Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
Messages: ==== Shernott:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed, if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up). ==== Moi:
Hello,
Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-)
On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed,
Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre.
if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up).
Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ?
Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott:
Hello !
Hi Stéphane!
So what is this about "adding place for roads"? In OSM a road is usually represented as a line, and if there is a forest on one side of the road and a meadow on the other, why not having the road as the border between two areas? If you want the road to receive a second dimension. you can always give it a width tag.
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
Or what are you going to do with all the white space that you dug up now? Are you going to draw the left and the right sides of the roads? And do you want to continue to do this also inside the Bois du Jorat? I mean why would you stop at the borders of areas, when the tracks inside the forest "need place" too? And while you are at it, do you want to continue with the streets and residential areas in and around Lausanne?
The Bois du Jorat was a mess of duplicate and unconnected ways, and you didn't seem to mind about that. Why do you feel the urge to "correct" me, now that I started to complete and clean it up a bit?
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
Or in other words, would you mind reverting your change set (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557) before other people start to build upon it and make it more difficult to revert it? Anyway, right now it is far from complete and finished, it breaks relations and duplicates roads. From say before I revert changset 9162875...
Sincerely Stéphane Brunner
Regards, Thorsten
==== Moi:
Hello,
Your don't speak French ? I hope so than I continue in French, if you don't speak French ask for English ;-)
On 2011-08-29 13:31:21 UTC Shernott wrote:
So I guess you are going to continue and add roads not as lines, but as areas, or what is going on here?
Malheureusement on ne peut pas encore le faire, mais si on veux faire le mappnig jusqu'au bout il faudrait une surface pour connaître l'espace utiliser et une ligne pour avoir les information au routage ;-)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9156557
In my opinion, in most cases the width tag should be all that is needed,
Le tag width ne donne qu'une information partielle et en plus ne concerne que les routes pas les landuse au autre.
if you want to give roads a "place", especially in areas that are as sparsely mapped as the Bois du Jorat (Which was a complete mess until I started cleaning it up).
Là je ne comprend pas du tout ce que vous voulez dire par « mess » c'est parfaitement possible que cela n'étais pas vraiment prés ... ?
Meilleures salutations Stéphane ==== Shernott:
Oh, by the way, no problem with writing to me in French, I understand it quite well. I'm also used to speaking it, but when it comes to writing something that I don't have to be ashamed of, it takes me quite a long time, so I'd prefer to write to you in English. ==== Shernott:
Hello!
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate!
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create.
And let me tell you what you did:
* You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests.
* The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide. There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences)
* You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"?
So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality.
I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war.
Have nice day! Thorsten ==== Moi:
Hello,
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
Sincerely yours Stéphane Brunner
Hello!
Your right that "adding place for roads" is probably not the best subject, It should be something like "meadow, farm, grass, ... don't go to the middle of the roads !"
This is true of course. And it is also true that there are plenty of forests, fields and residential areas that go ACROSS roads and tracks. Many of them were traced by yourself, which is by the way a work of yours that I do highly appreciate!
I'm sorry but your cleanup don't represent the real and what you named the mess is the real. And OSM should represent the real
If you have such a strong urge to "represent the real", why don't you start with all the areas that go ACROSS roads? You yourself have painted plenty of areas ACROSS roads. That doesn't "represent the real" either. So why don't you start there? Why do you have to "correct" and meddle with my work? In my eyes the fields, grass, meadows or forests underneath a way represent reality much better than the white space that you create.
And let me tell you what you did:
You removed forests, just because you couldn't see the trees on the Bing map. Hint: the Bing photo was taken in winter or early spring, that means the deciduous trees don't have leafs, which makes them hard to see. This is why they can compare photos of summer and winter to officially distinguish deciduous from coniferous forests.
The space you added to roads, tracks and paths was much to wide. There are paths so narrow that you can barely set on foot in front of the other. What you mistook for paths, are fences along both sides the path, but the paths and tracks themselves are very narrow (and themselves in a kind of meadow between the fences)
You traced highways from the Bing map without taking care of its offset, so your roads were off a couple of meters. How is that about "reality"?
