@Pedja Ah - I see what you’re saying now! Yes, the list at http://www.sotadata.org.uk/summits.aspx are indeed the “most prominent peaks” (and certainly all the English ones are missing prominence data in OSM).

@Pedja Thanks for that. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see any prominence data there? However:

@imagico I’m guessing in “computable and at the same time in the general case practically non-verifiable except through computation using external data” the missing external data that you’re referring to is the saddle elevation between peaks (basing it of this explanation)? That’s measurable, but doesn’t tend to be in OSM.

Linked from the previous site are a couple of options - there’s a fusion tables link (which will go away in a couple of weeks) and also a link to https://github.com/edwardearl/winprom which offers a plausible way to download some SRTM data and process that. However, it’s not a small job - here are “peaks by prominence” where I happened to be yesterday (here in OSM. As you can see, OSM has 4 peaks there (which I definitely noticed!), and the prominence map “only one of note”. Many more prominence values would need to be calculated than the “everymountainintheworld” version.

Can you be a bit more specific? Sites such as this one still work for me.

@Pedja @pangoSE The standard OSM Carto stylesheet has been reluctant to add significant pre-processing. I suspect that one of the reasons why is that it does tie the display of new features to a database reload. I do one every few weeks on average and it doesn’t take long to do. In this graph the period from 00:00 to 03:00 is the database load, and from 03:00 to 13:00 is just applying missing diffs. If you wanted to render the whole planet at any significant level of detail the time to load would lead to noticeable downtime, so you’d probably need two rendering servers; one to serve “old style” tiles while the “new style” one was being reloaded. That’s not impossible to do, but it’s a major change to how things are done now, and I suspect people would think that the effort to do that would be better spent in other areas (and I’d probably agree).

@yvecai The general answer to “why pre-processing” is that it makes the OSM-Carto code much easier to write and to understand - just add the pseudo-values like “bigpeak” to the selection in project.mml and add the extra display code here and here.

More specifically, it’s doing a bit more than an “ORDER BY” - the lua code first looks at peaks with an “ele” more than 914m (3000 feet in old money - the height that is the differentiator of a munro in Scotland). It then tries to infer the prominence if it isn’t set. Firstly it assumes that it’s the same as the elevation, but if the “munro” tag is set but prominence isn’t, then it’s likely to be a “munro top” - over 914m but still on the way up the primary mountain, and so it assumes low prominence in that case. This “prominence guessing” works in Scotland but not very well elsewhere (in particular sort the list here by prominance and compare to Kerry here), but it’s better than nothing, and as people start mapping actual prominence the need to guess it goes away.

As an aside, I believe that the prominence data in Scotland comes from the Database of British and Irish Hills. There’s a bit of background on that on talk-gb here and here, and on this changeset among others. I’m pretty sure that the prominence data doesn’t come directly from the OS; the question is whether it is derived from data that does. We certainly do have permission from someone from DoBIH to use it. If it does turn out to be valid to use within OSM it’d be good to see the missing prominence data in Wales, Ireland, England and the rest of Scotland added.

I’m not convinced about “iD och Potlach2 är värdelösa på MPer och dess medlemmar” (“iD and Potlach2 are worthless for MPs and their members”) - with a DWG hat on I regularly use P2 for making individual changes to relations and relation members simply because it’s the easiest way of solving a particular problem (see http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?SomeoneElse_Revert for the numbers).

(adding some comments from the context of a working group member, in my case the Data Working Group)

We did try to pick up the pieces by trying to do a relations reset with the Working Groups, and with each other. We are trying to clarify what we expect from our relations with each other.

Firstly, thanks to Joost for picking this up in a way that simply hadn’t been done before. The responsiveness of the previous board on the Crimea issue was dreadful (strictly speaking, the DWG and the wider OSM community are still waiting for a “final decision” message on this from the previous board, but the time for that has long gone now). The DWG sent a reply to Joost’s initial “relations reset” discussion email back in July; we look forward to the board’s response.

That’s the fundamental work that needs to be done to make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen in the same way again.

Fully agreed, because one thing that can be guaranteed is that issues like this will happen again. I can think of a couple of current issues that I’m dealing with at the moment that have the capacity to escalate in the same way, and one is entirely sea, which makes checking the “on the ground rule” there difficult.

While making location-specific exceptions to policies isn’t particularly scalable, allowing people to easily create maps for themselves and their communities from OSM data is - they can even include their own “alternative facts” that may actually needed for legal compliance within their country(1), something that’s also in the disputed territories policy, with less perjorative wording than mine of course .

(1) India and China are often mentioned here, but other countries also pass “laws about how they should be displayed on maps” that may look just as silly to outsiders.

Hello KWIOOSTB35,

You were unblocked as soon as you read the message - you can carry on editing now!

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM’s Data Working Group.

Just for info - the images in this post aren’t visible

If you see problematic edit (by anyone, “foreign” or “local”), please try and explain the problem to them in changeset discussion comments. If they continue, please report it to OSM’s Data Working group, by email to data@osmfoundation.org.

Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

As the message suggests, perhaps the points in your trail are missing some important information?

