[OSM-talk] Greek cadastre authority/-ies giving "Public, Open Data" - Orthophotos covering "the whole country" of Greece

[Niklas Cholmkvist]

Hi,

I got notified by a fellow mapper about that the Greek governmental
cadastre organisation wants to release data to the public (orthophotos
'aerials') covering "all" or large parts of Greece. I've checked the
orthophotos('aerials') for my city, Thessaloniki and they are ok,
maybe a bit more detailed than Yahoo's.

The website of the announcement is only available in the Greek
language, here is the announcement http://geodata.gov.gr/maps/
(webcitation link: http://webcitation.org/5sFV8hmZ6) along with the
FAQ. There is a section in the FAQ which says "Open data. For what
reason?". I skip translating this and go instead directly to the FAQ
section (rough translation)
- "How can I use the data?"
The 'settings' of geodata.gov.gr are provided with user licence terms
that are specified by their distributors. More specifically:

* For the physical "settings" of Google Maps the user licence terms
are: http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_maps.html
* For the physical "settings" of OpenStreetMap the user licence terms
are: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
* For the physical "settings" of "Κτηματολόγιο Α.Ε."(Ktimatologio
'S.A.') the user licence terms are:
http://gis.ktimanet.gr/wms/ktbasemap/default.aspx

The rest of the 'geographical'(γεωχωρικά?) data that you can find are
provided with more specific terms under the user licence terms
Creative Commons Αναφορά Προέλευσης (CC BY v.3.0).

Now I just read the link at
http://gis.ktimanet.gr/wms/ktbasemap/default.aspx and instead of
reading a licence it just shows the map. I'm not so sure anymore that
this data is free, but they sure show the intention or a willingness,
so for the moment I would not recommend anyone using this data before
being 100% that it can be used legally with OpenStreetMap. (and since
OSM will soon switch to a new licence some person(me?) might need to
contact them about that OSM will be changing their licence to
something completely different than CC-BY-SA-2.0.

Kind regards,

Niklas

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway= path, footway, trail?

[Maarten Deen]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:30:18 -0700, Greg Corradini
 wrote:
> I've been looking at a lot of hiking trails on OSM in the Cascade
> Mountains near Seattle. I've noticed a few different tags in regard to
> trail GPS traces
> (highway=path,highway=footway,highway=trail,highway=footpath). The
> wiki page on "US roads tagging" recommendations only has the following
> advice to offer about trails:
> 
> "Ways on which most motor vehicle traffic is either legally of
> physically prohibitive get highway [1]=path [2], or a more specific
> tag as appropriate. This category includes roads that normally
> function as hiking trails because of barricades opened only
> occasionally or rarely."
> 
> I'm wondering if anyone with more OSM trail tagging experience can
> clarify the last part of the first sentence -- "OR A MORE SPECIFIC TAG
> AS APPROPRIATE". Has anyone done a tag count of trail-like values in
> OSM to get an idea what's being used the most? Does anyone have a
> opinion about a more specific tag to use for this feature?

As highway=path means no motorized traffic, it might be a footpath or
cyclepath or bridleway (or others). That's the "more specific" part.

Regards,
Maarten

> Links:
> --
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship

[Dermot McNally]

On 21 August 2010 03:53, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> The landuse=religious seems like a good compromise.  Landuse=institutional 
> seems a bit too generic, as there are so many different types of institutions.

I was also looking to popularise landuse=religious. I hadn't had a
chance to document it yet, but it would work as suggested above, and
could, if useful, take the usual religion and denomination tags.
Since, as has also been mentioned, active monasteries, convents and
the like are also poorly served by the current tagging options, I
foresaw an optional tag to describe in more detail what kind of
religious installation is being tagged:

religious=convent
religious=abbey
religious=spaghetti_tree

Rendering for the land area could either be in some colour common to
all religious lands, or perhaps different colours based on the
religion tag might be useful for some purposes.

I prefer this specific approach over checking for a building tag
because a convent, seminary or whatever may well have a church on
site, and a holy well and a spaghetti tree.


Dermot

-- 
--
Iren sind menschlich

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Request for someone to run an SQL query for me on europe.osm

[Mitja Kleider]

Peter Mooney wrote:
> Something along the lines ...
> 
> "Select all polygon_ids in europe/planet where version number of
> polygon > X"

How do you define polygon? Every closed way or just relations with
type=multipolygon?

As far as I can see, the osm2pgsql hstore schema does not include
versions.
If you need just multipolygon relations I could execute such a query on
another schema (importing latest planet right now) if you provide a
value for X.


Mitja


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[Mike N.]

