Re: [Talk-ca] Maritime Boundary
It seems to me that the provincial boundary should be displaced from the coast of the Island of Newfoundland by 3 NM. Is there a tool one can use to do that? - David E. Nelson On Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:00:21 PM, Richard Weait wrote: On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Adam Martin wrote: > Hello! > Is this supposed to be the actual maritime boundary? I don't think it is - > the parts of the line appears to be for the Provincial boundary. If it is > the Provincial boundary, shouldn't it follow the coastal boundary? > > If I am mistaken, let me know. I don't think that you are mistaken, but I don't think you have all of the facts either. The 12NM line does look to be one that was created automatically. It certainly wasn't surveyed by a local mapper. :-) Same for the inland "maritime boundary". I looked at that one in more detail. Here's what I see going on. The boundary way is this one http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30114485 It is also part of two relations. One relation is a civil boundary, the other is an administrative (provincial) Boundary ways can not be understood fully, or edited wisely, without understanding relations. I wouldn't edit any complex form, such as a boundary relation, with an editor other than JOSM. And not with any editor, on a mobile device. Today, the way appears badly drawn, and incomplete in tagging. I'll take a few guesses at why. The history of that way shows 28 revisions. The first one was the creation of the way, as an import from geobase in 2009. It was tagged as an administrative boundary (not a maritime boundary). Likely, this was the best data available to us at the time. With the currently available imagery, we can see that the imported boundary does not align with imagery, nor does it reflect some of the details in the current imagery. Revisions 2 through 25 have been redacted, due to edits by users who did not agree to the license change. The boundary may have had some improvements and corrections through those edits. Improved or otherwise, those edits are gone. Revision 26 shows that the redaction bot cleaned out the data that we were no longer entitled to keep. That left the way without tags. R27 in 2012 appears not to have directly affected the way. It may have edited an intersecting way? It was a large changeset. R28 in 2013 added the maritime tag you report. The maritime tag alone, is an unusual form. I don't think that it would be considered complete, unless combined with the tags of the parent relations. When compared with the 'bot-drawn 12nm maritime boundary, this way appears to be incorrect. It just doesn't seem to be far enough offshore to be a maritime boundary. When compared to http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115038287 (from 2011, and a canvec import) the '485 way appears "low resolution and poorly aligned". So there are are multiple imported boundaries here. Each were the probably best available at the time. Neither are perfect, and now the appear to somewhat duplicate each other, given the parent relations of '485. Hope that helps a bit. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Maritime Boundary
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Adam Martin wrote: > Hello! > Is this supposed to be the actual maritime boundary? I don't think it is - > the parts of the line appears to be for the Provincial boundary. If it is > the Provincial boundary, shouldn't it follow the coastal boundary? > > If I am mistaken, let me know. I don't think that you are mistaken, but I don't think you have all of the facts either. The 12NM line does look to be one that was created automatically. It certainly wasn't surveyed by a local mapper. :-) Same for the inland "maritime boundary". I looked at that one in more detail. Here's what I see going on. The boundary way is this one http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30114485 It is also part of two relations. One relation is a civil boundary, the other is an administrative (provincial) Boundary ways can not be understood fully, or edited wisely, without understanding relations. I wouldn't edit any complex form, such as a boundary relation, with an editor other than JOSM. And not with any editor, on a mobile device. Today, the way appears badly drawn, and incomplete in tagging. I'll take a few guesses at why. The history of that way shows 28 revisions. The first one was the creation of the way, as an import from geobase in 2009. It was tagged as an administrative boundary (not a maritime boundary). Likely, this was the best data available to us at the time. With the currently available imagery, we can see that the imported boundary does not align with imagery, nor does it reflect some of the details in the current imagery. Revisions 2 through 25 have been redacted, due to edits by users who did not agree to the license change. The boundary may have had some improvements and corrections through those edits. Improved or otherwise, those edits are gone. Revision 26 shows that the redaction bot cleaned out the data that we were no longer entitled to keep. That left the way without tags. R27 in 2012 appears not to have directly affected the way. It may have edited an intersecting way? It was a large changeset. R28 in 2013 added the maritime tag you report. The maritime tag alone, is an unusual form. I don't think that it would be considered complete, unless combined with the tags of the parent relations. When compared with the 'bot-drawn 12nm maritime boundary, this way appears to be incorrect. It just doesn't seem to be far enough offshore to be a maritime boundary. When compared to http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115038287 (from 2011, and a canvec import) the '485 way appears "low resolution and poorly aligned". So there are are multiple imported boundaries here. Each were the probably best available at the time. Neither are perfect, and now the appear to somewhat duplicate each other, given the parent relations of '485. Hope that helps a bit. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Maritime Boundary
Hello! I have a question regarding the maritime boundary of Canada, specifically Newfoundland and Labrador. National maritime boundaries generally use the 12 nautical mile limit, unless otherwise specified. I see the boundary for the province (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/48.283/-53.196) which is auto-generated by a bot. That seems fine, but there is another maritime boundary for the Province. However, this one does not appear to be correct. Take a look at this example - http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/47.7920/-52.7985. As you can see, the dashed line represents the boundary - in ID, it is noted as the maritime boundary. But that does not make sense - the line crosses the landmass, for one thing. It is also very poorly shaped. Is this supposed to be the actual maritime boundary? I don't think it is - the parts of the line appears to be for the Provincial boundary. If it is the Provincial boundary, shouldn't it follow the coastal boundary? If I am mistaken, let me know. Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...
