Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?

> > > It's also time perhaps to talk about a "trailhead" symbol. > +1 being able to tag (then get renderings for) trailheads would be a big plus. names should also be rendered in a distinct manner as well. > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@ope

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

On 2014-12-23 21:39, Rainer wrote : MK> maybe just add a note to the pipeline (note = "maped mit GPS with MK> guaranteed accuracy of "). I'm rather thinking of something machine-readable, enabling the editor to warn the user in case he/she is about to change high pr

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

On 24/12/2014 11:29 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:37:34 +0100 From: Rainer Fügenstein To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey Message-ID: <811143140.20141223173...@oudeis.org> Content-Type: text/plai

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Hallo, I didn’t want to bring it up on the discussion page yet, but I’m working a way to double represent road adjacent cycle ways/ cycle tracks as part of the road way and also on the separate way. It is far from being ready for representation, but it just fits the discussion right now. It

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

On 23.12.2014 17:37, Rainer Fügenstein wrote: > mapper A, by means of DGPS, MilStd GPS, crystal ball etc., is able to > achieve an accuracy of, say, a few centimeters and uses it to add new > nodes (POIs) to OSM. > > some time later, mapper B with his/her ancestors mechanical GPS device > (*), ach

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

On 23.12.2014 17:57, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > I would consider that a non-issue as you said, for those reasons: > > - When it comes to GPS traces on objects that don't move (*), the > beauty of crowdsourcing is on our side. The collection of > traces over a longer time creates a cloud of traces wh

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

On 23.12.2014 21:39, Rainer Fügenstein wrote: > I'm rather thinking of something machine-readable, enabling the editor > to warn the user in case he/she is about to change high precision > data. There are quite a couple of editors. Most certainly, some of them will not implement the feature. Also

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

On 22.12.2014 20:03, jgpacker wrote: > This suggestion was added to the page having as a goal machine-readability, > however the suggestion that was there before the page was changed also seems > to be machine-readable. [...] > What do you guys think? I think that source tags (as well as note tags

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

MK> maybe just add a note to the pipeline (note = "maped mit GPS with MK> guaranteed accuracy of "). I'm rather thinking of something machine-readable, enabling the editor to warn the user in case he/she is about to change high precision data. ___ Tag

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

Am 23.12.2014 um 17:37 schrieb Rainer Fügenstein: what is needed here is some tag, saying "don't touch these coordinates, they've been surveyed with high(est) accuracy". maybe just add a note to the pipeline (note = "maped mit GPS with guaranteed accuracy of "). Cheers, Michael. ___

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

On 23/12/2014 16:57, Tom Pfeifer wrote: The collection of traces over a longer time creates a cloud of traces which form a Gaussian bell curve, in density, over the ground truth. Except that the position of a node in the DB is the last edited value, not the mean position of all historica

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

I would consider that a non-issue as you said, for those reasons: - When it comes to GPS traces on objects that don't move (*), the beauty of crowdsourcing is on our side. The collection of traces over a longer time creates a cloud of traces which form a Gaussian bell curve, in density, ove

[Tagging] Accuracy of survey

while we are at it, imagine the following situation: mapper A, by means of DGPS, MilStd GPS, crystal ball etc., is able to achieve an accuracy of, say, a few centimeters and uses it to add new nodes (POIs) to OSM. some time later, mapper B with his/her ancestors mechanical GPS device (*), achiev

Re: [Tagging] GPX dates / Date of survey

Dave F. wrote on 2014-12-23 15:48: On 23/12/2014 04:16, Marc Gemis wrote: Which would not help in my case, as I work for several days on the same survey. ... History command (Key: H) in Potlatch? Is it not available in other editors? One advantageous thing would be to click on a GPX trace tha

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

On 22/12/2014 19:56, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Whether on the changeset or on the object - whichever is most appropriate, automatically adding the current date as survey:date whenever a source=survey is entered could be a nice optional editor functionality. In addition to current limited ado

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

The date in the history is the date that the modified object is stored in osm. When I did a number of surveys in the same area a week or a month before, this modification date is "useless" to find back my notes. Just having a survey:date on the changeset allows me to pinpoint the date of the surve

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

Since I put the date on the changeset, I don't have that issue. But if the object history works fine for you, please continue so. regards m On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > My issue with putting the source=* is that different tags are added at > different times show it shou

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

On 23/12/2014 04:16, Marc Gemis wrote: Which would not help in my case, as I work for several days on the same survey. +1, although I'm not understanding the point of this tag at all. What does it add that isn't already available via the History command (Key: H) in Potlatch? Is it not availab

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

My issue with putting the source=* is that different tags are added at different times show it should really be source:item=* (e.g. source:max_speed=sign) and then the survey date would also need to be tag specific too (e.g. survey:max_speed=*) . That could be a lot of tags which are unlikely t

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 68

Am 23.12.2014 um 11:36 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Ulrich, please modify the subject line to something that describes the topic when writing to the list. I even would ask NOT AT ALL to comment on digests but on the individual posts. Reason: commenting on digests destroys the comment linking =>

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 68

Ulrich, please modify the subject line to something that describes the topic when writing to the list. My suggestion is to remove the "digest"-option from your personal mailinglist settings (so you'd get the correct topic for free). Please also remove those quoted parts from your reply that aren't

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 68

>>> bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway=optionalsince it is more of an >>> access problem, than a type problem.(I alsodon’tlike >>> cycleway=opposite)After all the only difference is where one may or must >>> ride. The cycle way itself does look the same, except for the mi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

2014-12-23 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > "cycleway=track" > > I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates > some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details. > > In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road, > width

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

I use the exact date to find back my notes, pictures and traces when somebody has questions afterwards. The date is probably useless for anybody else. regards m On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 23.12.2014 um 05:16 schrieb Marc Gemis: > >> Which would not help in my

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

Am 23.12.2014 um 05:16 schrieb Marc Gemis: Which would not help in my case, as I work for several days on the same survey. as long as changes are not detected for month/years sometimes - some days difference between real survey and tagged date would not be any problem. And as long as any chan

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

On 12/23/2014 05:16 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier > wrote: On 12/22/2014 08:28 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: I always use the tag combination source=survey ; survey:date=year-month-day as described on http:/

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

You could tag date as year and month. Skip the day it is much less relevant. Which would not help in my case, as I work for several days on the same survey. m On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 12/22/2014 08:28 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > >> I always use the tag combinat