- This Tool is awesome! Many thanks to those responsible. I'll need weeks make propper use of all the assistance offered by this. --Fröstel 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Great Tool! Thanks a lot! There is only a slight thing to note: it seems as if the postcode area and the outline of the postcode area only consider points which do have a addr:city tag. AFAIK this tag is supposed to be optional. --Spielkind 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Has been fixed today --Joto 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Some import produced a fair amount of misplaced nodes causing huge postcode-polygons to jam the view. While correcting these I realised that in some cases these polygons are partly based on (correct) nodes abroad. But since postcode areas won't span countries/oceans even though they share the same number this is pretty confusing. Is it possible to implement some limitation that two nodes flanking a postcode area must not be farther apart than, say, 1000km? --Fröstel 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This should be solved by adding data. Either addr:country to make the postcode unique, or we need reliable country borders. --Joto 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
See here for example: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&baselayer=Mapnik&opacity=0.30&lon=13.40505&lat=51.09634&zoom=8&overlays=postcodeareas,postcodeoutline,nearest_roads,connection_lines,nearest_points,interpolation,buildings,buildings_with_addresses,interpolation_errors,street_not_found,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,nodes_with_addresses_defined,postal_code A real big poly from Czech to Germany --Astrofreak85 19:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I see that point. I tried to add these tags to some of the troublemaking nodes but there are too many for manual correction already. I just send Frederik a mail, asking if fixbot could help. Will OSMI make use of addr:country? -- Fröstel 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because the house number nodes are not tagged with the street. The OSM Inspector needs the street names there. --Joto 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why? It can find out the name of the street using the relation (Is this a bug in osm inspector, or does the „spec“ require the name of the street (and city, postcode, etc) to be tagged redundantly for every house/interpolation path?) --bkr 11:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is great! Was already on planning asking if you could make such a thing, so it is perfect!. What could be improved, is that it is hard to check for admin_level:6|8|10 as there all one the same layer.
--Skywave 19:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Maximise Map View
I find the map view a bit small at times (especially for taking screenshots of progress), so as a function request, a maximise map button?
As a stopgap, here's a quickly made JS bookmarklet for it:
--Thomas Wood 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Pedestrian area showing up on the Highways view
Here http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=highways&lon=-117.77190&lat=33.68820&zoom=18 pedestrian areas are mapped in accordance with the the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area Still they are showing up in the name_missing_minor layer of the Highways view because they are tagged highway=pedestrian with no name. Maybe ways with area=yes should be omitted from this layer?
- Many pedestrian areas also have names. So it still makes sense to show this in OSMI. If in this particular case there is no name, you can just ignore it. Joto 17:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
OSM Multipolygon Terminology
I suggest that the term "hull" be changed to "perimeter".
Reason: Hull defines a 3-Dimensional object like a ship's hull and does not apply to areas.
Perimeter defines the outer boundary/outlines of areas like playing fields, etc. and is more likely to be understood by the average OSM-contributer.--Dcp 08:19, 5 October 2011 (BST)
- Convex hull is the well established proper name for what is shown in those layers. The abbreviation hull in the layer name might not be perfect, but the details are in the description, so I think thats fine. -- Joto 15:36, 5 October 2011 (BST)
The term Convex Hull is a special recognized advanced mathematical term which would normally not be understood by the majority of the OSM contributors. I don't think it would be wise to use it in this discussion. so I do not think it is fine. I have myself written many classified documents. It is of paramount importance to keep all instructional documents as simple and clear as you can.
Here the definition of the english word hull as defined in "The Concise Oxford English Dictionary"
hull² n., Body or frame of ship, aircraft, flying boat, etc.
As you can see it defines 3 dimensional objects. It is also used to define the outer covering of fruit but nowhere is it used to define the perimeter of areas.
perimeter is defined as: "Circumference or outline of a closed figure; length of this; outer boundary of camp, etc."
Even the word circumference would be a better choice than hull, but it's accepted usage is to apply it to circles or curves. Please remember that your extremely useful tool is being used by the whole world. It is therefore very important that the syntax and terminology be selected accordingly. I love to use OSM-Inspector and propagate it whenever I can. --Dcp 14:49, 6 October 2011 (BST)
- I have changed "hull" into "convex hull" everywhere, so that nobody thinks OSMI is talking about ships here. "Convex hull" is the right terminology, because OSMI is a special recognized tool for advanced OSMers. Joto 09:12, 10 October 2011 (BST)
Routing: Duplicate Ways: Possible bug report
Please link to:
Routing - false positives
Hi, I like OSMI and after mentioned once more at FOSSGIS talks, I fixed some (un)connection problems. But I also found a lot of wrong positives candidates, that could be filtered out?
- highway end hits amenity=parking (node or closed way) , e.g. problem_id 246, 5973, 1292
- highway end hits highway=* closed ways (areas), e.g. problem_id 4379
- highway end hits public_transport=plattform closed ways (areas), e.g. problem_id 8231
- highway ends with noexit=yes node, e.g. problem_id 19220
- highway ends with entrance=* node e.g. problem_id
--!i! 18:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Permalinks to the false positives are more useful because I am not sure if the problem IDs are stable or change with every update. --Nakaner (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice, if JOSM could automatically select the OSM objects that are part of a problem. This is supported by the remote protocol using the select HTTP parameter --!i! 19:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
MP (type=multipolygon) node and way check / validation
I just added the subtitle Possible technical mistagging on the relation multipolygon page. Hope these information are correct, please double check. I'm not much familiar with the OSMI qa-tool. But i remember there might be check regarding MP structures. Would it be possible & meaningful to add further checks/validation if the type=multipolygon isn't tagged to node or way elements? --MalgiK (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)