date:20151014

2015-10-14 14:40 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> The general convention in OSM, also for boundaries, is to map the actual
> situation on the ground, that is which areas are actually administred
> by which authority.
>


this often doesn't help though, because in remote areas there is nothing to
"administer". Some time ago the case of the Mont Blanc came up on a local
mailing list, more precisely in which language the name should be tagged
(the decision was to put both names into the name tag:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/281399025/history although France is
claiming to "administer" the peak alone).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Mike Thompson

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:

>
>
>
> A boundary couldn't be "the river" as a river has non-zero width. It might
> be the "centre line", "deepest line", "fastest flowing bit" . but it
> cannot be "the river" without further qualification.
>
Sometimes when a river legally forms a boundary it is the thalweg (deepest
part) that is referenced.

Sometimes, such as in the case of the boundary between the US states of
Ohio and Kentucky, it is the low water mark on one bank[1] (in this case
the court held that it was the low water mark of the north bank of the Ohio
River in 1792, not the present low water mark of the north bank, and
therefore the boundary and the river should not share geometry in this
case).

Mike

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/335/case.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

2015-10-14 Thread Tom Lee

> He’s clearly not suggesting that.
>
> He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do
that, and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change
the license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking.

If I misunderstood, I apologize. Frederik's email discussed the burden of
maintaining address data, the relative lack of interest in addresses within
the OSM community, and the implicit obligation to contribute labor to the
data's maintenance; and it didn't mention licensing at all. That's why I
read it the way I did. But perhaps it will be best to let him clarify his
own words.

In that same spirit of clarification: at no point in this thread have I
asked for a change to the license. I've been arguing for a clarification of
how the existing license applies to geocoding use cases -- an issue
parallel but related to the guidance Simon introduced. If I'm not mistaken,
the LWG and larger community have acknowledged this to be an open issue for
some time.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Steve Coast  wrote:

>
> > On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Tom Lee  wrote:
> >
> > Frederik. I think it's a bit ungenerous to suggest that getting open
> address data into OSM constitutes "hijacking" the project.
>
> He’s clearly not suggesting that.
>
> He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do
> that, and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change
> the license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking.
>
> Steve
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline


> On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Tom Lee  wrote:
> 
> > He’s clearly not suggesting that.
> >
> > He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do 
> > that, and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change 
> > the license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking.
> 
> If I misunderstood, I apologize. Frederik's email discussed the burden of 
> maintaining address data, the relative lack of interest in addresses within 
> the OSM community, and the implicit obligation to contribute labor to the 
> data's maintenance; and it didn't mention licensing at all. That's why I read 
> it the way I did. But perhaps it will be best to let him clarify his own 
> words.
> 
> In that same spirit of clarification: at no point in this thread have I asked 
> for a change to the license.

Sorry “add a guideline or we won’t do anything”.[1]

It’s the threat he’s probably reacting to. It would just be more efficient all 
around to build the community since whether you get your data in OSM by force 
or by happy local community editors you still need a community at the other end 
to maintain it, right?

Best

Steve

[1] - 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-October/008288.html___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Tom looks like I misread Fred a little, apologies.

Steve

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Martin,
> 
> On 10/14/2015 11:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>frankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open
>>addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if
>>open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has
>>addresses, I'd not be opposed to dropping the addresses from OSM in
>>those regions.
>> 
>> Really? I've always thought our user's ground truth would be trumping
>> data we'd import, i.e. we'd request from importers not to drop features
>> that are already there, but to conflate in the opposite way, drop from
>> the external data set the stuff that we already have, before importing
>> the rest. Did I read you right? Can you explain why you changed your mind?
> 
> You read me right and Michal did too.
> 
> Yes, I always said that we would want to be able to import Open Data at
> the processing stage (i.e. into Nominatim etc.) instead of importing it
> into OSM, so Michal is right.
> 
> This of course has the drawback that you can't edit the government data
> sets, and this is why Tom Lee would prefer to import the government data
> sets into OSM to make them accessible for editing.
> 
> To which I replied that I would prefer to have this data in a non-OSM
> editable repository, rather than in OSM, because I feel that there is a
> disparity between the amount of address data and the number of mappers
> actually interested; I would prefer if those who want a crowd-sourced
> address data set would not burden OSM with that. Tom wrote that there's
> not enough manpower in openaddresses to actually edit the data, and I
> cautioned him against assuming that the OSM manpower would automatically
> be available for editing addresses.
> 
> Now if there *was* a crowd-sourced address collection project, then I
> would not object to OSM deferring to that for addresses. If, say region
> X made their address data openly available, it would be possible to
> conflate that with the (supposedly better) stuff we already have in OSM,
> add the result to the crowd-sourced address collection project, and drop
> it from OSM. If the alternatives are to either add the gov't data to OSM
> or move existing OSM address data into a separate project, I'd clearly
> prefer the latter, although I recognize that there might be people who
> would like to keep "their" address data in OSM. It is something that
> would have to be discussed.
> 
> It might be possible to piggyback the crowd-sourced address collection
> project onto OSM  but I would really think that if crowd-sourced address
> collection is not viable as a project in its own right (because of lack
> of people willing to give away their spare time to improve it), then it
> will not be viable in OSM either - only that the situation would be less
> obvious.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Talk-de] Einbahnstraße die von Fußgängern/Radfahrern/Motorradfahrern passierbar ist.

2015-10-14 Thread Manuel Reimer


Hallo,

über WhoDidIt bin ich auf einen Changeset in meiner Region aufmerksam 
geworden bei dem auf diesen Weg einige Access-Tags hinzugefügt wurden:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38109871

Die vielen Access-Tags fand ich unschön und habe mir deshalb dort ein 
"fixme" drangesetzt.


Gestern bin ich nun einmal an dieser Stelle vorbeigelaufen. Ich habe vor 
Ort *keinerlei* Einschränkungen bezüglich der erlaubten Verkehrsmittel 
gefunden. Das einzige, das da ist, ist ein "Sackgasse-Schild" rechts von 
diesem Punkt:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/308773513

Komischerweise fehlt dort sogar ein Hinweis, dass Fußgänger und 
Radfahrer passieren können (zumal der Kaibachweg in einem gemeinsamen 
Rad-/Fußweg endet).


Das Sackgasse-Schild bezieht sich auf diesen Poller:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/687493064

Autos kommen da nicht vorbei. Mit einem Motorrad müsste man gut 
vorbeikommen und die Beschilderung würde das auch nicht verbieten.


Den weiter südlich auf der anderen Seite liegenden Poller habe ich vor 
Ort nicht gesehen. Ich laufe da demnächst aber nochmal vorbei bevor ich 
den rauswerfe.


Worum es mir eigentlich geht: Wie muss das Tagging aussehen? Wie 
verhindere ich, dass ein Router über den Poller hinwegroutet?


Die ganzen Access-Tags auf dem Weg würde ich auf jedem Fall rausnehmen 
wollen, da es eben keinerlei Verbote gibt. Man darf mit jedem Fahrzeug 
bis zum Poller vorfahren und bei Bedarf auch rechts in den Kaibachweg 
einbiegen (maximal bis zum Fußweg).


Jemand hat bereits ein Access-Tag auf die Brücke gesetzt:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/76037293
Aber auch das ist eigentlich falsch. "motor_vehicle" schließt Mopeds und 
Motorräder ein. Mit denen müsste man den Poller aber locker passieren 
können und die Beschilderung verbietet das auch nicht. Vermutlich ging 
es den Verkehrsplanern bevorzugt um Autos. Im Prinzip verhindert der 
Poller aber das Befahren mit jeglichem mehrspurigen Fahrzeug.


Danke für jeden Tipp

Gruß

Manuel


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Tom Lee  wrote:
> 
> Frederik. I think it's a bit ungenerous to suggest that getting open address 
> data into OSM constitutes "hijacking" the project.

He’s clearly not suggesting that.

He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do that, 
and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change the 
license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking.

Steve
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-de] Einbahnstraße die von Fußgängern/Radfahrern/Motorradfahrern passierbar ist.

2015-10-14 Thread Hubert

Hallo Manuel,

das ganze sieht mit nach einem Fall von "tagging for the renderer/router" aus

Am Mittwoch, 14. Oktober 2015 16:27 schrieb Manuel Reimer 
[mailto:manuel.s...@nurfuerspam.de]:
>Hallo,
>
>über WhoDidIt bin ich auf einen Changeset in meiner Region aufmerksam geworden
>bei dem auf diesen Weg einige Access-Tags hinzugefügt wurden:
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38109871
>
>Die vielen Access-Tags fand ich unschön und habe mir deshalb dort ein "fixme"
>drangesetzt.
>Gestern bin ich nun einmal an dieser Stelle vorbeigelaufen. Ich habe vor Ort
>*keinerlei* Einschränkungen bezüglich der erlaubten Verkehrsmittel gefunden.

Wenn da wirklich nichts ist, können die Beschränkungen, insbesondere das 
"access=no" eigentlich(*) weg, da im Moment fälschlicherweise z.B. Kutschen 
nicht erlaubt sind.

>Das einzige, das da ist, ist ein "Sackgasse-Schild" rechts von diesem Punkt:
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/308773513
>
>Komischerweise fehlt dort sogar ein Hinweis, dass Fußgänger und Radfahrer
>passieren können (zumal der Kaibachweg in einem gemeinsamen Rad-/Fußweg endet).

Da musst du mal bei deiner Stadt/ deinem Kreis vorsprechen und die darum 
bitten, dass Schild auszutauschen.

>Das Sackgasse-Schild bezieht sich auf diesen Poller:
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/687493064
>
>Autos kommen da nicht vorbei. Mit einem Motorrad müsste man gut vorbeikommen
>und die Beschilderung würde das auch nicht verbieten.
>
>Den weiter südlich auf der anderen Seite liegenden Poller habe ich vor Ort
>nicht gesehen. Ich laufe da demnächst aber nochmal vorbei bevor ich den
>rauswerfe.

