Hi!
On the wiki page of junction=roundabout the Junctions proposal
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Junctions) is
mentioned and it is claimed, that we have to use a relation in case
the way of the roundabout is split up. Is this common practice?
Furthermore on that wiki page
Hi!
Is there any (planned) project out there, where one can upload
geotagged photos, maybe view them on a map and use them directly in
JOSM? I was thinking about the same way as GPS traces are now uploaded
to OSM and JOSM can download and display them.
I know openstreetview but is seems not that
2012/5/9 Alan Mintz :
> At 2012-05-09 12:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I'd like to note for pubs, cafes, bars, restaurants and similar if
>> they offer draught beer.
>
>
> Seems like there some discussion about detailed tagging, including
> micro-breweries etc. I'm thinking it was related to th
2012.05.10. 10:29 keltezéssel, Martin Vonwald írta:
> Is there any (planned) project out there, where one can upload
> geotagged photos, maybe view them on a map and use them directly in
> JOSM? I was thinking about the same way as GPS traces are now uploaded
> to OSM and JOSM can download and disp
On 10/05/12 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2012/5/9 Alan Mintz :
>> At 2012-05-09 12:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> I'd like to note for pubs, cafes, bars, restaurants and similar if
>>> they offer draught beer.
>>
>>
>> Seems like there some discussion about detailed tagging, including
>>
2012/5/10 Ferenc Veres :
> OpenStreetView is for presenting nice photos if nice places, isn't it?
> It looks so. Not for boring photos of "opening hours" tables and such
> SURVEY INFO. :-) What's your aim?
That's exactly my aim: survey info.
> I would also like to know if there is such a system.
On 10/05/12 12:42, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> 2012/5/10 Ferenc Veres :
>> OpenStreetView is for presenting nice photos if nice places, isn't it?
>> It looks so. Not for boring photos of "opening hours" tables and such
>> SURVEY INFO. :-) What's your aim?
>
> That's exactly my aim: survey info.
>
>>
On 10/05/12 10:16, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On the wiki page of junction=roundabout the Junctions proposal
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Junctions) is
> mentioned and it is claimed, that we have to use a relation in case
> the way of the roundabout is split up. Is
> Do not expect the JOSM developer to follow every mailing-list but rather open
> a
> ticket at josm.openstreetmap.de
As soon as there is a project where photos can be uploaded for this
purpose, I will do that. But right now josm.openstreetmap.de would be
the wrong place in my opinion, because th
2012/5/10 fly :
> In germany I did tag the major beer_brand=* for some pubs/restaurants. I also
> came along drink:*=yes/no.
>
> We could use drink:*=yes/draught/bottled/no. Many pubs offer different
> kinds/brands where some are draught and other are bottled.
yes, something like drink:*=yes/drau
"Related project" as in?
I have geotagged survey-type photos that I'd love to upload to such service.
As mentioned before OpenStreetView is not for survey-focused photos but rather
kind of an Open equivalent of Panoramio.
Cheers from Haiti,
-Jaakko
User:jaakkoh
Sent from my BlackBerry® device fr
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:56 AM, fly wrote:
> On 10/05/12 10:16, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On the wiki page of junction=roundabout the Junctions proposal
>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Junctions) is
>> mentioned and it is claimed, that we have to use a relation
On 10/05/12 15:37, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:56 AM, fly wrote:
>> On 10/05/12 10:16, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On the wiki page of junction=roundabout the Junctions proposal
>>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Junctions) is
>>> mentioned and
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On 10/05/12 10:16, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On the wiki page of junction=roundabout the Junctions proposal
>>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Junctions) is
>>> mentioned and it is claimed, that we have to
I have uploaded a lot of pictures to openstreetview (everything from
Missouri to Idaho is mine) in the hopes that it will some day become a
useful service like this... but alas, nothing has happened with it in
a few years.
Most of my pictures are from highway driving and I usually take a
straight
As expected the user NE2 tries to rewrite the wiki so that it fits his
personal view of the world:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout&action=history
He constantly ignores the fact, that a small roundabout is not a
mini-roundabout as different rules apply
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> As expected the user NE2 tries to rewrite the wiki so that it fits his
> personal view of the world:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout&action=history
>
> He constantly ignores the fact, that a sm
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
> Outside of areas where mini roundabouts actually exist (the UK)
Add France in your areas list.
Pieren
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tag
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
> Well as I pointed out in the previous discussion, it isn't just his
> view. Outside of areas where mini roundabouts actually exist (the UK)
> his edit does reflect how users have actually used this tag.
>
> Maybe this isn't ideal but it is wha
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
> Outside of areas where mini roundabouts actually exist (the UK)
> his edit does reflect how users have actually used this tag.
This also isn't an exclusively UK object, there's at least one in the
US as well (and probably more, but so far only
On 5/10/2012 11:05 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
mini_roundabout is by definition a traversible object, but one with a
hard median isn't.
A "mini-roundabout" may be by definition traversable, but that doesn't
mean highway=mini_roundabout is, any more than a highway=trunk is a
trunk road or a highwa
Martin,
He constantly ignores the fact, that a small roundabout is not a
> mini-roundabout as different rules apply to them and they are
> differently constructed. He also ignores the fact the e.g. routers are
> unable to generate correct routes for large vehicles.
>
> I therefore reverted his cha
Nathan,
formally you are correct, but it has been OSM practice to base its tags on
UK definitions. Why should we abandon this practice in this case. In
addition, to my knowledge, they invented the mini-roundabout there and
defined it with a traversable centre piece.
Volker
(Italy)
On 10 May 201
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> As expected the user NE2 tries to rewrite the wiki so that it fits his
> personal view of the world:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout&action=history
I've made some significant edits to this ar
2012/5/10 Paul Johnson :
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
>
>> Well as I pointed out in the previous discussion, it isn't just his
>> view. Outside of areas where mini roundabouts actually exist (the UK)
>> his edit does reflect how users have actually used this tag.
>>
>> May
On 5/10/2012 11:21 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Nathan,
formally you are correct, but it has been OSM practice to base its tags
on UK definitions.
Nope. In the UK, not all highway=trunks are trunk roads. Some have been
detrunked but remain in the "primary route network".
highway=motorway_juncti
On 5/10/2012 11:30 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
I've made some significant edits to this article to improve the
overall quality, as well as hopefully provide text which satisfies
both concerned parties.
Nope - you said that it's erroneous to use the tag as many mappers have,
for a miniature roundabout
On 10/05/12 17:07, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
>> Outside of areas where mini roundabouts actually exist (the UK)
>> his edit does reflect how users have actually used this tag.
>
> This also isn't an exclusively UK object, there's at least one in the
On 5/10/2012 11:52 AM, fly wrote:
Why should we have two tags for roundabouts which differe only in size.
We do not do this with other objects/tags.
waterway=ditch/canal and stream/river?
(By the way, we don't currently have two node tags for roundabouts.
Hence the current situation.)
_
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 5/10/2012 11:52 AM, fly wrote:
>>
>> Why should we have two tags for roundabouts which differe only in size.
>> We do not do this with other objects/tags.
>
> waterway=ditch/canal and stream/river?
>
> (By the way, we don't currently h
2012/5/10 Josh Doe :
> I propose we start accepting junction=roundabout to be used on nodes.
you can do this but it will always be preliminary and worse than
explicit geometry
> This shouldn't produce any problems for data consumers, is logical,
> and would save a lot of time for tagging the ma
On 5/10/2012 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/5/10 Josh Doe:
I propose we start accepting junction=roundabout to be used on nodes.
you can do this but it will always be preliminary and worse than
explicit geometry
Why?
___
Tagging mailin
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2012/5/10 Josh Doe :
>> I propose we start accepting junction=roundabout to be used on nodes.
>
> you can do this but it will always be preliminary and worse than
> explicit geometry
Hmm, this is like saying "you can always just map a
2012/5/10 Nathan Edgars II :
> On 5/10/2012 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> you can do this but it will always be preliminary and worse than
>> explicit geometry
>
>
> Why?
Because it gives you more information (e.g. the radius of the circle,
or a more detailed shape in case it isn't a ci
On 5/10/2012 12:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/5/10 Nathan Edgars II:
On 5/10/2012 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you can do this but it will always be preliminary and worse than
explicit geometry
Why?
Because it gives you more information (e.g. the radius of the circle,
or a
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On 5/10/2012 11:52 AM, fly wrote:
>>>
>>> Why should we have two tags for roundabouts which differe only in size.
