Re: [Tagging] Cenotaph WAS Re: Tagging memorial sites

2016-09-21 Thread Warin 

On 21-Sep-16 10:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

Il giorno 21 set 2016, alle ore 12:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> ha scritto:


If tomb=cenotaph then money in your bank account = no money in your 
bank account?



maybe this is not a bad allegory ;-)
a cenotaph is a tomb without the corpse, but looks like a tomb, is 
purposefully designed as a tomb. unless you check you might even be 
intrigued to believe it is a tomb.


Some resemble a tomb, some don't  some are statues, some are 
plaques, some are columns.


Wikipedia has quite a few photos of some ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph

I suppose it depend on what you think a tomb looks like?

 
https://www.warmemorialsregister.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/styles/galleria_zoom/public/1284g.jpg?

https://www.warmemorialsregister.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/727a.jpg

I like the statue ones.
-

A German translation of cenotaph gets ehrenmal. An English translation 
of ehrenmal gets both cenotaph and memorial.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

2016-09-21 Thread Paul Johnson 
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, LeTopographeFou 
wrote:

> Hi
>
> According to the waterway=stream wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream):
>
> *If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e. the
> way direction follows the flow)*
>
> As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways
> according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes.
>
> Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete oneway=yes
> tags for streams?
>
Not any undocumented purpose, but oneway=yes would indicate that all
traffic on the waterway is legally obligated only to go in that direction.
A rare, but possible situation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

2016-09-21 Thread joost schouppe 
It wouldn't be hard to prove if this conversation is in the public domain.

In the original question, the data use looks much more direct than using it
as a source for directed surveying. And it does look like even this is
expressly forbidden by the user terms of the mentioned website.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

2016-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> Il giorno 21 set 2016, alle ore 12:46, joost schouppe 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Which I think is correct, as Martin's answer also explains.


well, although the collection of facts can be protected against copying, 
looking up those facts in a protected source and compare them with osm to base 
your surveys upon is not a problem. You are neither copying nor combining osm 
and this other protected source.

Besides this, even if it were contractually forbidden, it seems impossible to 
prove anything.

Cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cenotaph WAS Re: Tagging memorial sites

2016-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> Il giorno 21 set 2016, alle ore 12:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha 
> scritto:
> 
> If tomb=cenotaph then money in your bank account = no money in your bank 
> account? 


maybe this is not a bad allegory ;-)
a cenotaph is a tomb without the corpse, but looks like a tomb, is purposefully 
designed as a tomb. unless you check you might even be intrigued to believe it 
is a tomb.
Similarly your bank account is made to look as if there was money, but actually 
there are only numbers, if all customers would go together to the bank and ask 
for their money, they could not get it ;-)

cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cenotaph WAS Re: Tagging memorial sites

2016-09-21 Thread Janko Mihelić 
sri, 21. ruj 2016. 02:59 Martin Koppenhoefer  je
napisao:

>
>  You can (also additionally) add a memorial:type=cenotaph.
>

Memorial:type is a bad tag. Look at the values:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/memorial%3Atype#values

There's obelisk, and then there is war_memorial. They are different
classes. A war_memorial or a cenotaph could be an obelisk, plaque or
whatewer. Additionally, a war_memorial is often a cenotaph. Majority of
values now show the form of the memorial, so we should stick to that.

>
Maybe just cenotaph=yes? That way a tomb can have the same tag. Something
can be a functional grave, just with no body (maybe the body was removed,
or it was expected to be found). Or it can just be a memorial, said to be a
cenotaph.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

2016-09-21 Thread joost schouppe 
Dave, well, as I implied, no, I'm not sure.

Janko started a thread in legal-talk where you can expect more
knowledgeable answers. Simon Poole answered, basically, "it depends". Which
I think is correct, as Martin's answer also explains.

Andre Angels, your comment was really uncalled for.

