Hi,

Path and footway … I too view this as stupid. I view both as the same thing. I belive it is a British thing .. where there is a legal difference between the two.. and that should have been handled with a tag like access rather than make a new tag.

Road … not a legal tag .. I’d not render it. Consider it a kind of ‘fixme’ tag?

Planned … again I’d not render it. Not ‘on the ground’ = not verifiable, not confirmed, financed … may not happen. Under construction is much more usefull as there may be interference with other traffic.

Just my ideas.

Hi, Thanks for getting the information. Entering them into OSM will depend on what kind of water source they are …

A tap? man_made=water_tap … with drinking_water=yes,no A spring? .. natural=spring … with drinking_water=yes,no A well? man_made=water_well … with drinking_water=yes,no A bubbler/drinking fountain? amenity=drinking_water Note that this tag doesn’t provide specific information on the type of the water source and implies potability! amenity=water_point waterway=water_point For supply of large quantities of water. emergency=fire_hydrant

Not all of these are rendered.

Updates for me happen quicker on Andosm …

However .. I now don’t look for my changes so much on my device. I do look back at them to check for errors (mine!) using the main web map.

Precision. Well yes to some degree. However it is more important to convey what is on the ground with a reasonable relationship between them. For example … a road curve might be represented as a single node precisely located at the apex. The map would then be a very sharp junction of two lines. Precise - yes, representative? Probably not .. needs more points to represent the curve that is there. Even if those points are not precise, they are a better representation of what is there. So don’t be too concerned with the precision, representation is more important.

I mean it does not like “oneway=no” . IIRC.

And a few other things … like vehicle=yes

… These are default values… most of the time they are not tagged. Sometimes they are, and sometimes there is justification for using these tags.

Humm .. just checked.. presently it does not throw warnings on these things .. it still does throw a warning for oneway=-1. I think that is a change from my memory of its behavior in the past. So either things have changed or my memory is faulty? Maybe I’m better off not knowing the answer to that… :)

The removal of valid data … errr (to ‘fix’ rendering, explicitly stating implied tags)… who is doing that? And why? … There is is some being ‘desired’ by editors .. JOSM validation for example does not ‘like’ oneway=no so there is a temptation to ‘fix’ that. That maybe the source of these kind of deletions. Perhaps this is driven by an effort to reduce the size of the data base.

Changing tags is a problem. Lot of inertia. There will always be opposition to change. “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” George Bernard Shaw

Making new tags is also a problem… well making GOOD tags. The present ‘rules’ for tagging consensus is 75% (or 8 votes only 8 votes all for the tag). Lot of ‘I don’t like it’ .. without any thought of the need for a tag to describe this thing and how best to do it. People can, of course, make tags without consensus .. ending up with a tag like dog_bin … when dog excrement is meant rather than a bin for dead dogs.

Tag ‘ownership’? There is an original proposer .. but they could have left OSM.

There may be some with airport runways across or even down them too.

Some may be mapped with ways, others with boundaries, some with both…

Yes, the hole will be moved from time to time.. and the map may not have the latest location. Work with what you have?

There is the proposal osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course Has a number of tags. Proposed for over a year now.

On that you can see a way is proposed .. would that not be the ideal ‘course’ for the gold ball? The user could enter their maximum reliable range, hole number and the app figure out where that range circle (centered on the present location) crossed the way and show that to the user.

You say “Remote mappers will be able to map geometrics of buildings, roads and land use with the help of aerial imagery. “

Remote mapping buildings .. I don’t usually map those. I’ll map them where they are unusual (shape) or a long way from anywhere else. But there it typically much to map, so I concentrate on the roads, large villages, towns. The rest … local knowledge should be used.

I take a cautious approach to remote mapping roads. I prefer to down grade a road classification rather than make an assumption that upgrades it … possibly beyond its’ actual class.

I find remote mapping land use is not precise. And orchard looks much like a vineyard … a group of buildings could be a village … or a collection of farm buildings … There can be a lot of assumptions made .. best to leave things off the map if uncertain?

Opps .. wrong entry .. sorry. I make no comment on your trees problem.

You say “Remote mappers will be able to map geometrics of buildings, roads and land use with the help of aerial imagery. “

I find remote mapping land use is not precise. And orchard looks much like a vineyard … a group of buildings could be a village … or a collection of farm buildings … There can be a lot of assumptions made .. best to leave things off the map if uncertain?

I take a cautious approach to remote mapping roads. I prefer to down grade a road classification rather than make an assumption that upgrades it … possibly beyond its’ actual class.

Remote mapping buildings .. I don’t usually map those. I’ll map them where they are unusual (shape) or a long way from anywhere else. But there it typically much to map, so I concentrate on the roads, large villages, towns. The rest … local knowledge should be used.

Hi + thanks! I note your edits to the OSM in Rwanda. Thank you for the contributions and for your ‘feet on the ground’.

Some roads I have come across elsewhere in the world have been very straight lines compared to the satellite imagery, I think that comes from a lack of time but an interest to show that there is a road between the two points. Though I have made something similar in a place where I know there is a track .. but it is hidden by tree cover. In another case the road was remade near the original road. In ‘Outback Australia’ it is not unusual for the grader driver to decide to change the course of a road .. if he, the property manager or someone decides that the road would be better off elsewhere then it may well be made elsewhere! The satellite imagery may show the old road .. as may old maps. So be careful about roads and the map/satellite imagery, they may not agree for lots of reasons.

You are very well place to ‘see’ what is needed there as you are using the map. Map.me is good .. others to try are OsmAnd and MapOut. Each has a different way of displaying the data - OsmAnd has at least 3 ways of displaying the daat - one fore cars, another for bicycle another for pedestrians. MapOut has a 3D effect for topographic information.

One of the problems ‘we’ westerners have is realizing that the world does not conform to our ideas…. If there is something that should be mapped and you cannot find a tag for it … make one up, put it (and others) on the map .. and then document it on the wiki. If you need help with that .. contact me.. or I’m sure many others.

Using the ipad to get gpx tracks may work .. depends on how good the thing works in a car. On foot should be ok. However battery life may be an issue. I’d not be too worried about roads .. usually good enough to represent them and buildings from the satellite imagery. It is the detail of where you can get water, food, fuel and camping/lodging that travelers will want first. Things like Police stations, doctors/hospitals etc come secondary but when wanted are high on the list. Those things cannot be done from the satellite imagery!

Good Luck.

Yes .. nice find .. I’ve an OSM velo map of India from October 2014 .. and it is missing there/then (and I did not notice!)

The words “on the list” may be obvious to the person who entered them … but lack clarity. I too probably fall into the same trap.

Perhaps this could have been better approached from both sides by personal contact using the OSM contact … www.openstreetmap.org/user/[user_name]? (Note that for some [user_name] should be in lower case only.) You can use the history of a node/way to find out the user_name of the last person who changed it.

Road classifications? Well that needs to be consistent across a large area to be usefull, so maybe it should stay at the present classification? It needs to be appropriate to the connecting roads too. So for me, I’d normally add features, detail .. but not change the existing classification unless there has been a large change with the road width, number of lanes, .. not just the traffic level/congestion?

I too cannot see a valid reason. I’d look forward to their explanation … could be cultural? Or just an experiment that was not meant to be seen. They may not reply. In any case worth while to contact them .. so they know things are being done and they are being ‘observed’ at least in part.

Ummm you don’t say that you contacted the person who did this… Nor that you checked that the name had not been changed from something more relevant…

Can one assume that you did this?

“Discrepancies”

of upto 10 meters can be had from a single GPS track .. and consider someone driving a car with a GPS and putting that trace into OSM.

in satellite imagery can be had due to elevation changes and a non normal view (not 90 degrees to the surface).

Does it matter? Well .. to the perfectionist yes … we all like accuracy. But as a user of the map .. you simply want a representation of what is there, some distortion is ok as long as the features are recognizable. Some paper maps deliberately distort the scale so they can better show details in certain places. So .. it matters .. a little. Don’t get to take with accuracy, better to get the more things of use on the map. If there is something you use/like that is not on the map that (to me) is far more important than getting things dimensionally ‘accurate’.

Welcome indeed! My early lessons are .. don’t delete stuff. Even if your certain it is not there.. been past it on the way to work many times.. it is not there.. go and look and I find it there… Stick to adding new stuff, minor edits to correct other stuff. If you must delete stuff .. go and look at it again .. stopped on foot, it makes so much difference.

Have to ask the Ducks if they would allow other traffic. From the press photos I’d say no other traffic as they have separate lanes alongside.

Most of the animal paths I’m thinking of would be ok, as in physically possible, for walking .. might be ok for a mountain bicycle and a trials motorcycle. Even a trail motorcycle on the easier ones. They are far from flat, never paved.

Yes it is a nice act.

As for OSM? Animal ‘paths’ can form a feature in the landscape .. and might get used by people too.

highway=path width=0.5 surface=unpaved, paved animal=yes (not documented?) animal:type=duck, kangaroo, cattle, sheep etc.

” In the West, you will find almost every road tarmaced, even the smallest one.”

Not in Australia … Both the “Plenty Highway” and the “Sandover Highway” are unpaved .. and you’d not want to run a modern family car let alone a sports car over them. There has been talk for many years (if not decades) of paving the “Plenty Highway” … don’t think I’ll see that in my life time.

I’ve just mapped a paved road from a town to a railway stop (some distance .. less than 100 but more than 40?).. there are quite unmapped paved roads around the place. But you’ll find the main unpaved roads have been mapped before all these smaller paved roads .. simply because of there importance.