Re: [Tagging] OSMI layers in JOSM
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I don't want to make the whole layer transparent (I know how to do that), but only the background, i.e. I only want to see the errors. I thought that this TRANSPARENT=TRUE will achieve this, but either I applied it wrong or it simply doesn't work this way. Martin 2012/4/25 Sander Deryckere : > To make it transparent, you can use one of the buttons under the JOSM layer > pane. The pane, by default in the upper right corner, where you can move > layers up and down etc. > > I don't have a clue about the resolution. > > > Op 25 april 2012 10:28 schreef Martin Vonwald het > volgende: >> >> Hi all! >> >> I'm trying to view the OSMI layers in JOSM. The all-knowing, >> all-seeing trash heap pointed me to this (german) article: >> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9315 >> >> There it is recommended to use the following link in JOSM: >> >> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/view/routing/wxs?REQUEST=GetMap&SERVICE=wms&VERSION=1.1.1&FORMAT=image/png&SRS=EPSG:4326&STYLES=&LAYERS=unconnected_minor1,unconnected_minor2,unconnected_minor5,unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5&; >> >> This works like a charm, but with the limitations, that one has to >> adjust the resolution manually. Also I seem to be unable to get this >> layer transparent. In the article one wrote to add TRANSPARENT=TRUE to >> the link, but I can't get this working. >> >> Has anyone a hint for me how to get this layer transparent? Is there >> any possibility to autoadjust the resolution? >> >> Martin >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and currently available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article tomorrow. Minor objections we can further discuss after the update - otherwise it wouldn't be updated any time soon ;-) Although I hope, that I was able to respect most issues. Thanks for all your input during this discussion. Please take a look at the section "Lanes reserved for specific vehicles". While writing the update I became aware of a difference regarding the lanes for various types of vehicles. Also take a look at the section "Assumptions". I added there a row for motorways/trunks. I'm not 100% sure if this is valid for all trunks. As I'm not a native speaker any corrections are welcome. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Please could someone confirm what Spitsstrook is? It looks like use of the hard shoulder on managed sections of motorway, but I cannot read dutch. We have these on the M6 and M42. Thanks Phil On 26/04/2012 10:30 Martin Vonwald wrote: To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and currently available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article tomorrow. Minor objections we can further discuss after the update - otherwise it wouldn't be updated any time soon ;-) Although I hope, that I was able to respect most issues. Thanks for all your input during this discussion. Please take a look at the section "Lanes reserved for specific vehicles". While writing the update I became aware of a difference regarding the lanes for various types of vehicles. Also take a look at the section "Assumptions". I added there a row for motorways/trunks. I'm not 100% sure if this is valid for all trunks. As I'm not a native speaker any corrections are welcome. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
It is an additional lane that will be opened for the general traffic during rush hours. What I have seen in the Netherlands it is used as emergency lanes at other times. Martin 2012/4/26 Philip Barnes : > Please could someone confirm what Spitsstrook is? It looks like use of the > hard shoulder on managed sections of motorway, but I cannot read dutch. > > > We have these on the M6 and M42. > > > Thanks Phil > > > On 26/04/2012 10:30 Martin Vonwald wrote: > > To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and > currently available here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt > > If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article > tomorrow. Minor objections we can further discuss after the update - > otherwise it wouldn't be updated any time soon ;-) Although I hope, > that I was able to respect most issues. Thanks for all your input > during this discussion. > > Please take a look at the section "Lanes reserved for specific > vehicles". While writing the update I became aware of a difference > regarding the lanes for various types of vehicles. > > Also take a look at the section "Assumptions". I added there a row for > motorways/trunks. I'm not 100% sure if this is valid for all trunks. > > As I'm not a native speaker any corrections are welcome. > > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
There are three cases in NL, all referred to as "spitsstrook" (literally, rush-hour lane): 1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra lane on the right 2) the left-most lane is sometimes open (if traffic is heavier), and sometimes closed (if the extra capacity is not needed). When it is closed, it is not designated as an "emergency" lane, but as emergency vehicles can do what they like anyway, they don't hesitate to use it. I am not sure if a normal driver is allowed to "park" there in case of a breakdown. Even if it is allowed, I would most definitely advise against it... 3) there is one case of a reversible centre lane which is either closed, open in one direction (morning peak) or open in the other direction (evening peak). Of course there are barriers on both sides to insulate it from the main carriageways on either side. Colin On 26/04/2012 12:51, Martin Vonwald wrote: It is an additional lane that will be opened for the general traffic during rush hours. What I have seen in the Netherlands it is used as emergency lanes at other times. Martin 2012/4/26 Philip Barnes: Please could someone confirm what Spitsstrook is? It looks like use of the hard shoulder on managed sections of motorway, but I cannot read dutch. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] OSMI layers in JOSM