I have gravitated toward JOSM's preset style

   highway=footway for foot-only traffic
   highway=path  + foot=designated  / bicycle=designated / foot=yes / 
bicycle=yes as appropriate

  I would clarify the phrase as "with a more specific tag as appropriate".




From: Greg Corradini 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:30 PM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway,trail?


I've been looking at a lot of hiking trails on OSM in the Cascade Mountains 
near Seattle. I've noticed a few different tags in regard to trail GPS traces 
(highway=path,highway=footway,highway=trail,highway=footpath). The wiki page on 
"US roads tagging" recommendations only has the following advice to offer about 
trails:

"Ways on which most motor vehicle traffic is either legally of physically 
prohibitive get highway=path, or a more specific tag as appropriate. This 
category includes roads that normally function as hiking trails because of 
barricades opened only occasionally or rarely."

I'm wondering if anyone with more OSM trail tagging experience can clarify the 
last part of the first sentence -- "or a more specific tag as appropriate". Has 
anyone done a tag count of trail-like values in OSM to get an idea what's being 
used the most? Does anyone have a opinion about a more specific tag to use for 
this feature?

Thanks






___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Request for someone to run an SQL query for me on europe.osm

[Peter Mooney]

Hi,

I am wondering if someone here on the list would be kind enough to run a
query on OSM in Europe or Planet for me?

Something along the lines ...

"Select all polygon_ids in europe/planet where version number of polygon >
X"

When I have the IDs I can just pull the data down using the API.

Don't have the machine grunt/space to load Europe/Planet myself.

I have a PHP script and/or raw SQL ready to go.

Thanks in advance,

Peter Mooney
Maynooth, Ireland.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Tagging Scheme Recommendations: highway=path, footway, trail?

[Greg Corradini]

I've been looking at a lot of hiking trails on OSM in the Cascade Mountains
near Seattle. I've noticed a few different tags in regard to trail GPS
traces (highway=path,highway=footway,highway=trail,highway=footpath). The
wiki page on "US roads tagging" recommendations only has the following
advice to offer about trails:

"Ways on which most motor vehicle traffic is either legally of physically
prohibitive get highway =
path , or a more
specific tag as appropriate. This category includes roads that normally
function as hiking trails because of barricades opened only occasionally or
rarely."

I'm wondering if anyone with more OSM trail tagging experience can clarify
the last part of the first sentence -- "*or a more specific tag as
appropriate*". Has anyone done a tag count of trail-like values in OSM to
get an idea what's being used the most? Does anyone have a opinion about a
more specific tag to use for this feature?

Thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

[Aun Yngve Johnsen]

I have had a similar thought for the longer Federal Highways in  
Brazil. Dividing them by state sounds sensible, as BR-101 reaches all  
the way from the border to Uruguay in the south to the city of Recife  
in Northeast. If my counting is right, that is 9 states. And there are  
several other highways like that in Brazil.


brgds
Aun Johnsen



On 25/08/2010, at 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2010/8/25 Nathan Edgars II :

Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations?
It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a  
route
(and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a  
relation than
ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also adds  
nonredundant
information for some one-way pairs, where the two directions use  
different

two-way roads.



OK, but putting international roads all in one relation (the E45 is
4920 km long) is not required for this scope. If you think how often
we are splitting ways (bridges, maxspeed, turn_restrictions, oneway,
etc.) this would get to thousands of members hence lacking
transparency and being very vulnerable to editing conflicts.

You should split them in several smaller relations, e.g. per region
(and probably add those relations to super-relations as Konrad
suggested).

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3

[Simon Ward]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:29:19AM -0400, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Simon Ward  wrote:
> > There is already the ability to change the licence without the CTs:
> > There is an upgrade clause in the ODbL itself.
> 
> Actually, section 3 will make it harder to upgrade.  Under the CT
> section 3, the database can only be licensed under "ODbL 1.0 for the
> database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database;
> CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and
> open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved
> by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors."

That’s a fair point.

I don’t know if that’s how legal types read it, but couldn’t it also be
taken transitively as follows:

 1. CTs allow licensing under ODbL 1.0;

 2. ODbL 1.0 allows licensing under a compatible licence, or later
version of the ODbL;

 3. By (1) and (2), CTs allow licencing under ODbL 1.0, which includes
licences compatible with ODbL 1.0, or a later version of the ODbL?

For free software, the GPL doesn’t include an upgrade clause, but the
copyright holder may specify one in their copyright statements, which
avoids this particular ambiguity.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/25 Nathan Edgars II :
>> Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations?
> It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a route
> (and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a relation than
> ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also adds nonredundant
> information for some one-way pairs, where the two directions use different
> two-way roads.