>>> We do not do this with other objects/tags.
>>
>> waterway=ditch/ca
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> I propose we start accepting junction=roundabout to be used on nodes.
>> This shouldn't produce any problems for data consumers, is logical,
>> and would save a lot of time for tag
On May 10, 2012 10:32 AM, "Josh Doe" wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Toby Murray
wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
> From a quick unscientifically-randomish
> review of nodes tagged as highway=mini_roundabout, the majority in the
> United States are NOT tra
On 10/05/12 18:31, Josh Doe wrote:
> For those interested, you can download all current nodes
> as a zipped OSM file
> (http://joshd.dev.openstreetmap.org/all_mini_roundabouts_20120510.zip),
A *very* quick look at that against Bing imagery in JOSM reveals a
pretty broad selection of things around
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 21:11 +0100, Graham Jones wrote:
> There was a similar discussion on the UK list last year when we were
> making our BrewMap.
>
> I think we settled on real_ale=yes, but I suspect that was more on the
> basis that draught beer was an expectation and we wanted to know if it
>
2012/5/10 Philip Barnes :
> Is providing detailed information on pubs possibly over-stretching us?
> Things change rapidly, beers in pubs can change daily and sometime
> quicker than that, we would need to maintain this data and I think it
> would rapidly become stale.
in many regions in Germany
Okay, well for a quick and dirty, but hopefully fairly randomized
approach to randomly sampling and classifying the data against Bing
imagery, I wrote a short interactive bit o' Python:
https://gist.github.com/2655895
If you're bothered about the data for mini-roundabouts, could you give
it
I've started tagging local mini_roundabouts with mountable=yes/no. Most
have trees and are obviously not. But I'm not exactly sure where the
line is. Should one with a low curb, more like a gutter, be considered a
"true" mini-roundabout or not? For example, this one in Kissimmee:
http://maps.go
On 5/10/2012 5:31 PM, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote:
19 "tc" (turning circle at the end of a road, with or without a
solid centre)
Careful - there was a recent dispute over whether a turning circle with
an island is really a turning_circle, very reminiscent of this
mini_roundabout affa
I just went through the mini_roundabouts in east central Florida. I
found one definitely mountable (in an industrial park), 202 definitely
not mountable (including some culs-de-sac), 3 that I'm not sure about,
and 4 mistagged turning_circles. Obviously this says a lot about
roundabout construct
On 10.05.2012 17:35, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 5/10/2012 11:30 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
>> I've made some significant edits to this article to improve the
>> overall quality, as well as hopefully provide text which satisfies
>> both concerned parties.
>
> Nope - you said that it's erroneous to use t
As a UK mapper the main problem as I see it is one of language. When I drive
over a mini roundabout I know what I have done, when I drive around a small
roundabout I understand the difference. Maybe the problem is that the word
'mini' gets confused with 'small' which in any other context is unde
On 10 May 2012 23:26, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Now the real question is whether we should change the definition. If we
> did allow using junction=roundabout on nodes, as has been suggested in
> this thread, would there be any reason left to prefer mini_roundabout
> for roundabouts that are "not stric
On 5/10/2012 6:47 PM, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote:
Might solve the
problem of people not making the distinction between flat "mini"
roundabouts and the bigger sort, or not making the distinction in the
definitively correct place.
You're conflating size of intersection with height of center. T
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Well, according to the definition it _is_ erroneous.
>
Amen.
Now the real question is whether we should change the definition.(...)
would there be any reason left to prefer mini_roundabout
> for roundabouts that are "not strictly a mini-rou
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
[snip]
> After reading through the thread that brings out various good points I think
> that we should:
> 1) Allow tagging of small-ish roundabouts with merely a junction=roundabo
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
> Agreed on all points. I've been fixing up westendguy's
> mini_roundabouts, as almost all of his 1300 are actually
> turning_circle.
I should mention that the todo list plugin in JOSM is great for this:
just add a hundred or so nodes, then click
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 17:43 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> I've started tagging local mini_roundabouts with mountable=yes/no. Most
> have trees and are obviously not. But I'm not exactly sure where the
> line is. Should one with a low curb, more like a gutter, be considered a
> "true" mini-rou
53 matches
Mail list logo