So I suggest, if you want to make things "more real", then don't do so based on what you think you see on a four year old satellite photo. Go out, and look at how things look and feel in reality.
I DO NOT appreciate at all having you behind my back, correcting every step I make, which you also did for some edits inside Lausanne. If you prefer to have the Riponne look "your way" but based on old photos that have nothing to do with today's reality, just say so. I'm so sorry to tell you this, but what you are doing here looks and feels to me like tight-ass nitpicking.
From say before I revert changset 9162875...
If you insist in messing with my work, feel free to do so. In that case I will simply stop contributing in the Lausanne area and you can keep having fun with your satellite photos, which is something that you are very good at. I have better things to do than to start an edit war.
Have nice day! Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Just for your information: I took the liberty to remove my GPX tracks from the Lausanne area.
I'm finished here, you can have it your way. ==== Shernott:
Hi Stéphane!
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks.
And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way.
We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne.
So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling".
Thorsten ==== Moi:
Hello,
lol ...
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner
On 2011-08-30 20:01:06 UTC Shernott wrote:
Hi Stéphane!
It's true that all I do is not perfect but I work to be more and more accrued, It's also true that £I'm not so good in communication.
If you want accuracy and perfection, there are plenty of areas and things to improve, on which I haven't worked in the last three weeks.
And It doesn't look like you have a problem with communication (anyway, you can write to me in French). Your words and actions speak a very clear language. The way I see it, you have a problem with control. I am aware that you have done a huge amount of tracing and mapping in the Lausanne area, and I do respect it. You probably consider the area as your baby, and you want to have it your way.
We have been stepping on each others feet from the day I started mapping in OSM. It's hard to avoid it, since I live in Lausanne.
So for me it's quite simple: if you insist of having everything your way, if you want to play "King of Lausanne", that's fine with me. You have earned it. But in that case I'm out of here, because I don't want to map here as "your underling".
Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
You have an interesting definition of "collaboration".
If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first.
If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick".
BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures.
So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery!
Thorsten ==== Moi:
Hello,
Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais. On doit donc vraiment pas ce comprendre...
Comme vois aviez raison que l'immense zone résidentiel de Lausanne et environ ne corresponds pas à la réalité j'ai commencer au la corriger également.
Et pour finir voici ce que je considère comme une référence du but ultime duquel ont est encore bien loin : http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
Meilleures salutations Stéphane Brunner
On 2011-08-31 19:45:27 UTC Shernott wrote:
Je ne veux pas jouer au psy, vous faites ce que vous voulez mais participer a un projet collaboratif sans vouloir collaborer c'est difficile.
You have an interesting definition of "collaboration".
If your principle of "space for roads" is so important to you, there would be plenty of places, where you could apply it first.
If you insist in having things the way you want them in an area, whose landcover, tracks, roads and paths are currently traced and mapped by another mapper, I don't call this "collaboration", I call it "dictatorship", or "being a dick".
BTW: You fucked up some of my edits that I traced last year and you didn't even notice, because all you can see are your outdated aerial pictures.
So go on and keep having fun with your aerial imagery!
Thorsten
==== Shernott:
Désolé mais ce que j'en retire de vos message c'est que ce que les autres font c'est du gâchis et ce que vous fait est parfais.
If you are on the ground and MAPPING in an area, then you should MAP there any way it suits you. But if you feel the urge to "CORRECT" and "IMPROVE" what other people are MAPPING while they are still active on the ground in that area, that's an entirely different story.
And on top of that, if you fail to notice that there were GPX traces around the lakes I mapped in a quarry and you replace them with some other lakes that only exit on old satellite pictures, then I call that "fucking things up", even if you spent a considerable effort to follow contours of lakes that don't exist anymore in that form.
I am fed up with your idea of "collaboration" and I suggest that you send somebody else with a GPS and a mountainbike up into the Bois de Jorat, since I won't touch it anymore.
End of this discussion.