2016-09-21 12:05 GMT+02:00 Dave F :

>
> On 21/09/2016 07:51, joost schouppe wrote:
>
>>
>> Using copyrighted material to spot errors in OSM is still copyright
>> violation (well, a specialist in copyright should confirm that).
>>
>
> Hmm... Are you sure? I (& I'm sure others as well) use UK OS maps to spot
> features missing from OSM & then use those maps to navigate to them so they
> can be surveyed. Do you consider that a violation?
>
> Dave F.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cenotaph WAS Re: Tagging memorial sites

2016-09-21 Thread Warin 

On 21-Sep-16 10:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-09-21 2:41 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny >:


Be as pedantic as you please. I'll be happy to tag a cenotaph or
three if a consensus ever emerges.



just use any tag you feel appropriate. If there will ever be a 
consensus that tomb=cenotaph is a bad tag and a better tag is chosen, 
you can easily change your objects. If you don't tag it, nobody can 
find it ;-) You can (also additionally) add a memorial:type=cenotaph.


Tomb = a place with something (remains/body/ashes etc)
Cenotaph = a place without that something (remains/body/ashes etc)

If tomb=cenotaph then money in your bank account = no money in your bank 
account? You can send it to me. :)


--
I would think most cenotaphs are in commemoration of WW1 & WW2 ... and 
as such are specifically mentioned in the OSM wiki for historic=memorial 
as "usually remembering special persons, peoples lost their lives in the 
wars. "



I have just gone through the LPI cenotaphs (valid OSM data) and 
added those not in the data base as historic=memorial with 
description=cenotaph ... in this way I avoided invention yet another 
tag.  You can add the description tag to anything .. even a tomb.
I have also add the description tag to some cenotaphs I know that are 
not in the LPI data base (but in the OSM data base .. I added them some 
time ago).  I know there are a lot more around .. used infrequently .. 
11 November and ANZAC day spring to mind.






___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

2016-09-21 Thread Dave F 


On 21/09/2016 07:51, joost schouppe wrote:


Using copyrighted material to spot errors in OSM is still copyright 
violation (well, a specialist in copyright should confirm that).


Hmm... Are you sure? I (& I'm sure others as well) use UK OS maps to 
spot features missing from OSM & then use those maps to navigate to them 
so they can be surveyed. Do you consider that a violation?


Dave F.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

2016-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2016-09-21 11:30 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels :

> That's great nonsense. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT FACTS ONLY THE
> PRESENTATION OF THOSE FACTS
>


in Europe, databases (and a map can be considered database) are protected
if it took significant work to produce them, even if they are just
compilations of facts. Your statement is referring to the situation in the
US. Still, you can protect your own collection of facts also in the US by
applying contractual limitations along with the distributed content.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

2016-09-21 Thread Andre Engels 
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:51 AM, joost schouppe
 wrote:

> Using copyrighted material to spot errors in OSM is still copyright
> violation (well, a specialist in copyright should confirm that).

That's great nonsense. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT FACTS ONLY THE
PRESENTATION OF THOSE FACTS

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

2016-09-21 Thread joost schouppe 
André,

This isn't about you - this is about project integrity. One lawsuit for
copyright infringement could be enough to kill the project. Or we could get
our data users into serious problems. Whether or not you are an excellent
mapper is not the question. It is just not something we can take chances
with.

When you ask if you should tag copyrighted material as a source, I think we
can safely assume that you're talking about using that material as a
source. Which is never OK.

I find it ironical that you are shocked by a warning about how serious this
is, and in the same message refer to the DWG as vandals. Of course they
break things, but that's only because they're too busy saving us from
larger problems than a few broken relations. But how can you be so
sensitive when it comes to you and so insensitive when it comes to others?

Using copyrighted material to spot errors in OSM is still copyright
violation (well, a specialist in copyright should confirm that). If I
understand correctly what you are trying to do, then you don't even need to
do that. There are tools around which check for things like 'short section
of lower  classification within a larger section of higher classification'.


Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging