[OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 81, Issue 55

Mon May 30 03:07:50 BST 2011

On 5/29/11, talk-request at openstreetmap.org
<talk-request at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Send talk mailing list submissions to
> 	talk at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	talk-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	talk-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Maarten Deen)
>    2. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Paul Hartmann)
>    3. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Maarten Deen)
>    4. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Tom Hughes)
>    5. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Erik Lundin)
>    6. Re: level_crossing, leveled (Russ Nelson)
>    7. Bridge relation on way going under? (Dave F.)
>    8. Re: Bridge relation on way going under? (Tobias Knerr)
>    9. Re: Bridge relation on way going under? (Lennard)
>   10. Re: Better Bing imagery in Potlatch? (Maarten Deen)
>   11. Re: Bridge relation on way going under? (Borbus)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 14:08:47 +0200
> From: Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl>
> To: Talk Openstreetmap <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch?
> Message-ID: <4DE0E5CF.8010600 at xs4all.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck in
> Germany <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18>
> and
> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery
> settings
> I have bing:bing for Bing Sat.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 15:15:37 +0200
> From: Paul Hartmann <phaaurlt at googlemail.com>
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch?
> Message-ID: <4DE0F579.8030209 at googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Maarten Deen wrote:
>> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck
>> in Germany
>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and
>> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery
>> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat.
>
> Cannot reproduce, in Potlatch2, JOSM and on the Bing website [1] I get the
> same level 19 tiles.
>
> [1]
> <http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.49580974821087~6.243679001927576&lvl=19&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Walbeck%2C%20NW%2C%20Deutschland&form=LMLTCC>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 15:29:23 +0200
> From: Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl>
> To: Talk Openstreetmap <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Cc: josm-dev <josm-dev at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch?
> Message-ID: <4DE0F8B3.40508 at xs4all.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Paul Hartmann wrote:
>> Maarten Deen wrote:
>>> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck
>>> in Germany
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and
>>> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery
>>> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat.
>>
>> Cannot reproduce, in Potlatch2, JOSM and on the Bing website [1] I get the
>> same level 19 tiles.
>>
>> [1]
>> <http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.49580974821087~6.243679001927576&lvl=19&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Walbeck%2C%20NW%2C%20Deutschland&form=LMLTCC>
>
> I've got some screenshots:
> JOSM: http://www.maasluip.nl/osm/bing-JOSM.png
> Potlatch: http://www.maasluip.nl/osm/bing-Potlatch.png
>
> I'm sure you'll see the difference. Maybe it's a JOSM misconfiguration or
> bug?
>
> (cc'd josm-dev too)
>
> Maarten
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 15:07:47 +0100
> From: Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu>
> To: Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl>
> Cc: Talk Openstreetmap <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch?
> Message-ID: <4DE101B3.1010106 at compton.nu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 28/05/11 13:08, Maarten Deen wrote:
>
>> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck
>> in Germany
>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and
>> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery
>> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat.
>
> My guess is you have the max zoom set too low in JOSM. IIRC it defaults
> to 18 but bing can go higher than that, depending on the area.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 16:25:00 +0200
> From: Erik Lundin <erik at lists.lun.nu>
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch?
> Message-ID: <4DE105BC.2000608 at lists.lun.nu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Thanks, this was helpful. My JOSM had max zoom level set to 17. Changing
> it to 18 or 19 gives a significant increase of the resolution. Just a
> small difference between 18/19 in this case.
>
> /Erik
>
> 2011-05-28 16:07, Tom Hughes skrev:
>> On 28/05/11 13:08, Maarten Deen wrote:
>>
>>> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at Walbeck
>>> in Germany
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and
>>> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery
>>> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat.
>>
>> My guess is you have the max zoom set too low in JOSM. IIRC it defaults
>> to 18 but bing can go higher than that, depending on the area.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 11:13:35 -0400
> From: Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com>
> To: Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com>
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
> Message-ID: <19937.4383.14559.443884 at desk.crynwr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Richard Mann writes:
>  > Unless you operate to peculiar safety standards, there'll probably be
>  > a stop sign on the track some way either side of the former
>  > crossing(probably set for the stopping distance of the heaviest train
>  > operating at linespeed, and taking the gradient into account - which
>  > could easily be a mile away). So there'll be quite a length of track
>  > that's "disused". I'd probably tag the railway as abandoned, and
>  > remove the level crossing, if it looks like a permanent situation.
>
> If the tracks are gone, I tag it railway=abandoned. If the tracks are
> still there, I tag it railway=disused, even if it's disconnected from
> the main line. Railroads in New York will *often* disconnect tracks
> they aren't currently using because tracks connected to the national
> rail network are taxed at a higher rate. Of course, land with no
> tracks at all is taxed even lower, so rails quickly get ripped up
> here. Have I ever said how much I hate the greedy hand of government?
> I much prefer the invisible hand of markets. Invisible hands don't
> levy taxes and cause tracks to be unnecessarily ripped up!!!
>
> --
> --my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
> Crynwr supports open source software
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 17:21:42 +0100
> From: "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com>
> To: OSM Talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under?
> Message-ID: <4DE12116.8020006 at madasafish.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi
>
> This wiki page:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels
>
> talks about adding a relation to the way going under the bridge.
>
> This statement:
>
> "allows both the way(s) crossing the structure /and/ those passing under
> it to be identified (river and most canals bridges only pass /over/ the
> waterway, and using only the Way tag bridge=yes means that intersection
> tests would have to be used to determine the bridges; now we can
> associate the bridges with the waterway as well."
>
> is unclear (to me) as to why it's necessary. Why does an intersection
> test need to be performed; doesn't the 'bridge=' tag define that the two
> crossing ways are separate?
>
> Hope you can clarify it for me.
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110528/29445b4b/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 18:46:04 +0200
> From: Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under?
> Message-ID: <4DE126CC.70205 at tobias-knerr.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Dave F. wrote:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels
> [...]
>> This statement:
>>
>> "allows both the way(s) crossing the structure /and/ those passing under
>> it to be identified (river and most canals bridges only pass /over/ the
>> waterway, and using only the Way tag bridge=yes means that intersection
>> tests would have to be used to determine the bridges; now we can
>> associate the bridges with the waterway as well."
>>
>> is unclear (to me) as to why it's necessary. Why does an intersection
>> test need to be performed; doesn't the 'bridge=' tag define that the two
>> crossing ways are separate?
>
> Let's say my application needs to answer, for whatever reason[1], the
> question "what ways are below this bridge".
>
> If there is no relation, then this is what the application would do:
> * gather at all the ways around the bridge
> * find ways that intersect the bridge way, ignoring the third dimension
> * check the layer on these ways
> -> all ways that intersect the bridge way (in 2D representation!) and
> have a lower layer are below the bridge.
>
> With a relation, these calculations would not be necessary. In my
> opinion, this is not a reason to use a bridge relation, though. (There
> /are/ reasons for using a bridge relation, but this is not one of them.)
>
> -- Tobias Knerr
>
> [1] most programs don't even need to know that. Routers can rely on the
> convention that there is no connection between ways without a common
> node, and 2D renderers only need the layer. A group of applications
> which actually need that information are advanced 3D renderers.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 23:31:54 +0200
> From: Lennard <ldp at xs4all.nl>
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under?
> Message-ID: <4DE169CA.7060602 at xs4all.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 28-5-2011 18:46, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>
>> With a relation, these calculations would not be necessary.
>
> The people that come up with these types of relations seem to forget
> that spatial data is what OSM is all about.
>
>
> For instance, using the osm2pgsql schema:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/13884500
>
> "Which roads/railways/waterways does this bridge cross?"
>
> select osm_id,highway,railway,waterway,name
>   from (
>    select l1.osm_id,l1.highway,l1.railway,l1.waterway,l1.name,
>      case when l1.layer ~ E'^-?[[:digit:]]+(\.[[:digit:]]+)?$'
>      then cast (l1.layer as float) else 0 end as crossing_layer,
>      case when l2.layer ~ E'^-?[[:digit:]]+(\.[[:digit:]]+)?$'
>      then cast (l2.layer as float) else 0 end as bridge_layer
>      from planet_osm_line l1, planet_osm_line l2
>      where ST_Crosses(l2.way, l1.way)
>        and l2.osm_id = 13884500
>        and (l1.highway is not null or l1.waterway is not null
>             or l1.railway is not null)
>   ) as foo
>   where crossing_layer < bridge_layer;
>
>
>    osm_id   |   highway    | railway | waterway |           name
> -----------+--------------+---------+----------+--------------------------
>    41050723 |              | rail    |          |
>    98667698 |              | rail    |          |
>    25933220 | unclassified |         |          | Ferdinand Perdieusstraat
>    71890307 | path         |         |          | Brampad
>     9923332 |              | rail    |          | Lijn 36
>   107068083 | residential  |         |          | Brandweg
>    53085949 | cycleway     |         |          |
>    25806811 | path         |         |          | Tunnelstraat
>    22903417 | unclassified |         |          | Brandenstraat
> (9 rows)
>
> Time: 7.328 ms
>
>
> --
> Lennard
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 11:37:43 +0200
> From: Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl>
> To: "talk at openstreetmap.org >> Talk Openstreetmap"
> 	<talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Better Bing imagery in Potlatch?
> Message-ID: <4DE213E7.2060801 at xs4all.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Erik Lundin wrote:
>  > Thanks, this was helpful. My JOSM had max zoom level set to 17. Changing
>  > it to 18 or 19 gives a significant increase of the resolution. Just a
>  > small difference between 18/19 in this case.
>
> Yes, that did the trick for mee too. It was on 17.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
>  > 2011-05-28 16:07, Tom Hughes skrev:
>  >> On 28/05/11 13:08, Maarten Deen wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> Does Potlatch have access to better BING imagery? I'm looking at
> Walbeck
>  >>> in Germany
>  >>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.495886&lon=6.243827&zoom=18> and
>  >>> in Potlatch 2 the imagery is a lot better than in JOSM. In the imagery
>  >>> settings I have bing:bing for Bing Sat.
>  >>
>  >> My guess is you have the max zoom set too low in JOSM. IIRC it defaults
>  >> to 18 but bing can go higher than that, depending on the area.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 11:49:17 +0100
> From: Borbus <borbus at gmail.com>
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Bridge relation on way going under?
> Message-ID: <4DE224AD.6090208 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I think a much more useful application than those suggested already is
> to identify all of the bridges that cross over a way.  It's easy to find
> all of the ways that go under a way, but what use is that?  It's quite
> important for waterways in general to be able to find every bridge that
> will be crossing over your path, and it's also necessary if routing for
> a tall vehicle on roads.
>
> --
> Borbus.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> End of talk Digest, Vol 81, Issue 55
> ************************************
>