Hallo Martin,
das müsste dann aber auch highway=path, bicycle=designated sein und ich war mehr bei den highway=path und sonst gar nichts (selbst foot=yes fehlt häufiger), die dann meistens Wanderwege darstellen. Und sich eben manchmal als 2,5 m breite Asphalt- oder Schotterwege rausstellen...
Das Thema highway=path vs. footway/cycleway lassen wir an der Stelle aussen vor, OK? ;-)

Hallo HannesHH,
ich denke es spricht nichts dagegen, denen einfach die tatsächlichen Attribute zu geben. Und bitte ein "FIXME=Bitte vervollständigen" oder "FIXME=Geht im Norden/Süden/Osten/Westen noch weiter" dazu. Letzteres mache ich gerne weil die Wege manchmal verändert werden, ohne das FIXME zu entfernen, und so ist hoffentlich immer noch klar was gemeint war.
Alle Stellen mit FIXME werden z.B. bei Keepright auf der Karte angezeigt.
Zur Not tut's auch ein highway=road.
Hauptsache man sieht dass da noch mehr ist.

Gruß,
Markus

Wilpin, you're right, I could have mentioned that too as it's another important information that is often left out - you probably don't want to use grade5 tracks with normal street shoes unless the weather has been dry for a few days, for example...

"Für mich sind Baustellen ein wichtiges Thema und nicht nur ein kleiner Schönheitsfehler wenn sie von einem Renderer nicht als solche gerendert werden."

Und was tust Du dagegen, dass sie bei Deinem Taggingschema nicht als solche gerendert werden? Hast Du mal versucht, bei Mapnik (und Osmarender, der unterstützt es ja auch nur in bestimmten Zoomleveln) eine Verbesserung zu erreichen? Wohl nicht, sonst hättest Du wohl kaum Osmarender und Mapnik verwechselt (bei Deinem ersten Edit der Wikiseite von highway=construction)...
Insofern klingt der obige Satz wie Hohn. "Es ist mir wichtig aber ich tue überhaupt nichts dafür." Super Sache. :-(

Hello Richard.

I promised to provide you with sample problems.
Here's one example of the many duplicated nodes for you to look at:
http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.07504681579814&lon=7.011004998236302&zoom=17&layers=B000F000F, nodes id=283253529 and 283253533, both lat=51.1490567,lon=7.0179454. Potlatch 0.10b it seems. Result is that the two roads aren't actually connected from the viewpoint of a routing algorithm. :-(
As for the duplicated way nodes here is one of these:
http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.07504681579814&lon=7.011004998236302&zoom=17&layers=B000F000F, node id=29680417, lat=51.0751697, lon=7.0108352 at intersection of Elsbachstraße and Dechant-Krey-Straße.

I also mentioned the unconnected ways. Here's an area with a lot of these:
http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.060180640321384&lon=6.9582513227575165&zoom=17&layers=B000F000F
You don't see it on the rendered map, but if you zoom in far enough with JOSM or Potlatch, you can see missing connections, e.g. at Boberstraße and Butterheiderstraße. There is also Samlanstraße a bit to the north-west which was created with Potlatch 0.10b. (Don't let yourself be confused if you see me as author. I just removed some abbreviations (str. -> straße).)
As I already said, but I can't stress this enough, these missing connections are deadly for routing applications. Plus another result is open areas (lakes, landuse etc.) which are then not rendered by Mapnik. (About which he is totally right in my opinion. Areas have to be closed.) So if you could comment if I'm right about the snapping radius in Potlatch, that would be really good.

I haven't found a duplicated way yet where I'm sure it was Potlatch. Could be JOSM as well :-) or maybe two people editing at the same time. Sometimes people probably just draw another one on top of an existing one, but I don't mean these, I mean identical copies (often with added attributes).

Another thing I keep seeing a lot is untagged ways. With JOSM you get a warning before uploading if you have the validator plugin installed (but I think none without it, which isn't good either). I think all editors should warn you about this as this is almost never intended.

I'm eager to hear you comments.
So long,
Markus

Hallo FK270673.

Und wie macht man das jetzt? Ein Link auf eine Beschreibung reicht natürlich.
Das wüsste ich nämlich ebenfalls sehr gern weil ich auch schon Fälle hatte wo das sehr nützlich gewesen wäre.

Gruß, mabapla

Hi LivingWithDragons, hi Richard.

It's clear that you have to check whether the connection is actually missing.
I checked some cases in YWMS and it's pretty clear that they should connect. Don't worry, I'll check every case before changing it, no question!
Then there are cases where one way intersects the other and ends, say, half a meter after it. I think it's clear that a junction was intended but the editor didn't snap to the other way.

Richard, as you are the author of Potlatch let me (being a programmer as well, but C++ at work and Java at home) first express my respect for your achievement of writing Potlatch. If I critize stuff then it's not to bash Potlatch but to hopefully help a little to find improvements. I'm sure that OSM wouldn't be where it's today without this low-barrier entry to editing the data. If people create more errors with it then we'll have to cope with it and try to minimize the causes for it.

Can you first comment on the snapping please? Does Potlatch increase the snap-to-way radius at lower zoom levels? If not then it really should if you ask me.

I'll have to check some of the problems I know in my area to see the version number as I don't have JOSM here at work and Potlatch doesn't show the created_by tag. I'll let you know but I'm quite sure some of it was 0.10 which is probably what you're most interested in.
I think what you are describing is the cause for at least some of the duplicated nodes I see. With your description, it sounds rather obvious to me that you should first write all changes, wait for them to complete, and then write the additions. Could it be that JOSM (which doesn't seem to suffer from this problem) does it like this? It clearly lists what it will change, add and delete which implies that these are separate steps.
The other main problem I see, as already described above, are completely duplicated ways, i.e. Potlatch must have made a completely new copy of the nodes and the way and uploaded that.
I'll also look up one of these and let you know.

While we're here, another point I have about Potlatch is that it's rather easy to accidentally create "key=whatever" tags. I had one town where somebody created a lot of these instead of "name=whatever" (he added the names later so the tags offered automatically for a residential road couldn't help). And it's easy, you just need to forget to change "key" to the tag you wanted and it's there. I think Potlatch should warn you that "key" must be changed to the actual tag name.

Cheers, Markus

Hello Richard.

I can add four points here about Potlatch:
1) It seems that Potlatch does not make the "catching radius" bigger when the zoomlevel is rather low. On the other hand, people don't like to zoom in beyond the level at which the YWMS images are still shown - which is understandable. The result is a lot of unconnected ways instead of a junction when people don't click exactly on the other way.
This may not be noticeable on the rendered maps but is deadly for any routing application as it will produce strange routes as it has to think that the two ways are not connected.
2) Another error that I first found difficult to find is duplication of ways. You have two ways on top of each other, with different attributes. (I wondered why Maplint said "residential without name" but the name had a way.) Often in connection with 3) and created_by=Potlatch.
3) I keep seeing an error (that is revealed by the validator plugin in JOSM) and that is duplicated nodes, i.e. two nodes at exactly the same location. Often, this also means two ways that are again not connected according to the data. Again this may not matter for maps but is terrible for routing algorithms. In all cases I have seen (like 100 or so over the past months, no kidding) they were created_by=Potlatch XYZ.
3) Another thing, also revealed by the validator plugin, is duplicated way nodes. That means a node is in the way twice. Not as much impact as the others, but still just wrong and created_by=Potlatch.

I'm sure I'm not the first to notice these errors and it seems nothing has improved since, so I didn't bother to report them anywhere yet.

Greetings, Markus