Have a nice weekend! Thorsten
==== Genscher:
Stop harassing Shernott and start correcting your own things first.
You're not welcome in the comunity.
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
My opinion about this issue:
As long as we don't have either up to date, high resolution, offset-corrected aerial imagery for almost all of switzerland or positioning devices that are accurate up to a few centimeters, I don't really see the point of tracing the borders of paths and small roads, as the accuracy can't be determined by someone who looks at the map. High details in mapping send a message of accuracy. If that accuracy can't be guaranteed, it might be better to map less detailed. Else, people will stop to rely on the OSM data, because they're very unsure about the accuracy.
As for correcting other people's work, I agree that this should only be done if one is sure that the other person's changes are indeed erroneous. E.g. if there are up to date high resolution and *correctly aligned* satellite images, or if you have accurate GPS traces yourself. If you're unsure, you should leave it as it is, and check reality first. Satellite images might be off a little.
Concerning mapping larger objects as wide roads or rivers as areas, I don't see the problem. But to map the borders of small objects accurately, one needs an accurate data source.
Danilo
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hello Danilo,
Globally I'm OK with your message, except two thing. - Why if in Lausanne we have a good Orthophoto we shouldn't "use it" because not almost Switzerland have one ? - Why does we need an Orthophoto that are accurate up to a few centimeters to place landuse who is at something between 2 and 10 meter to the center of the road ?
CU Stéphane
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Danilo gezuru@gmail.com wrote:
My opinion about this issue:
As long as we don't have either up to date, high resolution, offset-corrected aerial imagery for almost all of switzerland or positioning devices that are accurate up to a few centimeters, I don't really see the point of tracing the borders of paths and small roads, as the accuracy can't be determined by someone who looks at the map. High details in mapping send a message of accuracy. If that accuracy can't be guaranteed, it might be better to map less detailed. Else, people will stop to rely on the OSM data, because they're very unsure about the accuracy.
As for correcting other people's work, I agree that this should only be done if one is sure that the other person's changes are indeed erroneous. E.g. if there are up to date high resolution and *correctly aligned* satellite images, or if you have accurate GPS traces yourself. If you're unsure, you should leave it as it is, and check reality first. Satellite images might be off a little.
Concerning mapping larger objects as wide roads or rivers as areas, I don't see the problem. But to map the borders of small objects accurately, one needs an accurate data source.
Danilo
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hi Stéphane
Well, generally if you really have data that is very accurate, and can assure that the alignment of the data is correct, then I think it's great to provide high detail in OSM. Maybe with the source tag set to the image URL or something similar :)
But it would be strange if for example there are 500m^2 in Lausanne that are mapped high-detail using areas as roads, and the rest using lines as road. In that case I'd probably prefer consistency over accuracy.
I hope you understand my point.
Danilo
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Stéphane Brunner courriel@stephane-brunner.ch wrote:
Hello Danilo,
Globally I'm OK with your message, except two thing.
- Why if in Lausanne we have a good Orthophoto we shouldn't "use it"
because not almost Switzerland have one ?
- Why does we need an Orthophoto that are accurate up to a few
centimeters to place landuse who is at something between 2 and 10 meter to the center of the road ?
CU Stéphane
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Danilo gezuru@gmail.com wrote:
My opinion about this issue:
As long as we don't have either up to date, high resolution, offset-corrected aerial imagery for almost all of switzerland or positioning devices that are accurate up to a few centimeters, I don't really see the point of tracing the borders of paths and small roads, as the accuracy can't be determined by someone who looks at the map. High details in mapping send a message of accuracy. If that accuracy can't be guaranteed, it might be better to map less detailed. Else, people will stop to rely on the OSM data, because they're very unsure about the accuracy.
As for correcting other people's work, I agree that this should only be done if one is sure that the other person's changes are indeed erroneous. E.g. if there are up to date high resolution and *correctly aligned* satellite images, or if you have accurate GPS traces yourself. If you're unsure, you should leave it as it is, and check reality first. Satellite images might be off a little.