OK, but putting international roads all in one relation (the E45 is
4920 km long) is not required for this scope. If you think how often
we are splitting ways (bridges, maxspeed, turn_restrictions, oneway,
etc.) this would get to thousands of members hence lacking
transparency and being very vulnerable to editing conflicts.

You should split them in several smaller relations, e.g. per region
(and probably add those relations to super-relations as Konrad
suggested).

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

[Nathan Edgars II]

Konrad Skeri wrote:
> 
> Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations?
It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a route
(and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a relation than
ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also adds nonredundant
information for some one-way pairs, where the two directions use different
two-way roads.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Super-relations-for-roads-tp5458794p5460787.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

[Mike N.]

Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? I'm just doing
it because everyone else is.


I'm not sure myself.   Possibilities are:

1.  Hint to routers for good path to follow over long distances without 
searching all roads.In practice, the latest highly optimized routing 
algorithms probably don't need this; they do better by looking at road type, 
maxspeed, etc.
2.  High level view of roads on map at low zoom number levels.   In 
practice, some guys implementing low number zoom views won't touch route 
relations because they're for routing.
3. Hint to GPS turn by turn instructions to know that multiple "ways" make 
up the same route, despite having different names / refs, thus avoiding 
needless chat like "Continue straight across the Hoffman Bridge, then 
continue straight on route 45..." when it's all part route 45.





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3

[Emilie Laffray]

On 25 August 2010 10:23, Kevin Peat  wrote:

>
>
> On 25 August 2010 08:41, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It is bad enough if the share-alike minority force their will on the rest
>> of the project now; we must not allow them to force their will on everybody
>> who is in OSM in 10 years' time.
>>
>>
> I find this oft-repeated argument to be totally bogus. It's like saying
> that I shouldn't paint my house because the person who owns it in 10 years
> time might not like it.
>
> If OSMers in 2020 don't like the license they are free to change it or to
> start a new project just as people are today. We should make a decision on
> what seems like the best choice as we see it today not what someone may want
> in 10 years time.
>
> I am quite happy for OSMF to have the power to upgrade to newer versions of
> ODBL as the license matures to save all this hassle again but there should
> be some sensible limits on what the OSMF can do otherwise it is open to
> abuse.
>


I believe that an agreement of 2/3 of active contributors and a vote of the
OSMF members is quite a nice garantee.
John mentioned that someone could just create lots of account, but honestly
I suspect that kind of behavior would be caught quite easily and dealt with
accordingly. If I was to detect, I would no doubt seize the board to see how
to exclude those and make sure that we have a fair vote.
This is really to empower the community in the end, not to try to shaft it.

Emilie Laffray
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward

[Dave F.]

 On 25/08/2010 07:45, Steve Bennett wrote:


Not at all. Personal attacks, repetition, off-topic remarks,
spamminess, me-tooism - none of this comes under "issues of all
natures". Picture the "town hall meeting" style that has become
popular in politics. Questions on almost any topic are allowed, but
it's still tightly moderated.


Have you not noticed how your posts are becoming repetitious?

Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

[Konrad Skeri]

In Sweden the E-roads are also the national ref (with exceptions of
Swedish/Norwegian E 6 that is the international E 47 and Swedish E 4
that is international E 55) so I guess we should use both.

regards
Konrad


2010/8/25 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2010/8/25 Konrad Skeri :
>> Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? I'm just doing
>> it because everyone else is. I have a vauge memory of arguments that a
>> way beloning to several roads are better represented by a relation for
>> each road instead of having ref=E 12; E 4; 92
>
>
> one remark: E-numbers should be tagged int_ref
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/International_Reference
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/25 Konrad Skeri :
> Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? I'm just doing
> it because everyone else is. I have a vauge memory of arguments that a
> way beloning to several roads are better represented by a relation for
> each road instead of having ref=E 12; E 4; 92


one remark: E-numbers should be tagged int_ref
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/International_Reference

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Super-relations for roads

[Konrad Skeri]

2010/8/25 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2010/8/24 Konrad Skeri :
>> Is there any current usage of super-relations for roads?
>
>
>> This could be resolved by making a relation of E 45 Sorsele
>> municipality, E 45 Storuman municipality, E 45 Vilhelmina
>> municipality, etc. and then join all of them in the super-relation E
>> 45 Sweden, and finally join E 45 Sweden, E 45 Denmark, E 45 Germany,
>> etc. in the (super-)super-relation E 45.
>
>
> Is the purpose of this E45-relation to be easily able to download the
> whole route? Because to put it in OSM it is sufficient to tag all
> pieces with ref=E 45
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>

Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations? I'm just doing
it because everyone else is. I have a vauge memory of arguments that a
way beloning to several roads are better represented by a relation for
each road instead of having ref=E 12; E 4; 92

/Konrad

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk