@ apilotx

[wb5okj 26]

I registered with OSM yesterday but have yet to post anything or even figure out what the heck to do, or is going on. I look at OSM for Oklahoma City, and all the water is there now. I keep hoping that one of the updates to X-Plane will include the +35-+97 data, (hint, hint), but so far no joy. Kind of strange, about the placement of water in OSM and X-Plane, I mean there are very small lakes that are there in all their glory, then large rivers and huge lakes are no where to be seen. :( In my area the N. Canadian River is completely missing, while the Cimmaron to the North of me is there, I think for the whole state. I guess that's what makes job security for us. :(

[alpilotx 505]

Rivers. Well, I am sure I have posted about this a few times here or there ... and Ben has hinted at it in some of his Blog posts. But still, whats up with those rivers?The answer is quite simple: there are two different type (from geometrical perspective) of rivers in OSM! There are POLYGON rivers (ones which are represented as polygons - like you usually do with lakes and other larger water bodies) and VECTOR rivers (linear features, which do not have any extent like a polygon has ... they are just endless line strings).And XP10 only has POLYGON rivers in the current DSFs! So, even though you see a river in OSM, as long as it is a VECTOR river, its not in the Global Scenery.The main reason for this is, that rendering vector rivers is not implemented in the rendering engine until now ... only polygon water bodies are (like lakes etc.). So, it would have made no sense, to include them. But its definitely something, which should (and I think ... will) be addressed in the future.Now, we still have the problem of quite inconsistent data handling in OSM. I have seen both: big rivers represented only as lines (where I say: "why, oh why") ... and then again, tiny, little streams represented as polygons (which ruined some of our mountains ... so we needed to find a way to carefully filter them out). This at least shows you, that you have to be careful about what to put in OSM in which form ...BUT (!!) never ever think about doing every tiny river as POLYGONS just because of X-Plane! We would filter them out anyways especially on mountains, because for one, sloped water surfaces (rendered like the lakes) look ugly, and second, they induce myriads of extra triangles in the DSF mesh (polygonal water bodies are part of the triangle mesh). Rather: X-Plane will need to learn, how to represent the LINEAR rivers correctly!Blogs from Ben which at least mention some of the water issues:http://developer.x-plane.com/2011/12/where-is-my-water-the-roadmap-for-osm-and-vectors/http://developer.x-plane.com/2011/04/osm-what-data-will-the-global-scenery-use/

[w9nwrwi 26]

Greg,I have working the Northern part of Wisconsin on and off for the last few days, its kinda fun especially when you zoom way down in Potlatch to get the most accracy.A lot more to go and also while I am doing lakes I see some gross errors in streets that folks have entered, so I usually clean them up a bit.I sure hope someone from Minnesota chimes in, I have not even looked at those lakes, 10,000 says their license plate.I have been doing some streams also, realiziing that XP-X may not pick them up but it adds to OSM. So far no large rivers missing here.Thanks Andras for your information. I will only do large rivers in Polygons then if the need arises. I have been following Bens developer blog for quite a while,some of it goes right over my head. I did do a large river here in town (Appleton, WI) and in a few days OSM had it looking correct, using a polygon of course.It did if memory serves me correct take about a week for the change to show up at all zoom levels.Don, do you need some help getting started with OSM? I am no expert but I bet Greg could fill in the blanks.I would hope a lot more folks step up to the task as it will just make XPX all that much better when the developers decide how to address those OSM items.I am sure we all hope its soon but need time for folks to make their appropriate changes to OSM also.Chuck

Edited February 16, 2012 by w9nwrwi

[wb5okj 26]

Don, do you need some help getting started with OSM? I am no expert but I bet Greg could fill in the blanks.

Thanks very much for the offer Chuck. Yes I would appreciate all the help I could get, PM me at your leisure or e-mail me here wb5okj cox.net (@left out on purpose).I have been reading the help files, but have limited time. I see OKC is getting more up to date in OSM all the time.Actually I feel a bit intimidated using the edit feature in OSM. O.M.G. what if I make a mistake!! :(

[jasonX 24]

One area I was looking at in Australia they have made a real mess. Roads just stop nowhere and the coastline is awful. I actually didn't change anything yet but I should when it is so bad. I always get a bad feeling about deleting someone else's work, even if it very inaccurate.It's not all bad though I must admit. Some parts I looked at were very good.

[alpilotx 505]

@jasonX: often its not even the work of a single OSM user but just plain imported data from some governmental source (usually you can see some reference in the attributes of the geometric feature).

[jasonX 24]

Yes there was on some of the terrible coastline. Some official sounding title so possibly it was from some goverment office.