Hey Martin Sorry I am neither an expert in WMS, but as JOSM has changed a lot and if you do not find it in any documentation it would be the best to ask at josm-dev@ and either document it yourself or open a ticket about missing documentation. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] "contact:phone" or "phone" to combine with "amenity=telephone"
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtelephone is saying that the phone box number has to be tagged with "contact:phone". The "contact:" namespace has been discussed here (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-May/007631.html) and some good arguments have been raised against it. Unfortunatelly, nothing really happend excepted some minor remarks and the namespace is spreading in the wiki like in "amenity=telephone" page but not in the database where it is only combined with "phone" (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=amenity&value=telephone#combinations), not "contact:phone". I'm asking because the question why we don't use "phone" instead of "contact:phone" is now asked on one of the translated version (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR_talk:Tag:amenity%3Dtelephone). Can we use the taginfo stats to revert the change made the 2nd may 2010 where "phone" has been replaced by "contact:phone" and add a big "deprecate" notice on the "contact:" namespace wiki ? (overall, we still have 10 times more "phone" than "contact:phone", 20 times more "website" than "contact:website", etc) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "contact:phone" or "phone" to combine with "amenity=telephone"
Am 26. April 2012 14:47 schrieb Pieren : > Can we use the taginfo stats to revert the change made the 2nd may > 2010 where "phone" has been replaced by "contact:phone" and add a big > "deprecate" notice on the "contact:" namespace wiki ? (overall, we > still have 10 times more "phone" than "contact:phone", 20 times more > "website" than "contact:website", etc) +1 from me, but I know there are other mappers opposing this and trying to push the "contact:" prefix. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 26.04.2012 13:07, schrieb Colin Smale: 1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra lane on the right this case is used in Germany in several regions e.g. http://www.staufreieshessen2015.hessen.de/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/slimp.CMReader/HMWVL_15/Staufrei_Internet/med/c6f/c6f50ce6-66e7-3e21-79cd-aae2389e4818,---- and this leads very fast to the question: Shall this lane - be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes - or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane The article is ambiguous here. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
2012/4/26 Georg Feddern : > Shall this lane > - be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes > - or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane Yes, it shall be counted, because it is all the time a managed lane, that is sometimes open for traffic and sometimes not. > The article is ambiguous here. Managed lanes shall be counted. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 26. April 2012 15:37 schrieb Martin Vonwald : > 2012/4/26 Georg Feddern : >> Shall this lane >> - be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes >> - or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane > > Yes, it shall be counted, because it is all the time a managed lane, > that is sometimes open for traffic and sometimes not. +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
I added a sentence explaining what a "managed lane" is. Understandable now? 2012/4/26 Georg Feddern : > Am 26.04.2012 13:07, schrieb Colin Smale: > >> 1) the hard shoulder is sometimes opened to traffic, creating an extra >> lane on the right > > > this case is used in Germany in several regions > > e.g. > http://www.staufreieshessen2015.hessen.de/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/slimp.CMReader/HMWVL_15/Staufrei_Internet/med/c6f/c6f50ce6-66e7-3e21-79cd-aae2389e4818,---- > > and this leads very fast to the question: > > Shall this lane > - be counted - because it is a managed lane, but that it is only sometimes > - or not - because it is most of the time an emergency lane > > The article is ambiguous here. > > Georg > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Where did I mention a renderer? If you draw a closed polygon with > railway=platform, that's a continuous platform with a hole in the middle. > There may be a few cases of such in real life at a complicated junction. If so, they should be tagged with area=no. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "contact:phone" or "phone" to combine with "amenity=telephone"
On 4/26/2012 8:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Can we use the taginfo stats to revert the change made the 2nd may > 2010 where "phone" has been replaced by "contact:phone" and add a big > "deprecate" notice on the "contact:" namespace wiki ? (overall, we > still have 10 times more "phone" than "contact:phone", 20 times more > "website" than "contact:website", etc) +1 from me, but I know there are other mappers opposing this and trying to push the "contact:" prefix. I agree with those wanting the 'contact:' format that it is unambiguous and might be easier to use and analyze, but since no data consumers use it (that I know of), 'phone' is preferred.I know of several data consumers on mobile apps that use 'phone'. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
