would disallowing True/False, 1/0 make it
> rigid or have less choice? Because they all represent the same options,
> nothing would be lost.
No one is arguing that information would be lost in this particular,
specific
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Richard Mann
wrote:
>
> So I'd much prefer a giveway instruction (giveway=yes or giveway=-1) on the
> way that gives way, probably on a node near the junction, and inferring the
> direction from the way that the node is on.
>
> I lost the will to read when much the
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, David Earl wrote:
> On 30/09/2009 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> you could model it like this (see attached, colours are just
>> indicating the ways, not highway-classes)
>
> Yes, that's also what I typically do, e.g.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
> What you and others simply fail to explain is why the success story from
> three years ago with a fraction of mappers and data must be the best
> solution for the situation we have today ...
This misses the point. If you think there should
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:05 PM, David Earl wrote:
>
> It shows visually which the "main" road is at the junction and is a good
> model of the physical arrangement.
IMHO it does not *explicitly* show the "continuations of roads at the
junction". And even if you do think it works "visually", that i
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:35 PM, David Earl wrote:
>>
>> Ah, so are you saying that, in Martin's attached image, the red way
>> and the yellow way should/could meet at the junction? If so, then IMHO
>> it is even *less* clear that, e.g. traveling from the red to the grey
>> way is a left turn, wher
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> I really do encourage you and all
> those calling for leadership to get together, form your own advisory
> board or tagging committee or whatever, create the structures you think
> are required, and then offer them for voluntary use by the c
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM, wrote:
> Frederik said
>>
>> All this is possible *within* the existing OSM framework and without any
>> strong leader telling us where to go. I really do encourage you and all
>> those calling for leadership to get together, form your own advisory
>> board or tag
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/10/3 Roy Wallace :
>>
>> Frederik's point is valid - if you want a tagging committee/working
>> group/whatever, start one. If you want an international tagging
>> committee, start one. If it's better tha
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM, James Livingston wrote:
>
> The problem isn't tied to a particular mechanism, it's a social
> problem where we currently don't have any form if power structure,
This isn't a problem in itself.
> and the one mechanism we have for choosing stuff (voting on the wiki)
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Arlindo Pereira wrote:
>
> So, I was wondering: Isn't it time for a higher zoom level?
Yeah, that'd be great, of course :)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> Isn't it better in most situations to have both (ways and areas)
> rather than just one or the other?
>
> At an intersection, yes, there is one squarish section of road that I
> am capable of traveling on in any spot in any direction. But the
>
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area?
> I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically
> be defining a way.
Good point. Anyone got ideas on this? Maybe it is indeed necessary to
map each high
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
>
> Maybe lines and areas each serve a different purpose : areas describe
> the physical layout of the world whereas lines describe navigation
> paths. So maybe the debate should be re-framed as whether OpenStreetMap
> wants to be a databas
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>
> The bottom line is that while adding 'width' tags all the way along a road may
> be a practical half way house, other area features are not handled the same
> way
> so why should roads be any different.
I think, because roads (ways) often
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:47 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> I've been seeing this thread develop, and apart from trying to use
> areas and relations in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways wouldn't
> it be simpler from a logical point of view to treat ways as a grouping
> of lanes and those lanes can
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>
> My point here is that the WAY information provides all of the direction
> details.
[snip]
> The area detail is simple defined areas 'grouped' with the way or ways that
> make up the
> route.
So in that case, you seem to be suggesting tha
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> But for people who want to do it [map areas], they should be able to. That's
>> what
>> this thread is about - giving them a way to map the world more
>> ac
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> Right now, what's stopping them?
>>
>> Documentation. Or, in other words, at least some suggestions as to how
>> to do it. For example, you'll notice that Map Features states that
>> highway's are ways, not areas.
>>
> Weird. http://wiki.ope
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:32 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> Is a lane a directed area? If it isn't an area, then it's not really
>> relevant to this thread, is it?
>
> That depends if you are you only after opinions that agree with yours,
> or if you really want a solution to a problem.
Which "proble
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Richard Bullock wrote:
>
> There's nothing stopping anyone mapping highways as areas.
>
> However, it could be a long time until routers and renderers catch up; the
> majority of the world wouldn't be able to position the areas accurately
> enough to make this wort
I have a couple of thoughts:
1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)
2) Re
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
> but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the
> failure of the committee process
> t
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an
> area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a
> "path" which is part of "reality"?
An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is somet
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Nop wrote:
>
>> So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
>> opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
>> from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
>> ever read). You must write it down
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> An area of grass is - to me - not a path.
>
> Never? Or just not generally?
I'll rephrase. The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag
an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would
help routing. Analogy: 1) J
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> Without good editor support, mapping highways as areas is already
> quite cumbersome.
It's not so bad, for areas with good aerial imagery (I wouldn't call
tracing "cumbersome"). And yes, not everywhere has good aerial
imagery, but then again not
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:03 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> A thought occurred to me, that people are only planning to use areas
> because editors don't easily allow for widths to be entered
> graphically.
To some extent, perhaps... but the real reason is because the inherent
nature of these objects i
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> Nice idea, BUT then you are limited to a series of rectangles. In some
>> situations, I think that will be too restrictive for not much gain.
>
> A series of quadrilaterals, perhaps. If width=10, then 50 metres
> later, width =15, I'd expe
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> interpolation. But approximation with trapezoids or whatever is a bit
>> fudgye.g. what if you *do* want to represent an instantaneous
>> change in widt
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Nop wrote:
>
> It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole
> planet.
>
> The real problem is that many people claim that there is no problem or
> that they have already solved it and everybody should just do as they do.
+1
> Several o
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> IMHO "Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country" is a bad
> solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.
+1
> Yes, but I would like us to define what the different national defaults are,
> so that everyone can
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>>
>> > IMHO "Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country" is a
>> > bad
>> > solution, if there is no need to piss off a
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> I wish we could codify these "general assumptions". Because they won't be
> universal, which means there is bad map data being generated.
I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
Besides being highly relevant to tho
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Richard Mann
wrote:
>
> I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
> other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
> the default.
Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
foot=
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> Am I out of line here? Of course I want to see a globally consistent, useful
> database. But ultimately, I want to see the most number of users happy with
> their local data. And if that means tags mean something slightly different
> in Cam
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>>
>> Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
>> foot=yes/no??
>>
>> I would have no problem with that, if it helped give
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>>
>> An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
>> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
>
> -1, a path is either planned and
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>>
>> I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
>> 1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
>>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
> way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent
> infinite overlapping criss-crossing "invisible-paths", like a
> pedestrian mall.
Not bad. But what m
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
>> successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
>> countries?
>
> What do you think? Work with me, here.
I think that would be a nightmare, and would not wo
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
>> 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
>> global consistency, and that that's important;
>> 2) people realise that editors can b
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Roy Wallace wrote:
>>
>>> Routing software that is aware of the local laws of each country seems
>>> obvious.
>>
>> Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
>> successfully di
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Liz wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Cartinus wrote:
>> > On Monday 30 November 2009 22:25:36 Roy Wallace wrote:
>> >> 1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way t
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Roy Wallace wrote:
>> The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
>> *require* "a database of all laws of all countries" to know what
>> highway=cycleway means. There should be one definitio
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>> If a German cycleway is *different*
>> in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
>> ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.
>
> what's the difference? Minimum width differs 5 cm? Kind of sign? F
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> "If I have data derived from OSM data, do I have to distribute it? The
> licence does not force you to distribute or make any data available. But if
> you do choose to distribute it, or anything derived from it, it must be
> under the
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> 2009/12/1 Frederik Ramm
>>
>> And then both axes are not really "boolean". Between the physically
>> possible and the physically impossible may lie an area that requires
>> more skill, better vehicles or simply means a higher risk
Apparently, OSM is lacking a bus:
http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2009/12/mapping-india-on-googles-internet-bus.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> I'll keep investigating the idea of a centralised rules table
> though.
Cool - if so, it might be interesting to see how this could relate to
the wiki also, not just renderers. Good luck :)
___
Check it out, originally "an email to Googlers about the meaning of
'open' as it relates to the Internet, Google, and our users", via:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html
"We can photograph the world's streets so that you can explore the
neighborhood around an apartment you
Via
http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2009/12/indigenous-mapping-new-google.html
"Google and the Indigenous Mapping Network are teaming up to put on a
two day workshop on the Google campus to teach people from native
communities how to use Google's mapping technologies."
I wonder if the "Indige
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if the "Indigenous Mapping Network" have heard of OSM?
>>
>
> No. Next question?
>
> Why? Google has brand power and solid PR department, which they aren't
> ashamed to put into use.
Why? Because it seems like a very nice (w
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> ... I view all this Google activity not with the same
> skepticism that others seem to have. I think someone who is mapping for
> Google is still better than someone who is not mapping at all!
That's not skepticism, but it's a good point :
Currently, it's my understanding that, if you're running Ubuntu and
want to contribute by tracing imagery, you have to follow the
instructions here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/WMSPlugin#On_Ubuntu_9.10_.27Karmic_Koala.27
Is this right? If so, it seems to me that this might be a
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 7:42 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/23 Roy Wallace :
>> Interestingly, there is NO mention of mapping data. Amazing. How can
>> they continue to omit this from the discussion?
>
> Actually thereg did a good run down on this:
>
> http://www.t
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 7:56 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> Any reason you want to use Yahoo imagery instead of NearMap?
NearMap doesn't seem to cover China just yet :)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tal
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> I'm perfectly fine with letting the people in council waste their time with
> subjective categorization and then either 1) copying the results, if they
> have some sort of legal distinction; or 2) ignoring them altogether, if they
> don't.
If yo
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Stephen Hope wrote:
>
> As long as you know the state default speed limit, this is easy to
> tag. It is exactly the same as a sign with that limit.
If so, just remember to indicate the source as discussed at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed
"In s
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> What software do people use to manage their GPX files? Mainly I want to be
> able to upload sections of GPX – rather than the whole thing – to Potlatch.
> And it might be nice to be able to combine a couple of traces into one long
> trace.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
>
> And that's just fine, GMM getting more users doesn't make OSM worse.
But there is a limited supply of people willing to become mappers. I
see it as a case of market share (between GMM and OSM).
__
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Aun Johnsen wrote:
>
> Instead of bashing on about Google do this and Google do that, ...
It's still interesting (for some) to keep an eye on what other
projects are doing...
> why not try
> to see how we can improve OSM standing, so that more people will be draw
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Ben Laenen wrote:
>
> So, numbers on signs about restrictions (maximum speed, maximum height,
> maximum length, maximum weight...): trailing zeros have no value, as those
> numbers are "exact".
Not necessarily. Perhaps the number on the sign came from a
measurement
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> I'm even tempted to draw a massive straight line between several
>> towns to indicate roads that I know exist but that I haven't
>> surveyed. Would this offend a lot of people here?
>
> That would be using a map a
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> There is no point endangering the
> genuinely collected data for the sake of some lazy copying.
This is not fairly worded. In Australia (and other sparsely populated
areas), it is not just "for the sake of some lazy copying" - this
issu
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Cartinus wrote:
>
> ... I get the impression that the group
> of Australians currently so active on the mailing list isn't lazy but they
> are certainly impatient.
Perhaps :) But my point is, if there may be legal ways to do this more
efficiently we should investig
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> You have to be able to "copy facts" from time to time.
> And that means you have to use your own judgment as to what constitutes a
> copyright infringement and what constitutes legitimate research.
"Use your own judgment"? On this issue, I don't
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Richard Mann
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps we do need to fork the project and create openmap.org so we can
>> get away from a fundamental belief that 'the road rules'? But all I am
>> 'shouting for' is that there are h
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> I find it incredibly strange that you're more comfortable relying on "the
> consensus" than your own judgment, but hey, whatever works for you.
To put it in other words for you, "as to what constitutes a copyright
infringement", I'm more confiden
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> To put it in other words for you, "as to what constitutes a copyright
>> infringement", I'm more confident in the consensus legal opinion than
>> in my own legal opinion.
>
> I wasn't aware that there was a consensus legal opinion as to what
> co
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> I haven't really decided, and I don't know where the line from
> "non-systematic" to "systematic" is.
I don't think anyone does. Hence it's near impossible to ensure you
don't step over it - which is why the "large majority of OSM mappers"
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:51 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but accuracy is important to some of us, and using
> commercial data is inaccurate, visiting is one way to get correct
> information, as is contacting the council responsible for the roads.
Absolutely, but consider these scenarios:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:15 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> Telstra, a carrier, won it's copyright case over companies copying
> from white/yellow pages in 2001:
>
> http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/articles_pdf/A01n09.pdf
For those who don't want to follow the link, the essence is:
"The Court conc
2010/1/6 Steve Bennett :
> Just a thought - I haven't thought this through - could relation be used to
> form a close relationship between a road and a track?
>
> Sorry if this has been mentioned before.
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations#Proposed_uses_of_Relations
for related concep
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Am 06.01.2010 15:41, schrieb Valent Turkovic:
>>
>> ... I didn't understand that people just use keys
>> that they want no matter it there aren't listed in OSM features list
>> on Wiki...
...
> If there's "no such thing" in the Map Features and
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> If this is the standard process, could it be documented? It's extremely
> unclear at the moment what the process is for getting new tags supported.
> You currently have this chicken-and-egg situation where you don't know if
> it's worth usi
1 - 100 of 335 matches
Mail list logo