Concerning mapping larger objects as wide roads or rivers as areas, I don't see the problem. But to map the borders of small objects accurately, one needs an accurate data source.
Danilo
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk -- _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Danilo gezuru@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Stéphane
Well, generally if you really have data that is very accurate, and can assure that the alignment of the data is correct, then I think it's great to provide high detail in OSM. Maybe with the source tag set to the image URL or something similar :)
Effectively as usual ;-)
But it would be strange if for example there are 500m^2 in Lausanne that are mapped high-detail using areas as roads, and the rest using lines as road. In that case I'd probably prefer consistency over accuracy.
Yes or no ;-) It's effectively true the it will be strange if we have a little area with very high accuracy and nothing any-more after but in the case (it not the case of Lausanne) where we have a small Orthophoto and not may data after that is a good to map this area with high accuracy. This to "thanks" (I don't know the right therm in English) the provider of the Orthophoto. And to show that if OSM have data imply that we use it to improve accuracy ;-)
CU Stéphane
I hope you understand my point.
Danilo
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Stéphane Brunner courriel@stephane-brunner.ch wrote:
Hello Danilo,
Globally I'm OK with your message, except two thing.
- Why if in Lausanne we have a good Orthophoto we shouldn't "use it"
because not almost Switzerland have one ?
- Why does we need an Orthophoto that are accurate up to a few
centimeters to place landuse who is at something between 2 and 10 meter to the center of the road ?
CU Stéphane
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Danilo gezuru@gmail.com wrote:
My opinion about this issue:
As long as we don't have either up to date, high resolution, offset-corrected aerial imagery for almost all of switzerland or positioning devices that are accurate up to a few centimeters, I don't really see the point of tracing the borders of paths and small roads, as the accuracy can't be determined by someone who looks at the map. High details in mapping send a message of accuracy. If that accuracy can't be guaranteed, it might be better to map less detailed. Else, people will stop to rely on the OSM data, because they're very unsure about the accuracy.
As for correcting other people's work, I agree that this should only be done if one is sure that the other person's changes are indeed erroneous. E.g. if there are up to date high resolution and *correctly aligned* satellite images, or if you have accurate GPS traces yourself. If you're unsure, you should leave it as it is, and check reality first. Satellite images might be off a little.
Concerning mapping larger objects as wide roads or rivers as areas, I don't see the problem. But to map the borders of small objects accurately, one needs an accurate data source.
Danilo
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk -- _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Salut Stéphane
I think Danilo made a valid point and if I would have to decide for one approach, I'd prefer mapping roads as center lines/ways as Simon wrote. I think there can even co-exist roads as areas and as center lines - as long as one still can do routing. With only areas you can't do routing without heavy preprocessing and (processing-ready) streets to me are one raison-d'être of OSM.
A2, Stefan
2011/9/5 Stéphane Brunner courriel@stephane-brunner.ch:
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Danilo gezuru@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Stéphane
Well, generally if you really have data that is very accurate, and can assure that the alignment of the data is correct, then I think it's great to provide high detail in OSM. Maybe with the source tag set to the image URL or something similar :)
Effectively as usual ;-)
But it would be strange if for example there are 500m^2 in Lausanne that are mapped high-detail using areas as roads, and the rest using lines as road. In that case I'd probably prefer consistency over accuracy.
Yes or no ;-) It's effectively true the it will be strange if we have a little area with very high accuracy and nothing any-more after but in the case (it not the case of Lausanne) where we have a small Orthophoto and not may data after that is a good to map this area with high accuracy. This to "thanks" (I don't know the right therm in English) the provider of the Orthophoto. And to show that if OSM have data imply that we use it to improve accuracy ;-)
CU Stéphane
I hope you understand my point.
Danilo
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Stéphane Brunner courriel@stephane-brunner.ch wrote:
Hello Danilo,
Globally I'm OK with your message, except two thing.
- Why if in Lausanne we have a good Orthophoto we shouldn't "use it"
because not almost Switzerland have one ?
- Why does we need an Orthophoto that are accurate up to a few
centimeters to place landuse who is at something between 2 and 10 meter to the center of the road ?