On 26 April 2012 10:30, Martin Vonwald wrote: > To give you an advance warning: the updated article is finished and > currently available here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt > > If there are no major objections I will update the lanes article > tomorrow. > I suppose I've got a few "major objections", and a few minor *Major problem:* You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue. You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it. The example given for the 'narrow' road, which you advise should be tagged as lanes=2 looks more like lanes=1 especially as there is a need for a passing place. *Major Problem:* The Assumptions section, I think, is a very bad idea. The 'Remark' for everything other than motorways/trunk suggests not to add the lane data, but rely on the assumption. If you do not know how many lanes are present the Assumptions table is good idea to what might be present. But surveyed data is superior to an assumption, and we must not encourage people not to add the data. highway=path is considered not to be for motor vehicles, but the assumption is correct if the path has been tagged accessible to a type of vehicle. Assumptions for mortorway/trunk need to be clarified because these highways are commonly considered to consist of two carriageways? and mapping guidance has always stated the the carriageways should be mapped as two separate way? I'd simply remove the "4 or more" and leave that box blank. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 26. April 2012 20:03 schrieb Jason Cunningham : > Major problem: You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue. > You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like > an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it. IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and forget about them. They are too subjective. What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=en&ll=41.899274,12.464333&spn=0.008497,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.899391,12.464289&panoid=O8BHrnM_gTAW2XQUWqxcXg&cbp=12,353.6,,0,4.57 Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on the car widths and the experience of the drivers: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=en&ll=41.876836,12.481943&spn=0.000378,0.00066&t=h&z=21 if we start entering fractional lanes counts, mapping will get more complicated, with no real benefit: Every street has an unambiguous width, which is a more helpful information to determine how many vehicles can pass at the same time, lanes=1.5 doesn't really help you, it will always remain unclear which width is the street. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Am 26.04.2012 um 20:03 schrieb Jason Cunningham : > Major problem: You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 issue. > You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply looks like > an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it. Actually I thought it was solved by specifying the width. And I can't cleanse it from the database by - for the first time as far as I can see - mention lanes=1.5 in the wiki. > Major Problem: The Assumptions section, I think, is a very bad idea. The > 'Remark' for everything other than motorways/trunk suggests not to add the > lane data, but rely on the assumption. If you do not know how many lanes are > present the Assumptions table is good idea to what might be present. But > surveyed data is superior to an assumption, and we must not encourage people > not to add the data. In the remarks I wrote "... is usually not tagged...", which afaik is the truth. I also had the impression, that we don't want the lanes-tag on every residential road. If this is not the case I could remove the "none" from the residential-road-example and rephrase the assumptions. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am 26. April 2012 20:03 schrieb Jason Cunningham > : > > Major problem: You've haven't adequately dealt with the lanes=1.5 > issue. > > You've suggested something that can't solve the issue, but simply > looks like > > an attempt to cleanse it from the lanes tag and forget about it. > > > IMHO it would be a good idea to remove fractional lanes amounts and > forget about them. They are too subjective. > > What do you think of lanes=3.5? I have an example here: > > http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=en&ll=41.899274,12.464333&spn=0.008497,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.899391,12.464289&panoid=O8BHrnM_gTAW2XQUWqxcXg&cbp=12,353.6,,0,4.57 > > Not sure, how many lanes these are, could be 5 or even 5.5? Depends on > the car widths and the experience of the drivers: > > http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=en&ll=41.876836,12.481943&spn=0.000378,0.00066&t=h&z=21 > > if we start entering fractional lanes counts, mapping will get more > complicated, with no real benefit: Every street has an unambiguous > width, which is a more helpful information to determine how many > vehicles can pass at the same time, lanes=1.5 doesn't really help you, > it will always remain unclear which width is the street. > > cheers, > Martin > For that matter, even if the number of lanes remains constant, the actual width of the street, and of the individual lanes, may vary from point to point. Routing software that takes into account road width needs to retrieve and check the width for the entire route. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)
Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> Where did I mention a renderer? If you draw a closed polygon with >> railway=platform, that's a continuous platform with a hole in the middle. >> There may be a few cases of such in real life at a complicated junction. > > If so, they should be tagged with area=no. "area=no" can be considered a "sic!", but that tag should never have any actual effect. If a feature can be either a closed way or an area, the default interpretation should always be the closed way. Otherwise, you'd have to know arbitrary defaults for each type of object. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