Trying reading “ Por que meu arquivo GPX não foi enviado corretamente?” in https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=en&tl=pt&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FGPX%23Why_didn.27t_my_GPX_file_upload_properly.3F .

Como a mensagem sugere, talvez os pontos em sua trilha estejam faltando alguma informação importante?

Tentando ler “Por que meu arquivo GPX não foi enviado corretamente?” em https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=en&tl=pt&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FGPX%23Why_didn.27t_my_GPX_file_upload_properly.3F.

Hi - it generally reads OK to me.

I’m not a fan of “foot=designated” just because you’ve got a legal right of access there; I’d tend to just use “yes” and leave “designated” for the original purpose of “somewhere that particular traffic is signed to use”. For example see osm.org/way/299375428 is foot=designated because foot traffic is signed between the footpath that joins the main road and the roundabout and then back along the other side of the dual carriageway, not across what presumable was/is a right of way across the dual carriageway. It’s not a big issue though - plenty of people use “foot=designated” on public footpaths in England and Wales and that usage dates from when it was a cludge to indicate “public footpath”, before “designation” was widely used.

With regard to BCNorwich’s point, I can think of a few examples of “Legal RoW but access discouraged”. One obvious one is traffic regulation orders. I tend to leave the designation and add “access=no” or similar for the duration.

The “discouraged” tag (see e.g. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Lef ) seems to be relatively rarely used in England and Wales - 66 foot=discouraged. “permitted” seems to be even less used. That’s been discussed on the tagging list in the past but I’m not sure there is a commonly accepted answer. I’ve done e.g. osm.org/way/142212112 previously.

Regards,

Andy

@jguthula - thanks for asking the question, it’s a very good one.

I suspect that the “correct” answer will vary hugely depending on where in the world a particular road or teack is. You asked in the German forum, and as noted above got a somewhat different answer to some of the replies here. That’s not a surprise - the German answers that suggest to (“rely on official roadside signage”) won’t tend to work in (for example) England and Wales where private roads and publically-accessible tracks may not have that signage. Other countries may need a different answer again - your example is in Canada; I’ve no idea what the best answer there would be.

In terms of England and Wales (which was where this question first popped up), many/most of these tracks will be access=private. Some may be designated rights of right (a “public footpath” implies “foot=yes” in addition to any other access rights that might be appropriate; a “byway open to all traffic” implies “foot=yes; horse=yes; bicycle=yes; motor_vehicle=yes” and there are other designations too). This isn’t OSM in England and Wales trying to make things more complicated than they need to be - it’s the local law; we don’t have anything like the Swedish “Allemansrätten” that presumes access is allowed with certain caveats. Scotland does (that’s why I said “England and Wales” rather than “The UK” earlier).

As other people have already said I don’t believe that you can infer motor_vehicle access tags based on a GPS trace only. All you know is that someone delivering a parcel was able to deliver it there. Given that (as noted above) that would be perfectly possible even if the access was “private”, adding any sort of access tag based on just a GPS trace in England and Wales is a non-starter. What you may be able to do is to decide (based on likely usage) whether it’s a “highway=service; service=driveway” or a “highway=track” (though that can be difficult) and what surface tag would be appropriate (“paved” should be doable from imagery; anything else less so). Other tags that are sometimes used with tracks are “tracktype” and “smoothness” - it would be difficult or impossible to do these accurately just from imagery.

However, as RobJN has already asked above, and as the posters in the German forum already mentioned - do you have the ability to collect any more on-the-ground information such as photography? A ground-level picture of a track or even a couple of questions on the “I’ve just delivered a parcel” job complete form would help hugely at classifying these roads and tracks better. There’s also the “ask a local OSM mapper” approach - there will be places where someone in OSM has mapped something as X and you don’t understand why - you can just ask them by commenting on the relevant changeset.

Best Regards,

Andy (answering in a personal capacity only)

Assuming I did want to join the Telegram group, how would I do that?

You can join the OSM Telegram group to stay up to date!

How do I do this (assuming I don’t have a phone number that I want to provide) and how does OSM’s Telegram group differ from the other entries at osm.wiki/Contact_channels ?

Thanks for this. It’s always good to have an alternative to doing things via a Linux GUI and “crouton” on a Chromebook. Chromebooks are surprisingly capable for the money, and if you don’t want to use the Google stuff, you don’t have to. You’ve also got the option of keeping all the data (or software) you care about on an external USB stick and just putting that in your pocket when you’re worried that the PC might get stolen.

Best Regards,

Andy

(one minor note - an extra space has crept into “/etc/apt/sourc es.list”).

Thanks - works great!

Hi Richard, Is it possible to add a selection of tags to a particular function key? For example, if I’m adding ditches and streams it’d be useful to have an easy way of adding the various combinations.

Re ‘“only to run Personal Applications” - Is JOSM a “Personal Application”?’ the answer is “yes”.

@Wulf4096 I’m not a lawyer, but I can think of very few people in the German forum that would not be covered by the personal use clause you cite. I don’t think we need to scare people into obtaining Oracle licences (and I also don’t think that the issues raised by don-vip are issues to stop most people using OpenJDK now, but that’s a different issue).