CU Stéphane
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Danilo gezuru@gmail.com wrote:
My opinion about this issue:
As long as we don't have either up to date, high resolution, offset-corrected aerial imagery for almost all of switzerland or positioning devices that are accurate up to a few centimeters, I don't really see the point of tracing the borders of paths and small roads, as the accuracy can't be determined by someone who looks at the map. High details in mapping send a message of accuracy. If that accuracy can't be guaranteed, it might be better to map less detailed. Else, people will stop to rely on the OSM data, because they're very unsure about the accuracy.
As for correcting other people's work, I agree that this should only be done if one is sure that the other person's changes are indeed erroneous. E.g. if there are up to date high resolution and *correctly aligned* satellite images, or if you have accurate GPS traces yourself. If you're unsure, you should leave it as it is, and check reality first. Satellite images might be off a little.
Concerning mapping larger objects as wide roads or rivers as areas, I don't see the problem. But to map the borders of small objects accurately, one needs an accurate data source.
Danilo
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk -- _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk -- _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hello all,
Am 05.09.2011 19:19, schrieb Stefan Keller:
Salut Stéphane
I think Danilo made a valid point and if I would have to decide for one approach, I'd prefer mapping roads as center lines/ways as Simon wrote. I think there can even co-exist roads as areas and as center lines - as long as one still can do routing. With only areas you can't do routing without heavy preprocessing and (processing-ready) streets to me are one raison-d'être of OSM.
I too have been "in clinch" with both approachs recently.
Mapping large roads only with the center line gives the problem on where to place border objects, and when having multiple lanes where is the correct place for bus stops etc.
The drawback of areas is, that they are not routable. I think we should NOT loose all the contributors which have the main goal to mape a routable OSM.
I would suggest this:
- Always map the center line - If you have enough details and time to also map the area, even better
ZorkNika
Hi,
The drawback of areas is, that they are not routable. I think we should NOT loose all the contributors which have the main goal to mape a routable OSM.
If this is the case, then I am strongly against mapping as areas only. At least doing double work as suggested bySorkNika. Mapping lines before area as a rule of thumb? Would that make sense as a top down approach?
Gruss, Florian
Hello Stephan, ZorkNika, Florian,
Thanks tor your right inputs, but our conflict is landuse or places then mapping road in not the accrual subject, and it's true that the routing attributes can't be on an area it's for that that I usually place way on the middle of the places. Shernott do the same than there is relay no problems about this.
CU Stéphane
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Florian Eggenberger florian.eggenberger@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The drawback of areas is, that they are not routable. I think we should NOT loose all the contributors which have the main goal to mape a routable OSM.
If this is the case, then I am strongly against mapping as areas only. At least doing double work as suggested bySorkNika. Mapping lines before area as a rule of thumb? Would that make sense as a top down approach?
Gruss, Florian _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hello Simone,
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
This is the biggest issue of OSM : never take a decision => many unsolved conflict (and no common goal).
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm not sure that I understand well, the first is to create one way inner the roads with the landuse, the second is to cut all the reads and create a multypolygone with all the segment to create the landuse.
Personally I see to other methods: - create a way at 10 cm to the road with the landuse (I think it's the worth) - create a new way on the top of the road (same nodes) to create the landuse
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
For me this this method have to big issue: - If we have a road who pass over an other with a bridge many people create for the landuse a node at the intersection, and that mean that we can jump with our car from the bridge to the don road :( - Some people think that too complicate.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
That the too method is OK is one point, but witch one is the best (final goal) ?
Simon
CU and thanks for your resounds Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
The nice thing about osm is that there is no such thing as a "final goal" in terms of mapping output but rather the activity as such is just plain fun.
It's interesting to see that highways=* are being started to tag as areas - if I remember right, this (as well as the controversies accompanying it) was predicted by some new year's outlook. I personally don't see currently too much motivation in doing so, but let's see where it leads. Again, the nice thing is to see the map evolve and I don't see any objection to having the two mapping practices (road as way and/or area) applied.
Also, I don't consider it problematic to have different level of details rather than having "consistency" (regarding the level of detail, I assume). On contrary, having a block mapped with incredible detail just next to an area not mapped may be reason for another person to get involved. It can't be the objective to have a "complete" map with consistent level of detail - we are no competitor of Swisstopo.
And to conclude: With regard to mapping highways as ways and/or areas I don't see problems of coexistence. In term of changing or editing data it never hurts to get in contact with interested mappers at the earliest point in time. And finally, c'est le ton qui fait la musique!
Marc
On 05.09.2011, at 11:03, Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello Simone,
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
This is the biggest issue of OSM : never take a decision => many unsolved conflict (and no common goal).
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm not sure that I understand well, the first is to create one way inner the roads with the landuse, the second is to cut all the reads and create a multypolygone with all the segment to create the landuse.
Personally I see to other methods:
- create a way at 10 cm to the road with the landuse (I think it's the worth)
- create a new way on the top of the road (same nodes) to create the landuse
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
For me this this method have to big issue:
- If we have a road who pass over an other with a bridge many people
create for the landuse a node at the intersection, and that mean that we can jump with our car from the bridge to the don road :(
- Some people think that too complicate.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
That the too method is OK is one point, but witch one is the best (final goal) ?
Simon
CU and thanks for your resounds Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk -- _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hello Marc,
Effectively your true that no fixed final goal, I use too strong words, I just want to speak what it's an improvement for OSM an explicitly example is the addr:interpolation who it's explicitly a tool for introducing address since we have some better information.
CU Stéphane
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Marc Zoss marczoss@gmail.com wrote:
The nice thing about osm is that there is no such thing as a "final goal" in terms of mapping output but rather the activity as such is just plain fun.
It's interesting to see that highways=* are being started to tag as areas - if I remember right, this (as well as the controversies accompanying it) was predicted by some new year's outlook. I personally don't see currently too much motivation in doing so, but let's see where it leads. Again, the nice thing is to see the map evolve and I don't see any objection to having the two mapping practices (road as way and/or area) applied.
Also, I don't consider it problematic to have different level of details rather than having "consistency" (regarding the level of detail, I assume). On contrary, having a block mapped with incredible detail just next to an area not mapped may be reason for another person to get involved. It can't be the objective to have a "complete" map with consistent level of detail - we are no competitor of Swisstopo.
And to conclude: With regard to mapping highways as ways and/or areas I don't see problems of coexistence. In term of changing or editing data it never hurts to get in contact with interested mappers at the earliest point in time. And finally, c'est le ton qui fait la musique!
Marc
On 05.09.2011, at 11:03, Stéphane Brunner wrote:
Hello Simone,
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de, naturally without a conclusion.
This is the biggest issue of OSM : never take a decision => many unsolved conflict (and no common goal).
Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical cartographers generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic OSM way.
I'm not sure that I understand well, the first is to create one way inner the roads with the landuse, the second is to cut all the reads and create a multypolygone with all the segment to create the landuse.
Personally I see to other methods:
- create a way at 10 cm to the road with the landuse (I think it's the worth)
- create a new way on the top of the road (same nodes) to create the landuse
I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to less problems with edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing things.
For me this this method have to big issue:
- If we have a road who pass over an other with a bridge many people
create for the landuse a node at the intersection, and that mean that we can jump with our car from the bridge to the don road :(
- Some people think that too complicate.
But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
That the too method is OK is one point, but witch one is the best (final goal) ?
Simon
CU and thanks for your resounds Simon
PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go away :-)
Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
Hello every body,
English bellow.
====
Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont irréprochable.
Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme [1]. Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
Merci d'avance.
====
I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with one I can't have a constructive discussion.
What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions of others and hos one are irreproachable.
Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good accurate zone plan like [1]. It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
Thanks in advance.
====
[1] http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Envoyé depuis mon lapin -- Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout - https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk -- _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-
Danilo -
Florian Eggenberger -
Marc Zoss -
Simon Poole -
Stefan Keller -
Stéphane Brunner -
ZorkNika