It's been a while but I think I cleaned up this problem in New Brunswick. Another problem in New Brunswick are ways that share a node at a highway overpass. If there is a grade separation then the ways do not intersect and they should not share a node. I think this is related to the Canvec imports in NB. I have fixed some of these but there are still more and I expect it is a problem in other regions too. Bernie. Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: Harald Kliems Date:01/12/2014 7:03 PM (GMT-04:00) To: Daniel Begin Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap ,"Connors, Bernie (SNB)" Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... Some updates on this issue:I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It took me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other issues to take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction, name vs. exit_to on those junctions etc.). I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go ahead in the other provinces, too. Just run http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI on the appropriate bounding box and then go through each of the spots that come up. If there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious; and if not common sense should still tell you if a segment is _oneway_=yes or _oneway_=no. I have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both to avoid any misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the progress on the Overpass map. Cheers, Harald.On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliemswrote: So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly identify the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways that match the following query: (highway="motorway_link") AND (NOT _oneway_=*) AND (lanes!="1") Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the oneway tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this query, go to this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the bounding box coordinates for the desired area. Comments? Harald. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: The example I provided yesterday was not fixed. Most the exits having a similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have also found examples in Alberta and In BC. Daniel From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] Sent: November-26-13 10:04To: Daniel BeginCc: Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMapSubject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link to an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example? Harald. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org Daniel From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] Sent: November-26-13 08:19To: 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel BeginCc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMapSubject: RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... +1 for the Maproulette.org solution. Bernie. --Bernie Connors, P.Eng Tel: 506-444-2077 bernie.conn...@snb.ca SNB – We make it happen… From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PMTo: Daniel BeginCc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMapSubject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin wrote: Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point (Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior… About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem! I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding _oneway_=no to all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as a Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to coordinate people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure everything is okay by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after all :-) Harald. -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstree
Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...
Many thanks Harald J Daniel From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] Sent: January-12-14 18:04 To: Daniel Begin Cc: Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... Some updates on this issue: I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It took me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other issues to take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction, name vs. exit_to on those junctions etc.). I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go ahead in the other provinces, too. Just run http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI on the appropriate bounding box and then go through each of the spots that come up. If there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious; and if not common sense should still tell you if a segment is oneway=yes or oneway=no. I have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both to avoid any misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the progress on the Overpass map. Cheers, Harald. On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliems wrote: So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly identify the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways that match the following query: (highway="motorway_link") AND (NOT oneway=*) AND (lanes!="1") Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the oneway tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this query, go to this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the bounding box coordinates for the desired area. Comments? Harald. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: The example I provided yesterday was not fixed. Most the exits having a similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have also found examples in Alberta and In BC. Daniel From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] Sent: November-26-13 10:04 To: Daniel Begin Cc: Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link to an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example? Harald. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org Daniel From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] Sent: November-26-13 08:19 To: 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel Begin Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... +1 for the Maproulette.org solution. Bernie. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Tel: 506-444-2077 bernie.conn...@snb.ca SNB - We make it happen. SAG_Logo_2013 From: Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PM To: Daniel Begin Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin wrote: Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point (Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior. About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem! I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding oneway=no to all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as a Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to coordinate people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure everything is okay by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after all :-) Harald. -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 <>___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] State of the Map 2014 - Buenos Aires - 07-09 November 2014
Announced today, State of the Map 2014 will be in Buenos Aires. Be there or be square. :-) http://blog.openstreetmap.org/2014/01/12/buenos-aires-hosts-sotm14/ ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/22d your example rewritten with a variable bbox + print mode=meta to be able to import into JOSM. Pierre De : Harald Kliems À : Daniel Begin Cc : Talk-CA OpenStreetMap ; "Connors, Bernie (SNB)" Envoyé le : Dimanche 12 janvier 2014 18h03 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... Some updates on this issue: I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It took me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other issues to take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction, name vs. exit_to on those junctions etc.). I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go ahead in the other provinces, too. Just run http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI on the appropriate bounding box and then go through each of the spots that come up. If there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious; and if not common sense should still tell you if a segment is oneway=yes or oneway=no. I have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both to avoid any misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the progress on the Overpass map. Cheers, Harald. On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliems wrote: So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly identify the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways that match the following query: > > >(highway="motorway_link") AND (NOT oneway=*) AND (lanes!="1") > > >Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the oneway >tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this query, go to >this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the bounding box >coordinates for the desired area. > > >Comments? > > > Harald. > > > >On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: > >The example I provided yesterday was not fixed. Most the exits having a >similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have >also found examples in Alberta and In BC. >> >>Daniel >> >>From:Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] >>Sent: November-26-13 10:04 >>To: Daniel Begin >>Cc: Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >> >>Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... >> >>I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link to >>an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example? >> >> Harald. >> >>On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: >>It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org >>Daniel >> >>From:Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] >>Sent: November-26-13 08:19 >>To: 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel Begin >>Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >>Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... >> >>+1 for the Maproulette.org solution. >> >>Bernie. >>-- >>Bernie Connors, P.Eng >>Tel: 506-444-2077 >>bernie.conn...@snb.ca >>SNB – We make it happen… >> >>From:Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] >>Sent: Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PM >>To: Daniel Begin >>Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >>Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... >> >> >> >>On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin wrote: >>Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point >>(Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior… >> >>About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem! >>I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding oneway=no to >>all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best >>solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported >>motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check >>them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as a >>Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to coordinate >>people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure everything is okay >>by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after all :-) >> >> Harald. >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! >>Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 > > > >-- >Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! >Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetma
Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...
Some updates on this issue: I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It took me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other issues to take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction, name vs. exit_to on those junctions etc.). I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go ahead in the other provinces, too. Just run http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CIon the appropriate bounding box and then go through each of the spots that come up. If there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious; and if not common sense should still tell you if a segment is oneway=yes or oneway=no. I have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both to avoid any misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the progress on the Overpass map. Cheers, Harald. On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliems wrote: > So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly > identify the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways > that match the following query: > > (highway="motorway_link") AND (NOT oneway=*) AND (lanes!="1") > > Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the > oneway tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this > query, go to this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the > bounding box coordinates for the desired area. > > Comments? > > Harald. > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: > >> The example I provided yesterday was not fixed. Most the exits having a >> similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have >> also found examples in Alberta and In BC. >> >> >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* November-26-13 10:04 >> *To:* Daniel Begin >> *Cc:* Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... >> >> >> >> I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link >> to an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example? >> >> >> >> Harald. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: >> >> It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> *From:* Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] >> *Sent:* November-26-13 08:19 >> *To:* 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel Begin >> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >> *Subject:* RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... >> >> >> >> +1 for the Maproulette.org solution. >> >> >> >> Bernie. >> >> -- >> >> Bernie Connors, P.Eng >> >> Tel: 506-444-2077 >> >> bernie.conn...@snb.ca >> >> *SNB – We make it happen…* >> >> [image: SAG_Logo_2013] >> >> >> >> *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com ] >> *Sent:* Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PM >> *To:* Daniel Begin >> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin wrote: >> >> Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point >> (Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior… >> >> >> >> About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem! >> >> I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding oneway=no >> to all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best >> solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported >> motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check >> them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as >> a Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to >> coordinate people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure >> everything is okay by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after >> all :-) >> >> >> >> Harald. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! >> Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 >> > > > > -- > Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! > Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 > -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 <>___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca