Thanks. I thought that was the case but will mention it on talk-ie (actually are you able to post it as I’m not on that list?).

It would be good to have both as we can share learnings etc.. :-)

Andy Allan spoke about this in his recent talk at State of the Map US.

https://youtu.be/b6yRH5Ics7I?t=14m38s

Just one in the UK. Now fixed. Thanks

You could simply use the web address (url). It updates each time you move the map to give the coordinates of the centre of the map view.

It doesn’t have to be a trunk or a motorway. The point is that there is a strip of land between the lanes and as such you cannot make a u-turn. For reference both Google Maps and Bing Maps show this as two ways (I’m not copying here as that is how we had it in OpenStreetMap until a few days ago). I would recommend a revert, or at least discussing on the mailing lists before making changes like this.

A traffic calming island is something like this : http://www.ritherdon.co.uk/images/pictures/product-images/poletech-products/demountable-traffic-island-new-3-%28page-picture-large%29.jpg

I don’t agree with this change. A traffic island is a very small area, whereas this example is along the entire road. In my opinion it should be mapped as two ways (like it was before).

Also worth noting that the road no longer properly connects at it’s southern end.

Rovastar, looking on Gmaps shows that there a posts stopping easy access, and what access is maintained is signposted as no u-turn except authorised vehicles. We could debate how best to map this, but Amazed’s solution is a huge improvement over the current situation.

With every fix like this, routing in OSM will get better and better :-)

Wow. When you remap it perhaps you should remove the source tag (or change it to bing).

I forgot that I said I was going to add this to Mappa Mercia maps. Well I’ve done it on the mapnik one now as a test. We are doing seperate pages for each map so I’ve stripped out the stuff to do with multiple layers on osm.ch but my webskills are not great so I’m not sure if I got it right. I was a bit confused by the var attribs = []; and var prefixAndAttribs = []; sections.

Any chance you could take a quick look at the page source:

http://www.mappa-mercia.org/fullscreen-maps/mapnik/

Cheers, Rob

Great work. Other folks wanting to get involved may want to check out http://www.mappa-mercia.org/2015/01/fix-that-road-name.html

My top tip for OSM (or any aspect of life for that matter), is to pick your battles. Changing tags that have been around for ages and are used a lot to establish a better order/philosophy/system is too big a battle. Don’t waste your time on it as it will never change. Smaller battles are achievable - focus on those :-)

Good to see a jump in 2014 after what looked like a worrying flattening off in 2013.

Do you by any chance have breakdown by region? I’d be interested to see the number of active contributors in reasonably well mapped regions (e.g. the UK).

There is a page on the wiki for it here: osm.wiki/SotM_2014_session%3A_ScoutSigns%3A_automatic_road_sign_collection_during_navigation_and_analysis_via_JOSM

But don’t forget that it’s only beta code at the moment so hasn’t been officially released :-)

It looks like you can turn from the DF-290 (travelling east) onto the yellow road. Also you should be able to turn from the yellow road back on to the DF-290 travelling east. Currently this is not possible with Ivaldo’s design. Obviously some one should check this with a survey :-)

Not sure what you mean as it’s all in English for me. What browser/OS are you using?

And I agree that you shouldn’t split streets at arbitrary points just to get the name to render in a specific location. There are more than just the default renderer and what works for one, won’t work for another. We should focus on quality map data.

You can get over having to learn the wiki syntax by installing the VisualEditor extension. The advantage of using the wiki talk pages is that it’s easy to find at a later date. The disadvantage is that your comment may go unnoticed for ages. Hence some sort of platform that links to the wiki but works similar to a mail list/forum could be good.

Wiki discussion pages can look good and be easier to use: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:VisualEditor

I’m thinking aloud here, but what if we had a communication portal on the main OSM website that included:

1. Topic (title)
2. Primary theme (e.g. Skybox for Good)
3. Tags (e.g. Legal)
4. Associated wiki page (optional)

The tags allow me to follow a discussion about the primary theme as it expands (I missed a Skybox for Good email the other day as I was watching “talk” and it got posted to “legal” mailing list).

The optional link to associated wiki page could either simply insert a link to the discussion on the wiki discussion page (enhancing future discover-ability) or put the entire discussion on the wiki (but using the front end developed for OSM.org)

Close most mailing lists. Mailing lists suck.

The longer I think about this, the better the idea becomes. We have a large contributor base but only a few people get involved in any communication. Although we should recognise that many mappers are happy to just edit and not talk, we should be able to grow our talking community a bit more. Right now it’s confusing and we have entrenched members with loud voices. Comms needs a rethink.

Taking tagging as an example: we shouldn’t have a formal process, but we do need some place where people can say “hey, I want to tag this, but I don’t have knowledge from around the world - what do you think about the tag v=k?”. A “Tags lacking a proposal” category is a bad thing.

Anyone want to work together in developing a communications strategy? If we work it under the CWG we could ask for funding if some development is needed. First step would be to look at what the ideal situation would be.

Rob

Looks good. Very colourful (perhaps that should be colorful given that it’s America)!

Have you considered using the P2 merge tool (the one used in the UK for cycle path data)?