Löblich.

>Worum es mir eigentlich geht: Wie muss das Tagging aussehen? Wie verhindere
>ich, dass ein Router über den Poller hinwegroutet?
>
>Die ganzen Access-Tags auf dem Weg würde ich auf jedem Fall rausnehmen wollen,
>da es eben keinerlei Verbote gibt. Man darf mit jedem Fahrzeug bis zum Poller
>vorfahren und bei Bedarf auch rechts in den Kaibachweg einbiegen (maximal bis
>zum Fußweg).

Sehe ich nach deiner Beschreibung genauso. Bitte beachte, dass
(*) "*=yes" von manchen für "Geprüft" verwendetet wird.

>Jemand hat bereits ein Access-Tag auf die Brücke gesetzt:
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/76037293
>Aber auch das ist eigentlich falsch. "motor_vehicle" schließt Mopeds und
>Motorräder ein. Mit denen müsste man den Poller aber locker passieren können
>und die Beschilderung verbietet das auch nicht. Vermutlich ging es den
>Verkehrsplanern bevorzugt um Autos. Im Prinzip verhindert der Poller aber das
>Befahren mit jeglichem mehrspurigen Fahrzeug.

Normalerweise sollte Router auf Wegen gesetzte "barrier=pollard" auch ohne 
Zusätzliche tags am way auswerten. Ein Motorradrouter kann sich dann eben 
entscheiden die Barriere zu ignorieren. 

Ich hoffe das Hilft ersteinmal.

Hubert


___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

Picking up on the SOTM point - SOTM US isn’t for the community, it’s a 
corporate showcase. That’s not a bad thing, it’s just probably not what OSMFUS 
should be focused on.

A more interesting question is what should OSMFUS try to do to build editors in 
the US, and what metric should we use (presumably active editor headcount)?

What we’ve tried so far:

* SOTM getting bigger every year
* We tried paid ambassadors at CloudMade, running mapping parties with some 
success but the timeframe was very long to see people turn in to editors.
* We've tried making the web editor nicer multiple times (potlatch, mapzen, iD 
etc) and that doesn’t lead to meaningful growth in editors.
* Mapping parties appear to have some traction, but take a long time
* Getting schools involved appears to work briefly, then everyone goes home or 
to the next class
* Competitions to map areas (google also tried this for mapmaker)

All of these are good things to go do, they just don’t seem to impact active 
editing very much.

It feels like we should try some different things (ideas?) on a per-state 
basis. For example, we run 100 mapping parties in Idaho and we engage 100 
schools in Tennessee and so on so there’s distance between them and we can 
really measure the effectiveness of anything.

Some ideas to try:

* Linux User Group outreach (do these still exist? Very successful back in the 
day)
* Mass media (billboards, newspaper stories, magazine advertising)
* Tighter partnerships with existing orgs (USGS?)
* More scoreboards & leaderboards. We seem to have some success with ranking 
people and places against each other (e.g. Wyoming is more mapped than Nebraska)

Best

Steve

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> Dear US electorate,
> 
> Am Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:16:50 -0700 schrieb Alex Barth:
>> And - it's not to late to run for elections! Get your name up on the
>> list by October 10th.
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/
> United_States/Elections/2015#Candidates
> 
> And this is my censorious analysis reviewing all candidates:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nakaner/diary/36098
> 
> *Summary* I think that some candidates are suitable and some are not 
> suitable. It looks as the number of edits and the time since the first 
> map edit is proportional to the suitability of each candidate (with some
> exceptions).
> 
> You, the US community, have got some very great candidates which have
> recognized the bad situation the US community is in (see posting by
> Martijn van Exel). These candidates have realized that the board has to
> change its focus and focus on the community all over the country and not
> the so-called "community" attending SotM US. A good map needs a large and
> active community and not an annual conference which is present in the
> media and tweets 1440 times per day.
> 
> Reading some of the manifestos, I threw my hands up in horror. Some
> candidates have less experience – neither in editing nor in OSM-related
> coding. I believe that following fictional conversation might have
> happened:
> "I want to join OSM." – "Well, you just have to run for OSM US board
> elections. You'll get to know the US community after election and learn
> mapping after election, too."
> 
> I myself wonder if these people just want to become a board member to 
> have a nice entry in their CV. If someone is really crazy about OSM, he/
> she invests more time into OSM than just uploading 40 changesets.
> 
> This user diary entry is not neutral and shows my European-based opinion.
> That's why editing/coding experience is a very important criteria from my
> point of view. I don't pussyfoot aroung, I clearly write what's in my 
> mind.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Michael aka Nakaner
> 
> 
> PS I have already watched the first half of the virtual townhall.
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

thank you Michal, I see it now. I have finally discovered that I cannot
contribute much to this list and apologize for having caused disruption
from time to time, I'm unsubscribing, see you on the other lists ;-)

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Talk-ca] Fixing an old typo...

2015-10-14 Thread Colin McGregor

Ran across the following story about the City of Ottawa fixing a 68
year old typo. in a street name:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/feriand-street-renaming-comes-68-years-after-typo-1.3270002

Being the SOB that I am I have fixed the typo. on OSM, so what is in
OSM matches the official name, NOT what the local residents want :-) .

All the best :-) .

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

2015-10-14 Thread Mike Thompson

Michael, I appreciate your interest, research and opinions.  Thank you for
sharing it with us.

To continue to build on the success of OSM in the US, we need people with
diverse skill sets.  Alex has already listed some of them. Here is a list,
in no particular order:
* yes, editing the map
* software development
* server administration
* documentation creating/ wiki editing / tutorial creation
* outreach
* communication / pr
* legal
* ability to organize events / projects
* ability to teach others about osm
* ability to inspire others to join OSM / use OSM
* ability to form partnerships with third parties (governmental, non
governmental, commercial, other open projects)
* "supervise, control, direct and manage" (part of what the bylaws call for
the board to do).
* (probably others I overlooked)

Not everyone can be - or need be - a "heavy mapper."  I will be considering
skills, experience and ideas in all of the above areas in making my
decision.

Mike


On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Randy Meech  wrote:

> Wow Michael, that sure is an all-male US board you're suggesting. I hope
> nobody heeds you our we have bigger problems than I thought.
>
> The question of growth in the US is complex, as is the question of gender
> and contributing to communities such as this. Communities, that is to say,
> that have zero self-awareness about the problems in a message like this.
> Who knows: maybe threads like this explain the edit history, too.
>
> One thing that's certain is that there is no correlation between the work
> of a competent board member and making edits. Things like leadership,
> fundraising, organizing, project management, events, etc. are part of the
> work of a board.
>
> It's too bad we also require the ability to don a radiation suit to deal
> with threads like this.
>
> -Randy
> Dear US electorate,
>
> Am Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:16:50 -0700 schrieb Alex Barth:
> > And - it's not to late to run for elections! Get your name up on the
> > list by October 10th.
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/
> United_States/Elections/2015#Candidates
>
> And this is my censorious analysis reviewing all candidates:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nakaner/diary/36098
>
> *Summary* I think that some candidates are suitable and some are not
> suitable. It looks as the number of edits and the time since the first
> map edit is proportional to the suitability of each candidate (with some
> exceptions).
>
> You, the US community, have got some very great candidates which have
> recognized the bad situation the US community is in (see posting by
> Martijn van Exel). These candidates have realized that the board has to
> change its focus and focus on the community all over the country and not
> the so-called "community" attending SotM US. A good map needs a large and
> active community and not an annual conference which is present in the
> media and tweets 1440 times per day.
>
> Reading some of the manifestos, I threw my hands up in horror. Some
> candidates have less experience – neither in editing nor in OSM-related
> coding. I believe that following fictional conversation might have
> happened:
> "I want to join OSM." – "Well, you just have to run for OSM US board
> elections. You'll get to know the US community after election and learn
> mapping after election, too."
>
> I myself wonder if these people just want to become a board member to
> have a nice entry in their CV. If someone is really crazy about OSM, he/
> she invests more time into OSM than just uploading 40 changesets.
>
> This user diary entry is not neutral and shows my European-based opinion.
> That's why editing/coding experience is a very important criteria from my
> point of view. I don't pussyfoot aroung, I clearly write what's in my
> mind.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael aka Nakaner
>
>
> PS I have already watched the first half of the virtual townhall.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

2015-10-14 Thread Eleanor Tutt

Michael -

Let me start with where we agree! I share your enthusiasm for Martijn's
position statement (and I am basing that on the position statement itself -
NOT Martijn's contribution history) and I will concede that it would make
sense for *one* of the OSM US board members to have in-depth mapping
experience (though, honestly, if none of the elected board members end up
having in-depth mapping experience they can call upon established community
members for guidance.)

However, as others have said, OSM US needs a diverse board with different
skillsets. I have worked with and served on many boards and the best
functioning boards have a variety of perspectives represented (I second
Mike Thompson's list above as a good starting point.) In fact, I
specifically do NOT want a board with only "heavy mappers" represented -
because to grow our community we need new mappers, and new-ish mappers will
understand their perspective better than established mappers.

There are also many valid reasons why someone may not make a lot of edits
to OSM. To give one example - perhaps, like myself, they are a community
organizer. There have been several times that I have intentionally *not*
mapped something, because I know that someone else in my city who has been
curious about OSM has an interest in the place. Instead of doing the fun
work of adding to OSM under my own name, I will often do the hard (and -
based on your post - apparently thankless?) work of introducing OSM to
someone else, telling them something like, "hey - here's a perfect thing to
add! your favorite restaurant isn't on the map yet."

In other words, the number of edits made does NOT correlate to a person's
investment of time and energy into OSM as a map *and* a community of people.

The OSM US board needs to inspire and support a community of people - their
job is not to edit the map.

Thanks,
Eleanor

PS: I also appreciate that Randy Meech mentioned gender in his post - I
believe that encouraging women to join, contribute, and *stay involved in*
the OSM US community (because it isn't just a "pipeline" problem) is
critical to OSM US's long-term growth, and electing competent women to the
board (like the candidates running!) is one way we can encourage
participation.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Michael, I appreciate your interest, research and opinions.  Thank you for
> sharing it with us.
>
> To continue to build on the success of OSM in the US, we need people with
> diverse skill sets.  Alex has already listed some of them. Here is a list,
> in no particular order:
> * yes, editing the map
> * software development
> * server administration
> * documentation creating/ wiki editing / tutorial creation
> * outreach
> * communication / pr
> * legal
> * ability to organize events / projects
> * ability to teach others about osm
> * ability to inspire others to join OSM / use OSM
> * ability to form partnerships with third parties (governmental, non
> governmental, commercial, other open projects)
> * "supervise, control, direct and manage" (part of what the bylaws call
> for the board to do).
> * (probably others I overlooked)
>
> Not everyone can be - or need be - a "heavy mapper."  I will be
> considering skills, experience and ideas in all of the above areas in
> making my decision.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Randy Meech 
> wrote:
>
>> Wow Michael, that sure is an all-male US board you're suggesting. I hope
>> nobody heeds you our we have bigger problems than I thought.
>>
>> The question of growth in the US is complex, as is the question of gender
>> and contributing to communities such as this. Communities, that is to say,
>> that have zero self-awareness about the problems in a message like this.
>> Who knows: maybe threads like this explain the edit history, too.
>>
>> One thing that's certain is that there is no correlation between the work
>> of a competent board member and making edits. Things like leadership,
>> fundraising, organizing, project management, events, etc. are part of the
>> work of a board.
>>
>> It's too bad we also require the ability to don a radiation suit to deal
>> with threads like this.
>>
>> -Randy
>> Dear US electorate,
>>
>> Am Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:16:50 -0700 schrieb Alex Barth:
>> > And - it's not to late to run for elections! Get your name up on the
>> > list by October 10th.
>> >
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/
>> United_States/Elections/2015#Candidates
>>
>> And this is my censorious analysis reviewing all candidates:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nakaner/diary/36098
>>
>> *Summary* I think that some candidates are suitable and some are not
>> suitable. It looks as the number of edits and the time since the first
>> map edit is proportional to the suitability of each candidate (with some
>> exceptions).
>>
>> You, the US community, have got some very great candidates which have

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Andrew Guertin


On 10/14/2015 04:05 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:

On 14-10-15 09:49, Badita Florin wrote:

Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start
fresh, but this seems much more things needs to happen before you do this.


Don't delete the existing boundaries, update them to match the new
reality using the ReplaceGeometry feature in JOSM for example. When the
data for shared nodes is available, it will disconnect the other ways
from the boundary way being replaced leaving the other ways as they were.


I disagree with this suggestion, and I think the original plan of 
deleting the existing ways or tags and uploading new ones is better. 
Reasons:


1) The value of using Replace Geometry is very low for this case. The 
reason for doing so would be to make life easier for anyone who wants to 
know what OSM previously thought the boundaries are. Very few people 
will want to know that, especially since it won't provide any context 
for understanding the new, imported data. And for those few that ever 
will, the tools still exist and work fine.


2) Replace Geometry won't work well. To provide a meaningful consistency 
of history, there needs to be a roughly one-to-one correspondence 
between new objects and old.


To explain this with an example: Imagine the county boundaries are 
currently mapped, with one way between each pair of counties, and a 
relation for each county collecting the appropriate ways. Now add 
detail, mapping out the boundaries for each town. Each county relation 
is now formed by a larger number of smaller ways which are the town 
boundaries. What should happen to the original ways that were used for 
county boundaries? They don't correspond to anything in the new scheme, 
so there's nothing for Replace Geometry to do that makes sense.


--Andrew

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

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

2015-10-14 Thread Greg Morgan

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Michael Reichert  wrote:

> Dear US electorate,
>
> Am Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:16:50 -0700 schrieb Alex Barth:
> > And - it's not to late to run for elections! Get your name up on the
> > list by October 10th.
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/
> United_States/Elections/2015#Candidates
>
> And this is my censorious analysis reviewing all candidates:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nakaner/diary/36098
>
> *Summary* I think that some candidates are suitable and some are not
> suitable. It looks as the number of edits and the time since the first
> map edit is proportional to the suitability of each candidate (with some
> exceptions).
>

Thank you for the analysis.  It is the same message that I heard last
year.  I applaud the courage of these inexperienced mappers or whatever the
criteria is to run for the board. New blood and old blood would make things
better regardless how many nodes or their consistency level of adding map
features.  It feels like the experienced people want more mapping parties
like England and Germany for example.  That practice does not scale outside
of densely packed US urban areas. A new/old mapper might come up with a new
way of doing business in the US.  Experienced people like DBAs have told me
that I should not store images in a database.  Then MapBox comes along with
MBTiles and has a great solution to managing tiles. Inexperience people can
find new ways of looking at the same people that's results in game changing
techniques. The diversity of experience and opinions make this a strong
slate of candidates.  What would the US board do if the main problem is at
the OSF level as far as new ideas or unrecognized problems?

Regards,
Greg
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Andrew Guertin


On 10/14/2015 03:49 AM, Badita Florin wrote:

Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start
fresh


Since this doesn't seem to have been discussed either here or on the 
imports list before*, how confident are you that the new data is better 
than the current data in OSM?



* I looked at the thread "Mexico's Administrative Divisions Import 
Project 1"



--Andrew

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

[Talk-us] Growing OSM (was OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates)

2015-10-14 Thread Andy Townsend


On 14/10/2015 16:21, Steve Coast wrote:

(snipped)

What we’ve tried so far:

* SOTM getting bigger every year
* We tried paid ambassadors at CloudMade, running mapping parties with some 
success but the timeframe was very long to see people turn in to editors.
* We've tried making the web editor nicer multiple times (potlatch, mapzen, iD 
etc) and that doesn’t lead to meaningful growth in editors.
* Mapping parties appear to have some traction, but take a long time
* Getting schools involved appears to work briefly, then everyone goes home or 
to the next class
* Competitions to map areas (google also tried this for mapmaker)


From a UK perspective, what _definitely_ increases the short-term 
signup rate is any sort of national press coverage.  Re social meetups, 
I don't know whether any of other the local groups can report 
differently, but in the East Midlands of England although we get a few 
OSM-curious people coming along I don't think we've seen any new "heavy 
mappers" coming into the project that way; people just stumble across 
the project somehow and sometimes stick around.


The rough analysis I did ages ago (in Italy I think) didn't suggest that 
local "welcome messages" had an effect on retention (over the couple of 
months that I looked at the data).  It didn't look at mapping quality 
though; maybe there was an effect there.


I suspect that "trying to be nice to newbies" has an effect (though I've 
no idea how you'd measure that independently of other variables) and I 
also suspect that "making the web editor nicer" has an effect too, but 
that can't really be measured independently either.


So I'd suggest just "get lots of press where the OpenStreetMap name is 
used" and "be really helpful to the new mappers who show up, no matter 
how many unwritten rules they break with their first edits"*.


Cheers,

Andy

* It's worth mentioning that most "comments to new mappers" _are_ really 
polite and helpful (see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions ).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

2015-10-14 Thread Wolfgang Zenker

* Steve Coast  [151014 17:21]:
> [..]
> A more interesting question is what should OSMFUS try to do to build editors 
> in the US, and what metric should we use (presumably active editor headcount)?

> What we’ve tried so far:
> [..]
> It feels like we should try some different things (ideas?) on a per-state 
> basis. For example, we run 100 mapping parties in Idaho and we engage 100 
> schools in Tennessee and so on so there’s distance between them and we can 
> really measure the effectiveness of anything.

> Some ideas to try:
> [..]

Thanks for steering this discussion in the direction of possible
improvements. To add a bit to Steves ideas:

I suggest to focus on the rural parts of the US instead of big cities
for a while. These are usually neglected by "the other map", looking
there shows better geometry then OSM but the same crappy, typo-infested
and incomplete TIGER based road names that we have, which tells me that
they never really looked at the area. And IMHO rural areas are where
you can win "hearts and minds" of the american people.

One idea would be to have a mapping party doing TIGER fixup for one
rural county, then contact the local newspaper, write an article what
has been done and ask for help regarding wrong/incomplete road names,
wrong data caused by outdated imagery, etc.
My guess would be that newspapers in rural towns would be happy about
every article regarding their local area that they can get.

What I noticed in many years of doing TIGER fixup in Montana is that
TIGER data in reservations is even worse than the already bad data in
other rural areas. Maybe organising mapping parties together with e.g.
a local mission inside a reservation, or working with the BIA?

Wolfgang

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

2015-10-14 Thread Mike N


On 10/14/2015 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:

One idea would be to have a mapping party doing TIGER fixup for one
rural county, then contact the local newspaper, write an article what
has been done and ask for help regarding wrong/incomplete road names,
wrong data caused by outdated imagery, etc.
My guess would be that newspapers in rural towns would be happy about
every article regarding their local area that they can get.


 I agree with this - just some armchair work from existing mappers 
won't increase overall participation in rural areas, but some 
preliminary work (untangling TIGER is *hard* for new mappers), followed 
by newspaper announcements to check road names, etc would bring in some 
people.   Also suggesting to add parks, park details, trails, etc would 
further attract some people.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Andrew Guertin


On 10/14/2015 03:49 AM, Badita Florin wrote:

This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a
boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the
same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different
things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ? since the
highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap the real
boundary, so if the highway  is changed for any reason, it will modify the
boundary along with it. So what's the valid thing to do here? Duplicate the
way to save the highway way and keep a way for the boundary separated?,


I won't get in to the best way to accomplish this technically, but I 
suggest you remove the existing boundary information in whatever way 
works for you while leaving non-boundary information intact, and then 
upload your new information keeping it separate from any other 
(non-boundary) objects.


As other people have discussed, it can be very hard (requiring legal 
research or even court decisions) to know whether a boundary IS a 
certain feature and will change if the feature changes or merely 
currently follows a feature and will stay put if the feature changes. 
Uploading the boundaries as separate objects is not wrong and provides 
the vast majority of the value. If anyone is motivated to do the legal 
research and connect things when appropriate, they can do that later.


--Andrew

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras

2015-10-14 Thread Petr Vejsada

OK, takže technická příprava snad hotova. Overlay se překresluje ihned po 
zpracování denní porce v zoomech 7-13 (cca 3 minuty), zoomy 14-20 se mažou, 
neb se stihnou vykreslit na vyžádání. Kdyby ještě něco (zmenšit rozcestníky? 
udělat je samotné černé bez toho rámečku?to budou méně výrazné).

Stále taky běží úloha, kterou tu někdo chtěl, a to jsou "rozbité relace". Jsou 
to relace route=hiking nebo route=foot, které jsou geometricky rozbité - není 
to jedna souvislá čára. Buď tam mohou být ocásky a nebo je čára přerušená, 
například http://mapapi.poloha.net/relation/2163647 . Seznam je na 
http://osm.poloha.net/rozbite_relace.csv . Nejedná se tedy pouze o cesty KČT, 
ale o všechny relace uvedeného typu.

Tak mě napadá, že by se ty rozbité čáry daly také dát do toho overlaye. Někdy 
se v tom těžko hledá, když je 100 km dlouhá cesta přerušená na půl metru nebo 
má půlmetrový ocásek ;-) ?

--
Petr

Dne Út 13. října 2015 22:17:36, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):

> On 10/13/2015 07:56 PM, Petr Vejsada wrote:
> > Jsou 3 režimy, kam se to dá přidat. Standardní, t.j. teď, ale overlay není
> > při vytváření projektu a při zadávání prioritních oblastí. Mám to tam
> > taky přidat?
> Pri vytvareni projektu to netreba (k cemu?), jedeme celou CR.
> 
> Prioritni oblasti taky nemame, opet to bude cela CR.
> 
> Mirek
> 
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-ja] Yahoo data cleanup

2015-10-14 Thread Arun Ganesh

> I've translated your post in Japanese. :-)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MAPconcierge/diary/36106
>

Wonderful! ありがとう :)

>From here on, there are some interesting questions for the JA community:

   - Has the import data helped Japan map to improve and the community to
   grow? How is the OSM coverage compared to other maps?
   - How to best cleanup the import: continue to leave the data as is? do a
   partial revert to make it easy for new mappers? Organize a nationwide
   mapping movement?

PS:  i'm going to be on vacation in Japan next week to visit my friends in
Kamogawa[1] and found out SOTM is happening at the same time :D ではまたすぐにね

[1] http://www.makery.info/2015/08/11/hacker-farm-bricoder-dans-le-bled/

-- 
Arun Ganesh
(planemad) 

___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-ja] Yahoo data cleanup

2015-10-14 Thread Andrew Errington

I lived in Japan for a while and did some mapping there.  I also visit
there occasionally and use the map (and add to the map).

The Yahoo! import means that the Japanese mapping is extensive, but it also
means there is a lack of quality.

I think it would be too difficult to revert the Yahoo! import, but,
identifying common problems would be helpful.  New mappers could recognise
the common problems and fix them, which would help them gain experience.

My biggest complaint is that all waterways were imported with layer=-1.  In
my opinion waterways should have no layer tag.

Best wishes,

Andrew

On 14 October 2015 at 15:13, Arun Ganesh  wrote:

>
> I've translated your post in Japanese. :-)
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MAPconcierge/diary/36106
>>
>
> Wonderful! ありがとう :)
>
> From here on, there are some interesting questions for the JA community:
>
>- Has the import data helped Japan map to improve and the community to
>grow? How is the OSM coverage compared to other maps?
>- How to best cleanup the import: continue to leave the data as is? do
>a partial revert to make it easy for new mappers? Organize a nationwide
>mapping movement?
>
> PS:  i'm going to be on vacation in Japan next week to visit my friends in
> Kamogawa[1] and found out SOTM is happening at the same time :D ではまたすぐにね
>
> [1] http://www.makery.info/2015/08/11/hacker-farm-bricoder-dans-le-bled/
>
> --
> Arun Ganesh
> (planemad) 
> 
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
>
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

[OSM-ja] Discard yh:WIDTH tag

2015-10-14 Thread Arun Ganesh

こんにちは
In the data issues post[1] we noticed that the yh:WIDTH tag was not
consistent and causes conflicts when trying to merge roads. Taichi-san
already mentioned we could delete them and am thinking of adding it to the
list of discardable tags in iD[2] and JOSM

This will make it easy for new mappers to start merging ways without
worrying about these tags. Good idea?

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MAPconcierge/diary/36106
[2] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/discarded.json

-- 
Arun Ganesh
(planemad) 

___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

[OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Badita Florin

It is interesting the things that you discover when trying to do the import
of a whole county, in this case, Mexico

Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start
fresh, but this seems much more things needs to happen before you do this.

There are over 500 nodes or ways that share a common node or follow the
same path with the old boundaries that we want to remove, so we can add the
new boundaries. One interesting topic had have sprung up is this, what are
the procedures for dealing with boundaries that run along a road, waterway.

A query that we had build to detect this kind of shared nodes and ways
looks like this http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bZA

You can adapt the script and share your results, to see if there are other
examples that can be included here

Now it has come up a question, what happens for example with cases like
this.

A way that is two things simultaneously, for example a highway and a
boundary at the same time. There are some cases like these in the state of
Michoacan and I can't just de-glue the bad nodes because the way  itself
seems to be two things at the same time.  This is the issue in question,
your query identified the following two nodes:

Nodes 1856092007

and 1856092002

, which limit the following  way

between such nodes.
This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a
boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the
same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different
things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ? since the
highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap the real
boundary, so if the highway  is changed for any reason, it will modify the
boundary along with it. So what's the valid thing to do here? Duplicate the
way to save the highway way and keep a way for the boundary separated?,
I've found similar questions

by other users and they indicate it isn't valid but I need a more official
argument because the user is upset if we remove this kind of ways from
relations
ᐧ
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-at] Graphenintegrations-Plattform GIP als OGD

2015-10-14 Thread Martin Raifer

Evtl. könnte folgender Code für QGIS von Anita Graser hilfreich beim
Arbeiten mit dem bei GIP verwendeten Daten-Format IDF sein:

http://anitagraser.com/2015/07/23/open-source-idf-parser-for-qgis/

Gruß
Martin

2015-10-13 22:20 GMT+02:00 Simon Legner :
> Hallo,
>
> die Daten der Graphenintegrations-Plattform GIP sollen »ab Anfang 2016
> als Open Government Data (OGD) veröffentlicht« werden [1]. Es stehen
> bereits Testdaten für Testdatensätze in Wien (Bereich
> Westbahnhof/Gürtel) und Klagenfurt samt Dokumentation zur Verfügung
> [2]. Als Lizenz wird CC BY 3.0 AT verwendet werden.
>
> Grüße
> Simon
>
> [1] http://gip.gv.at/news/items/gip-als-open-government-data-ogd.html
> [2] http://gip.gv.at/ogd.html
>
> ___
> Talk-at mailing list
> Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

 

A boundary couldn't be "the river" as a river has non-zero width. It
might be the "centre line", "deepest line", "fastest flowing bit" .
but it cannot be "the river" without further qualification. 

On 2015-10-14 11:31, Frederik Ramm wrote: 

> Hi,
> 
> On 10/14/2015 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 
> 
>> (If this happens - if the boundary is defined by the river or the
>> highway - then you still have various options of modeling this, for
>> example having two ways share the same nodes, 
>> 
>> wouldn't this kind of modelling be "wrong"? If the boundary IS the
>> river, there shouldn't be 2 different objects there, should they?
> 
> Academic detail. "Is" the boundary the river, or is the boundary a thing
> its own right, the geometry of which is described by the river? I think
> you can argue either way.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Maarten Deen


On 2015-10-14 11:31, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 10/14/2015 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

(If this happens - if the boundary is defined by the river or the
highway - then you still have various options of modeling this, 
for

example having two ways share the same nodes,

wouldn't this kind of modelling be "wrong"? If the boundary IS the
river, there shouldn't be 2 different objects there, should they?


Academic detail. "Is" the boundary the river, or is the boundary a 
thing

its own right, the geometry of which is described by the river? I think
you can argue either way.


And the legal part can be different too. It can be that the boundary is 
the river and it will change when the river changes, it can also be that 
the boundary has been defined as the river at a point in time and if the 
river changes after that point, the boundary does not change with it.


And since it is easy to change ways in OSM and people will change 
visible features, either based on own visual confirmation or based on 
aerial photo's (which as we all know may have an offset) and will 
probably not be so eager to change "official" boundaries, I would alwas 
separate the two.


Regards,
Maarten


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

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Maarten Deen


On 2015-10-14 09:49, Badita Florin wrote:


Nodes 1856092007 [1] and 1856092002 [2] , which limit the following
way [3] between such nodes. This way is a highway and at the same time
is part of the relation of a boundary. This seems invalid since it
merges two types of features on the same way instead of keeping a
logical separation between two different things. Is this a valid way?


I have seen this more often. Is it a valid way of mapping? Sure, why 
not. Is it prudent? I don't think so, precisely because of your 
concerns:



What if the highway is modified ? since the highway is not a legal
boundary and just happens to overlap the real boundary, so if the
highway  is changed for any reason, it will modify the boundary along
with it.


That is why it you have to be very cautious in connecting different 
kinds of objects on the same nodes. I've seen this also on multiple 
occasions with landuses and roads. Not only does this make editting a 
bit awkward (more difficult to select the object you want to edit), it 
also is unclear what the meaning of it is.



So what's the valid thing to do here? Duplicate the way to
save the highway way and keep a way for the boundary separated?, I've
found similar questions [4] by other users and they indicate it isn't
valid but I need a more official argument because the user is upset if
we remove this kind of ways from relations


I assume you are not doing automated edits? Then I would just remove the 
boundary tags from the road and remove the way from the boundary 
relation and draw/import the boundary new. To have two nodes on exactly 
the same spot is also not very nice. The JOSM validator will give a 
warning about that and then you risk that people are going to merge 
them.


Regards,
Maarten


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

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

 

How is the boundary legally defined? If it is a set of coordinates or a
line on a map, then there is no intrinsic link with the line of the
highway. If the highway is realigned, this will not (automatically)
affect the boundary. This may have already happened in the past, so the
lines are "almost" colinear but not quite. 

However, if the boundary is legally defined in a more descriptive
manner, such as "following the centre line of highway X" then there is a
real link between the line of the highway and the line of the boundary,
and one cannot be changed without changing the other. 

Where boundaries appear to follow a highway, they are not always aligned
to the centre line. This can give headaches for road maintenance, police
jurisdiction etc. The boundary may be following the edge of the
carriageway, or a hedge/ditch a couple of metres away, so the whole road
is actually in one administrative area. 

So all in all, I would suggest it would be better to not share ways, and
not share nodes either - unless you are very sure that the boundary and
the highway are legally linked together. 

--colin 

On 2015-10-14 09:49, Badita Florin wrote: 

> It is interesting the things that you discover when trying to do the import 
> of a whole county, in this case, Mexico 
> 
> Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start 
> fresh, but this seems much more things needs to happen before you do this.  
> 
> There are over 500 nodes or ways that share a common node or follow the same 
> path with the old boundaries that we want to remove, so we can add the new 
> boundaries. One interesting topic had have sprung up is this, what are the 
> procedures for dealing with boundaries that run along a road, waterway. 
> 
> A query that we had build to detect this kind of shared nodes and ways looks 
> like this http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bZA 
> 
> You can adapt the script and share your results, to see if there are other 
> examples that can be included here 
> 
> Now it has come up a question, what happens for example with cases like this. 
> 
> A way that is two things simultaneously, for example a highway and a boundary 
> at the same time. There are some cases like these in the state of Michoacan 
> and I can't just de-glue the bad nodes because the way  itself seems to be 
> two things at the same time.  This is the issue in question, your query 
> identified the following two nodes: 
> 
> Nodes 1856092007 [1] and 1856092002 [2] , which limit the following  way [3] 
> between such nodes. This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the 
> relation of a boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of 
> features on the same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two 
> different things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ? 
> since the highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap the 
> real boundary, so if the highway  is changed for any reason, it will modify 
> the boundary along with it. So what's the valid thing to do here? Duplicate 
> the way to save the highway way and keep a way for the boundary separated?, 
> I've found similar questions [4] by other users and they indicate it isn't 
> valid but I need a more official argument because the user is upset if we 
> remove this kind of ways from relations 
> ᐧ 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 

Links:
--
[1]
http://t.sidekickopen24.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg4XrmfHMQByL0f6nqlW3LyBkH56dL4Zf8p2wPs02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fnode%2F1856092007si=6117088740507648pi=d9ea1099-68c4-44a7-9853-3b1c4a86d057
[2]
http://t.sidekickopen24.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg4XrmfHMQByL0f6nqlW3LyBkH56dL4Zf8p2wPs02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fnode%2F1856092002si=6117088740507648pi=d9ea1099-68c4-44a7-9853-3b1c4a86d057
[3]
http://t.sidekickopen24.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg4XrmfHMQByL0f6nqlW3LyBkH56dL4Zf8p2wPs02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Fway%2F174970090si=6117088740507648pi=d9ea1099-68c4-44a7-9853-3b1c4a86d057
[4]
http://t.sidekickopen24.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg4XrmfHMQByL0f6nqlW3LyBkH56dL4Zf8p2wPs02?t=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.openstreetmap.org%2Fquestions%2F7563%2Fwaterway-as-administrative-boundary-shared-waysi=6117088740507648pi=d9ea1099-68c4-44a7-9853-3b1c4a86d057___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

On 10/14/2015 09:49 AM, Badita Florin wrote:
> This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a
> boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on
> the same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two
> different things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ?
> since the highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap
> the real boundary, so if the highway  is changed for any reason, it will
> modify the boundary along with it.

This is not automatically wrong. It is possible that boundaries are
actually defined by highways or other features (rivers, for example).

> So what's the valid thing to do here?

You'd have to research how the boundary is defined. If there is some
sort of legal definition that goes "the boundary has the following
geometry: from lat/lon A to lat/lon B to lat/lon C...", independent of
the river or highway, then it makes sense to have two different
geometries. But if the legal definition goes "the municipality of X
extends until the middle of the river Y" then it would be wrong to have
two different geometries in OSM.

(If this happens - if the boundary is defined by the river or the
highway - then you still have various options of modeling this, for
example having two ways share the same nodes, or putting the
river/highway into the boundary relation. The latter seems more commonly
used but both are valid.)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-it] Import numeri cicivi Ferrara

2015-10-14 Thread Andrea Musuruane

Ciao Marco,
tempo fa ho fatto uno script per importare i dati di Ferrara da usare
con ogr2osm:

https://github.com/musuruan/osm_imports/tree/master/ferrara

Con questo script non si ottengono nodi duplicati.

Se ricordo bene, il processo però si era fermato perché la qualità dei dati
non era molto buona e servivano delle correzioni sul campo (nonché una
pagina che dettagliasse l'import e una discussione sulla ML internazionale
dedicata agli import).

Ciao,

Andrea


2015-10-13 17:11 GMT+02:00 mircozorzo :

> Ciao,
>
> vorrei fare l'import dei dati che il comune rilascia sul suo sito.
> Ho visto che ci sono dei nodi duplicati, qualcuno mi aiuta? Ci sono delle
> prassi rispetto a questo problema?
>
> Grazie.
>
>
> Ciao, Mirco
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-numeri-cicivi-Ferrara-tp5856903.html
> Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-cz] Mapování tras KČT na taskmanu

2015-10-14 Thread Miroslav Suchy

Na:
  http://taskman.poloha.net/
jsem založil nový projekt "Mapování turistických tras KČT"
  http://taskman.poloha.net/project/2

Ten projekt-1 bych ponechal na testování, ať si každý může vyzkoušet to WebUI.

Když kliknete na Instructions, tak jsou tam - doufám - vyčerpávající informace.

Časem založím další projekty na mapování cyklostezek a další na mapování 
lyžařských cest.
Pokud mě někdo předběhne budu jenom rád.

Pokud máte připomínky k instrukcím, tak jsem jedno velké ucho a rád to ještě 
upravím.

Takže hurá na mapování :)

Mirek

___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

2015-10-13 21:08 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm :

> rankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open
> addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if
> open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has
> addresses, I'd not be opposed to dropping the addresses from OSM in
> those regions.
>


Really? I've always thought our user's ground truth would be trumping data
we'd import, i.e. we'd request from importers not to drop features that are
already there, but to conflate in the opposite way, drop from the external
data set the stuff that we already have, before importing the rest. Did I
read you right? Can you explain why you changed your mind?

FWIW, if this usable open address dataset became available in Italy I'd
still insist on keeping the already present data and merge just the rest of
the public open data.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras

2015-10-14 Thread Miroslav Suchy

Dne 14.10.2015 v 09:43 Pavel Machek napsal(a):
> a pridal jsem poznamky / oznacil hotove
> ctverce v okoli Rican a Sazavy.

Muzes to prosim preznacit v tom novem projektu? Ten prvni byl jenom testovaci.

Mirek

___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-ja] Yahoo data cleanup

2015-10-14 Thread Arun Ganesh

> I think it would be too difficult to revert the Yahoo! import, but,
> identifying common problems would be helpful.  New mappers could recognise
> the common problems and fix them, which would help them gain experience.
>
> My biggest complaint is that all waterways were imported with layer=-1.
> In my opinion waterways should have no layer tag.
>
>
Is there a comprehensive documentation of such issues anywhere that we can
all add to? There is probably something in Japanese in the wiki already?



-- 
Arun Ganesh
(planemad) 

___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 10:23 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm :

> (If this happens - if the boundary is defined by the river or the
> highway - then you still have various options of modeling this, for
> example having two ways share the same nodes,
>



wouldn't this kind of modelling be "wrong"? If the boundary IS the river,
there shouldn't be 2 different objects there, should they?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

On 10/14/2015 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> (If this happens - if the boundary is defined by the river or the
> highway - then you still have various options of modeling this, for
> example having two ways share the same nodes, 
> 
> wouldn't this kind of modelling be "wrong"? If the boundary IS the
> river, there shouldn't be 2 different objects there, should they?

Academic detail. "Is" the boundary the river, or is the boundary a thing
its own right, the geometry of which is described by the river? I think
you can argue either way.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

2015-10-14 Thread Michal Palenik

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:18:43AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-10-13 21:08 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm :
> 
> > rankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open
> > addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if
> > open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has
> > addresses, I'd not be opposed to dropping the addresses from OSM in
> > those regions.
> 
> Really? I've always thought our user's ground truth would be trumping data
> we'd import, i.e. we'd request from importers not to drop features that are
> already there, but to conflate in the opposite way, drop from the external
> data set the stuff that we already have, before importing the rest. Did I
> read you right? Can you explain why you changed your mind?

imho, the initial idea by frederik was that you (as data consumer), when
using data for nominatim/mapnik/... should be able to drop all addr:*
elements from OSM and use addr from that external data
(just as postcodes for US in nominatim are from external data and not
OSM)

importing into osm is way different area.

michal



-- 
michal palenik
www.freemap.sk
www.oma.sk


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] était Subject=Re: SeFaireConnaitre :|, devient SeFaireConnaitre :)

2015-10-14 Thread Support Sefaireconnaitre

Bonjour,
Merci pour le signalement, j'ai bien repositionné le point de vente.

Amandine Nicolas - Ubiflow

Le 10 octobre 2015 20:52, Jérôme Seigneuret  a
écrit :

> Bonjour j'ai laissé un commentaire sur l'un des changeset.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32186586#map=19/43.61747/3.81009
>
> Le 31 août 2015 15:30, Support Sefaireconnaitre <
> supp...@sefaireconnaitre.com> a écrit :
>
>> Bonjour,
>>
>> Suite aux différents éléments que vous avez remontés, nous avons lancé
>> des travaux traiter les différents points d'amélioration.
>>
>> Ces travaux visent dans un premier temps à :
>>
>> - nous permettre de traiter les localisations en amont de l'envoi sur OSM.
>> - faibiliser ces localisations et les synchroniser avec BANO (via
>> l'API quand c'est possible et/ou manuellement avec le layer BANO)
>>
>> Nous avons intégré ces travaux à nos différents outils, et nous avons
>> traité une centaine de points de vente, à vocation de test.
>> Nous allons publier ces 100 POI cette semaine et refaire un point
>> suite à cela pour mesurer les progrès et voir les éventuels autres
>> points à traiter.
>>
>> N'hésitez pas à nous faire des retours, on les prendra en compte !
>>
>> bonne journée,
>>
>> Le 17 août 2015 21:40,   a écrit :
>> > Effectivement.
>> > En espérant voir les mêmes progrès sur les autres points soulevés.
>> > Cordialement,
>> >
>> > Jean-Yvon
>> >
>> > Le 17/08/2015 11:59, Support Sefaireconnaitre -
>> supp...@sefaireconnaitre.com
>> > a écrit :
>> >
>> > OK.
>> > c'est fait.
>> > on a retiré les éléments de tracling situés dans les URL.
>> >
>> > Le 14 août 2015 21:30,   a écrit :
>> >
>> > Je prends acte du mea culpa (merci).
>> > Pour la prise en compte, j'attends encore de voir.
>> > À ce jour encore 101 liens pistants "Ubiflow".
>> > Mon critère :
>> > node["website"~"ubiflow"]["website"!~"source=ubiflow"];
>> >
>> > Quand ce compteur sera à zéro, les fourmis pourront à nouveau tracer les
>> > pistes et le travail des fourmis ne servira plus à ce que d'autres
>> soient
>> > pistés à leur insu.
>> >
>> > Le faire passer à zéro est un gage de bonne foi, gage facile à réaliser.
>> >
>> > Jean-Yvon
>> >
>> > Le 14/08/2015 13:01, Brice MALLET - brice...@free.fr a écrit :
>> >
>> > Bonjour,
>> >
>> > Merci de vos explications sur cette liste quant à la prise en compte des
>> > remarques de la communauté des fourmis et ainsi VousFaire(re)Connaitre
>> :) au
>> > sein de celle-ci.
>> >
>> > Brice
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-fr mailing list
>> > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-fr mailing list
>> > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-fr mailing list
>> > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras

2015-10-14 Thread Pavel Machek

Ahoj!

> > když už jsem nechal svoji činnost na turistických trasách vyšumět, protože 
> > jinak by to sežralo všechen čas, tak jsem alespoň rozchodil tu instanci na 
> > http://taskman.poloha.net/ . Příležitostně na to přes den kouknu a napište, 
> > z 
> > koho mám udělat administrátory.
> 
> 

Pridavam se k potlesku... a pridal jsem poznamky / oznacil hotove
ctverce v okoli Rican a Sazavy.

Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) 
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Sebastiaan Couwenberg

On 14-10-15 09:49, Badita Florin wrote:
> Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start
> fresh, but this seems much more things needs to happen before you do this.

Don't delete the existing boundaries, update them to match the new
reality using the ReplaceGeometry feature in JOSM for example. When the
data for shared nodes is available, it will disconnect the other ways
from the boundary way being replaced leaving the other ways as they were.

> This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a
> boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the
> same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different
> things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ? since the
> highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap the real
> boundary, so if the highway  is changed for any reason, it will modify the
> boundary along with it. So what's the valid thing to do here? Duplicate the
> way to save the highway way and keep a way for the boundary separated?,

In the Americas people seem to be fond of using natural features as
boundary ways, in The Netherlands we keep these strictly separate. The
administrative boundary may follow a river for example, but these are
two distinct features that happen to share a similar geometry. At the
highest zoom level in JOSM you'll see that the river way doesn't share
the nodes from the boundary and if they do that's an issue to be fixed
by disconnecting the shared node(s), each feature has its own way and
nodes. Because natural features tend to change when the administrative
boundaries do not, we have to keep them separate.

Kind Regards,

Bas

-- 
 GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1

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

Re: [OSRM-talk] Road speeds and profile restrictions

2015-10-14 Thread Daniel Hofmann

If osrm-prepare crashed, just add more swap. Also make sure to read this
ticket:
> https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/1698

I don't think we have documentation for the profiles. I know they are
somewhat ugly and huge. I would recommend taking a look at the profile's
general structure first, so that you roughly understand e.g. that there are
callbacks for OSM nodes and ways, and what they do. After that I would
simply trace the globals through the script. That is e.g. search for all
places where a certain whitelist is used and build a mental model based on
that. Pen and paper may help :)

> https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/develop/profiles/car.lua

You can find the C++ side of things in the extractor directory:
> https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/tree/develop/extractor

For example, the scripting environment uses luabind to make a few functions
visible, e.g. the get_value_by_key function, that then can be used in the
profiles. The other way, that is using lua functions in C++ is mostly done
in the extractor implementation: I would recommend just searching for the
symbols you want to know more about:

>
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93=node_function=Code

Cheers,
Daniel

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Richard Marsden  wrote:

> It is possible I've just managed to demonstrate this to myself.
> osrm-prepare crashed out on the Europe-wide dataset  at the 90+%
> complete level with 30GB swap (16GB real). For much of the run it
> didn't go above about 15GB swap. Very slow of course - but that was to
> be expected.
>
> This continues to be a side / evaluation project, but I'm continuing
> to investigate. Looks like the PC in question should be able to handle
> most countries, but will balk at most continents, and the very largest
> countries (e.g. the US). High-RAM hardware is relatively pricey, but
> it is a possibility in the new year.
>
> Looking at the individual pieces, next I'm going to look at the
> profile.lua file. I've never used LUA before, but that is easy enough
> to remedy with online tutorials and the various books that are
> available. But what about the script that is used by OSRM? Is there
> any documentation as to the variables and/or functions that are
> expected?  And the tags used in OSM that the script is expected to
> map?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard Marsden
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Patrick Niklaus
>  wrote:
> > W.r.t. the pre-preprocessing you are correct.
> >
> >> What is that extra power used for?
> >
> > Including all sorts of external data sources. Also the logic in the
> > lua profiles is not just replaceable by simple key-value pairs, OSM
> > requires you to handle a lot of special cases.
> >
> >> Presumably I could do the same for world preparation & routing? Have,
> perhaps a 100GB+ swap file, ideally on an SSD.
> >
> > This will fall apart when you have some actual load pressure on the
> > system. We need random access to memory, which will create a lot of
> > page faults (== slow). Even an SSD is not even close to memory speed.
> >
> > You have two options:
> > - split the datasets
> > - get a bigger server
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Richard Marsden 
> wrote:
> >> I've been evaluating OSRM, using it primarily as a library from C++.
> >>
> >> I believe I've determined the answer to most of the questions, but I'm
> >> also looking for confirmation.
> >> (I understand the reason for these constraints - the trade-off of
> >> speed vs flexibility)
> >>
> >> First, road speeds are set with 'profile.lua' at the osrm-extract
> >> stage. This filters out unnecessary roads (eg. foot paths for car
> >> routing), but also applies the road speeds.
> >> If I wish to change the speed profile, I need to regenerate the road
> >> network with osrm-extract and osrm-routed.
> >> Correct?
> >>
> >> If I wanted different speeds for the final distance/time calculations,
> >> I could use the returned route, and apply my own speed table according
> >> to the road type of each road segment. This would not, of course,
> >> change the route geometry is calculated.
> >>
> >> If I want a shortest route (distance optimized) instead of a quickest
> >> route (time optimized), I need to set all the road speeds to the same
> >> speed and regenerate the network. I.e. osrm does not directly support
> >> the concept of a "shortest route".
> >>
> >> The profile is provided with a LUA file. I had to look this one up :-)
> >> Looks a useful scripting language, but why is this profile a script
> >> file, and not a simple configuration file of constants (eg. key-value
> >> pairs)?
> >> Seems like an unnecessary complexity - I'd like to understand the
> >> perceived advantages. What is that extra power used for?
> >>
> >> Finally, the memory usage... I saw a reference to the server requiring
> >> 40GB of memory for

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras

2015-10-14 Thread Petr Vozdecký

same skvele zpravy

za me urcite zmensit ty ikony rozcestniku tak na 40 pct jejich velikosti
k nazvum rozcestniku bych navrhnul pridat zobrazeni jejich #ref (asi by to 
pro dalsi strojove zpracovani mel byt udaj, ktery je vhodne do databaze 
dodat resp. zkompletovat, tak at je hned videt kde je/chybi)
rozhodne bych se primlouval za zobrazeni VSECH (ano, vim, je to dost siroky 
pojem) znacenych cest, ne jen KCT. Kdyz uz se toto dela a lide jsou do 
terenu, tak by byl hrich nedat sanci to nedelat v obecne kategorii "znacene 
trasy". Treba i s ohledem na to, ze je v databazi casto proste mame 
(cyklotrasy, cyklostezky), jen mohou byt nespravne zaznacene, pretrasovane, 
poskozene (viz http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=14=49.10729;
lon=16.49715=0=0.745#routes )... A pak i takove, ktere v databazi
obecne mame (treba naucne stezky) a nevime, zda vsechny Tedy aby se 
zobrazovaly treba:
- lokalni (napr. bezecke) trasy http://waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=15=
49.20814=16.54646=0#routes
- naucne stezky http://waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=15=49.24135=
16.50088=0#routes (kct_green:learning, kct_none:learning...)
- konske stezky (zvlaste kraj Vysocina do znaceni investoval, dokonce myslim
prostrednictvim KCT! a v mape jsou jen stripky techto tras: http://riding.
waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=12=49.26712=15.56149=0=
0.745#routes )
- zimni trasy (lyzarske: sjezdove, bezkarske) http://slopemap.
waymarkedtrails.org/cs/way/369569620?zoom=13=49.58039=16.08921=
0=0.745#

a pak dat treba sanci, aby se zacaly mapovat ci zobrazovat napr route:inline
_skates (nejak nechapu, ze by v CR nebyla v OSM temer zadna zaznacena inline
stezka? http://skating.waymarkedtrails.org/cs/relation/3376572?zoom=15=
50.52717=13.61129=0=0.745

Doatz - ty identifikovane geometricky poskozene trasy by se nedaly nejak 
zvyraznit v mape? Treba v samostatne prepinatelne vrstve? Umoznuje toto 
reseni nejake prepinatelne vrstvy?

S diky

VOP

"OK, takže technická příprava snad hotova. Overlay se překresluje ihned po 
zpracování denní porce v zoomech 7-13 (cca 3 minuty), zoomy 14-20 se mažou, 
neb se stihnou vykreslit na vyžádání. Kdyby ještě něco (zmenšit rozcestníky?

udělat je samotné černé bez toho rámečku?to budou méně výrazné).

Stále taky běží úloha, kterou tu někdo chtěl, a to jsou "rozbité relace". 
Jsou 
to relace route=hiking nebo route=foot, které jsou geometricky rozbité - 
není 
to jedna souvislá čára. Buď tam mohou být ocásky a nebo je čára přerušená, 
například http://mapapi.poloha.net/relation/2163647 . Seznam je na 
http://osm.poloha.net/rozbite_relace.csv . Nejedná se tedy pouze o cesty 
KČT, 
ale o všechny relace uvedeného typu.

Tak mě napadá, že by se ty rozbité čáry daly také dát do toho overlaye. 
Někdy 
se v tom těžko hledá, když je 100 km dlouhá cesta přerušená na půl metru 
nebo 
má půlmetrový ocásek ;-) ?

--
Petr

Dne Út 13. října 2015 22:17:36, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):

> On 10/13/2015 07:56 PM, Petr Vejsada wrote:
> > Jsou 3 režimy, kam se to dá přidat. Standardní, t.j. teď, ale overlay 
není
> > při vytváření projektu a při zadávání prioritních oblastí. Mám to tam
> > taky přidat?
> Pri vytvareni projektu to netreba (k cemu?), jedeme celou CR.
> 
> Prioritni oblasti taky nemame, opet to bude cela CR.
> 
> Mirek
> 
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz;___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

[OSM-talk-fr] Bientot la date limite pour adherer a OSM Foundation et pouvoir voter pour l AG 2015

2015-10-14 Thread THEVENON Julien

Salut,
La prochaine AG de la Fondation OSM est prevue pour le 5 decembre 2015. Pour 
ceux qui voudraient pouvoir voter lors de l AG il faut s assurer rapidement que 
votre adhesion est a jourPour rappel c est la fondation qui possede les droits 
sur les donnees OSM et qui peut initier un changement de licence donc il peut 
etre pas mal d avoir son mot a dire sur l election du board
Julien

 
   

 - Mail transféré -
  De : Kathleen Danielson 
 À : OpenStreetMap Talk Mailing List  
 Envoyé le : Lundi 12 octobre 2015 5h58
 Objet : [OSM-talk] Membership deadline approaching for 2015 AGM
   
All: This is an (unofficial) heads up that the 2015 Annual General Meeting 
(AGM) of the OpenStreetMap Foundation will be held remotely on December 5th, 
2015. At this meeting the membership of the Foundation will vote on the open 
seats for the Board, along with any other pressing business. An official 
announcement (including an agenda and voting items) for the upcoming AGM will 
be sent to members of the Foundation at least 28 days in advance of the 
meeting.In order to be eligible to vote, all existing members must be paid up. 
Any new members must have joined the Foundation 30 days or more prior to the 
AGM [1]. This means that if you would like to be eligible to vote in the 
upcoming election, you need to have joined [2] by November 5th. If your current 
membership has lapsed, you will have recently received an email notifying you 
of this. Remember to renew your membership if you would like to remain a member 
of the Foundation and be eligible to vote. If you are unsure of your membership 
status, send a note to members...@osmfoundation.org asking about it. Kind 
Regards, 
Kathleen Danielson 
Member, OpenStreetMap Foundation Board of Directors 
[1] See Article 75. Right to Vote at General Meeting 
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#VOTING_AT_GENERAL_MEETINGS
 
[2] https://join.osmfoundation.org/ 

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


   
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 9:49 GMT+02:00 Badita Florin :

> This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a
> boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the
> same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different
> things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ? since the
> highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap the real
> boundary, so if the highway  is changed for any reason, it will modify the
> boundary along with it.



This really depends on the definition of the boundary. If the highway IS
legally the boundary, the boundary might also change when the highway
changes (more likely for natural features maybe, like rivers, peaks or
coastlines). If instead the legal boundary is defined separately (e.g. by
coordinates or poles on the ground) and "just happens" to coincide with the
highway position then we should model 2 distinct features in OSM (and a
modification of the highway should not modify the boundary as well). You
cannot assume that the highway isn't the legal boundary unless you find the
actual legal definition for it and can verify the situation. Both
alternatives exist in the real world.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] était Subject=Re: SeFaireConnaitre :|, devient SeFaireConnaitre :)

2015-10-14 Thread Philippe Verdy

Et pas corrigé le format de "website=*" qui doit être une URL complète,
avec le protocole http:// ou https:// approprié ; certes, les navigateurs
masquent le protocole dans la barre d'adresse quand c'est http ou https
(pour le second il utilise une icône de sécurité cliquable pour afficher
l'état du certificat), mais normalement il le conserve quand on copie-colle
depuis la barre d'adresse et il le rend visible en édition.



Autres remarques sur les liens utilisables (pour la sécurité, le respect de
la vie privée, l'accessibilité générale, et les performances à
l'utilisation avec un minimum d'échanges réseau à l'utilisation dans un
navigateur) :

(1) Ne pas oublier non plus "www." dans les noms de domaine canoniques,
s'il est nécessaire pour éviter une redirection immédiate ou une
non-validation d'un certificat de sécurité pour HTTPS (ce n'est pas le cas
ici)

Cela peut paraître redondant pour l'utilisateur, mais pas pour les outils
automatisés de vérification qui risquent d'ignorer le lien totalement en
cas de non-validation. Dans un rendu cartographique avec des icones
cliquables donnant un panneau d'information, cela n'empêche pas du tout ces
panneaux de faire le même traitement que les navigateurs pour **afficher**
un lien simplifié mais malgré tout rendre la cible du lien avec l'URL
complète (comme le font aussi les moteurs de recherche, bien que ceux-ci
utilisent une cible de lien modifiée pour transiter par un redirecteur,
hébergé par le moteur de recherche lui-même et destiné au comptage des
liens suivis et au profilage).

(2) Sur OSM on doit aussi s'interdire d'utiliser des adresses transitant
par des redirecteurs de profilage (y compris les "URL raccourcies" / tiny
URL, hébergés sur des domaines ouverts redirigeant vers des tas de sites
dont des sites malveillants avec des niveaux de sécurité différents : le
nom de domaine final après redirection doit être identifiable directedment
depuis le lien indiqué, et nombre de ces redirecteurs ont une durée de vie
faible, ou peuvent au final ne plus rediriger vers le site voulu) :

Donc merci de vérifier tous les liens avant de les mettre et ne garder que
la cible finale (seule exception : le nom de la page d'accueil par défaut
du site tel que "index.html" ou "index.asp" ou home.html" peut être omis
tant que la page par défaut "/" pour HTTP(S) reste sur le même domaine). En
cas de présence de paramètres de requête (après un "?"), ôter les
paramètres opionnels non indispensables qui ont des valeurs codées
spécifiques au suivi d'une session ou d'un droit d'accès, ne garder que les
paramètres identifiant une page sur le site.

(3) Si le lien final obtenu est seulement temporaire et spécifique à une
session ou à un utilisateur connecté au site, ce lien n'est pas utilisable,
on ne le met pas du tout (exemple, les liens vers des articles de presse
lisibles uniquement par les abonnés : on ne peut mettre que le lien vers la
page publique de résumé ne nécessitant aucune identification préalable).
Même chose sir le lien n'est utilisable qu'après avoir d'abord visité une
autre page du même site.

(4) Ne pas mettre le lien non plus vers une page s'il y a une indication
technique "no robots" demandant de ne pas indexer une page dans un moteur
de recherche, chercher plutôt une page indexable (cela interdit notamment
de mentionner les liens vers des pages d'annuaires de sites, très souvent
publicitaires). Cette vérification peut être automatisée, de tels liens
pourraient être supprimés automatiquement d'OSM s'ils sont présents dans la
base.

(5) Et sur les sites HTTPS, vérifier la validité des certificats utilisés :
un navigateur moderne ne devrait afficher aucune alerte de sécurité
demandant à l'utilisateur de vérifier manuellement l'émetteur ou d'accepter
un founisseur PKI non reconnu comme stable et sûr, ou d'accepter une
certificat expiré ou limité à un autre sous-domaine que celui pour lequel
le certificat a été signé (exemple lien avec "www2." alors que le
certificat ne signe que le sous-domaine "www." et aucun autre
sous-domaine). Sinon demander à l'administrateur du site de corriger en
installant de nouveaux certificats sur le site pour inclure les
sous-domaines manquants ou renouveler la signature chez son prestataire
PKI, ou corriger le sous-domaine approprié dans le lien public.

Ce genre de choses devrait être documenté sur le wiki d'OSM en tant que
règles de bonne conduite pour les liens acceptables.

Le 14 octobre 2015 09:23, Support Sefaireconnaitre <
supp...@sefaireconnaitre.com> a écrit :

> Bonjour,
> Merci pour le signalement, j'ai bien repositionné le point de vente.
>
> Amandine Nicolas - Ubiflow
>
> Le 10 octobre 2015 20:52, Jérôme Seigneuret  a
> écrit :
>
>> Bonjour j'ai laissé un commentaire sur l'un des changeset.
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32186586#map=19/43.61747/3.81009
>>
>> Le 31 août 2015 15:30, Support Sefaireconnaitre <
>> supp...@sefaireconnaitre.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> Bonjour,
>>>
>>>

[OSM-talk-nl] Samenwerking OSM en Rijkswaterstaat: de follow-up

2015-10-14 Thread Frank Steggink

Hoi,

Zoals de meesten weten, was er op 19 september jl. een bijeenkomst bij
Rijkswaterstaat in Utrecht met als doel om kennis te maken met de OSM
community en om te kijken of wij (OSM en RWS) op een aantal vlakken
nader kunnen samenwerken. Dit omdat er, ondanks de verschillen, ook
gezamenlijke doelen zijn, nl. het beschikbaar stellen van open geodata.
Naast Rijkswaterstaat waren er ook mensen van andere
overheidsorganisaties aanwezig, zoals het Ministerie van Infrastructuur
en Milieu en het Kadaster. Van deze bijeenkomst is een artikel
beschikbaar:
https://bgtweb.pleio.nl/blog/view/34894162/de-bgt-en-openstreetmap-samenwerkingskansen-in-beeld

Uit deze bijeenkomst zijn een aantal ideeën voortgekomen om de mogelijke
samenwerking nader uit te werken. Bij ieder initiatief zijn twee
contactpersonen, namelijk één vanuit de overheid en één vanuit de
community. Natuurlijk is iedereen van harte uitgenodigd om hieraan bij
te dragen. Hier volgt een overzicht met korte toelichting van de
initiatieven, tezamen met de namen en contactgegevens van de
contactpersonen. Als je een bijdrage wilt leveren, kun je het beste
contact zoeken met de contactpersonen.

* OSM.NL voor dummies
Contact OSM: Gert-Jan van der Weijden (gee...@dds.nl)
Contact RWS: Ed Ooms (ed.o...@ndw.nu)
Hiervan heb ik geen beschrijving gekregen, maar ik denk dat de titel wel
voor zichzelf spreekt.

* Echte kansen / meerwaarde van OSM voor RWS uitwerken
Contact OSM: Henk Hoff (toffeh...@gmail.com)
Contact RWS: Nelette Verbruggen (nelette.verbrug...@rws.nl)
Doel: In deze groep willen we één echte kans voor Rijkswaterstaat qua
samenwerking met Open Street Map uitwerken: iets waarin duidelijk en
relatief snel meerwaarde te zien is van gebruik van de OSM-data voor
RWS. Het snel laten zien van een concreet resultaat zal namelijk het
enthousiasme bij RWS voor samenwerking verder aanwakkeren.
Daarbij denken we nu aan de relatie tussen OSM en het nationaal
wegenbestand (NWB), wat kan leiden tot efficiënter werken en een betere
kwaliteit van beide bronnen.
Status: Met het groepje 'echte kans/meerwaarde van OSM voor RWS
uitwerken' hebben we de afgelopen weken via de mail al contact gehad. We
proberen binnenkort bij elkaar te komen. Dat loopt dus!

* Ontsluiting Basisregistratie Grootschalige Topografie (BGT) binnen OSM
en v.v.

Contact OSM: Frank Steggink (fr...@steggink.it)
Contact RWS: Jaap-Willem Sjoukema (Min I)
(jaapwillem.sjouk...@minienm.nl)
Doel: Het doel van het BGT-initiatief is om te onderzoeken wat de
mogelijkheden zijn om de Basisregistratie Grootschalige Topografie (BGT)
binnen OSM te gebruiken en om te verkennen op welke manieren OSM
gebruikt kan worden voor verrijking van de BGT. Bij gebruik van de BGT
binnen OSM moet er verder worden gedacht dan het klakkeloos importeren
van de BGT. Er zijn waarschijnlijk betere manieren te vinden om
informatie uit de BGT te gebruiken. Er moet o.a. aandacht worden besteed
aan een mapping tussen de gebruikte codering van de BGT en het OSM
tagging-schema. Dit onderwerp leent zich bij uitstek voor het vormen van
subgroepen die de uitwisseling van een specifieke set features nader
onderzoeken.
Status: Jaap-Willem en ik hebben beslotem om de discussie hierover op
het OSM forum te bespreken:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=52338
Verder houdt Jaap-Willem Sjoukema zich bij het Ministerie van
Infrastructuur en Milieu bezig met de ontwikkeling van een
terugmeldsysteem voor de BGT, maar dat is niet specifiek op OSM gericht.

* Subonderdeel BGT: kunstwerken in OSM
Contact OSM kunstwerken: Nick Hoogerbrug (st.nikl...@live.nl)
Contact RWS kunstwerken: Rob van der Schoot (rob.vander.sch...@rws.nl)
Aangezien de BGT ook kunstwerken bevat, is besloten om dit als een
subonderdeel van de BGT op te pakken. Eventueel worden andere bronnen,
zoals het DTB van RWS, hiervoor gebruikt (eigen invulling).

* Nationale bewegwijzering en OSM
Contact OSM: Marc Zoutendijk (ma...@xs4all.nl)
Contact RWS: Eric van der Ster (eric.vander.s...@rws.nl)
Doel: in de nationale bewegwijzeringsapplicatie wordt noch OSM, noch RWS
data gebruikt. Lijkt efficiënter en goedkoper te kunnen. Doel: open data
als basis gebruiken in nationale bewegwijzeringsapplicatie. Waarom? Alle
wegbeheerders gebruiken de applicatie, kijk naar de kracht van een
eventuele terugmeldfunctie naar OSM en RWS!
Status: voorstel heb ik (Eric vd Ster) neergelegd bij de directeur van
de Nationale Bewegwijzeringsdienst

* Luchtfoto's vrij beschikbaar krijgen
Contact OSM: Gert-Jan van der Weijden (gee...@dds.nl)
Contact RWS: Ed Vaessen (ed.vaes...@rws.nl)
Doel: de landsdekkende luchtfoto’s worden jaarlijks door gezamenlijke
overheden (behalve de gemeenten) aangeschaft. Er is een variant met 10cm
resolutie die is opgenomen in het bladloze seizoen (voorjaar, tot 23
april) en een met 25cm resolutie, opgenomen van 15 april t/m 15 juli.
Alleen de laatste variant, gedownsampled naar 50cm, is als open

Re: [Talk-us] Growing OSM (was OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates)

2015-10-14 Thread Marc Gemis

After 11 editions of "Mapper of the Month" in Belgium and number 12 coming,
we see that almost all people started mapping because they are coming for
from Open Source/Data communities or because the other map solutions are
lacking for their needs.

They need a map for hiking, cycling, etc. and the commercial providers do
not give them that.
The map from the commercial providers is not updated fast enough.
There are features (POIs, amenities) that are not available on the maps of
commercial providers, examples: AEDs, bread vending machines,
historical/listed buildings.

Perhaps the maps of the commercial providers fulfil the needs of the US
users better in those areas ? If not, why not contacting the communities
for which those commercial map are not sufficient ? Isn't that more
efficient than PR-message to the "whole" world ?

Do we really understand why OSM is popular in e.g. Germany and the UK ? Are
those reasons applicable in the USA as well, or why not ?

regards

m

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 14/10/2015 16:21, Steve Coast wrote:
>
>> (snipped)
>>
>> What we’ve tried so far:
>>
>> * SOTM getting bigger every year
>> * We tried paid ambassadors at CloudMade, running mapping parties with
>> some success but the timeframe was very long to see people turn in to
>> editors.
>> * We've tried making the web editor nicer multiple times (potlatch,
>> mapzen, iD etc) and that doesn’t lead to meaningful growth in editors.
>> * Mapping parties appear to have some traction, but take a long time
>> * Getting schools involved appears to work briefly, then everyone goes
>> home or to the next class
>> * Competitions to map areas (google also tried this for mapmaker)
>>
>
> From a UK perspective, what _definitely_ increases the short-term signup
> rate is any sort of national press coverage.  Re social meetups, I don't
> know whether any of other the local groups can report differently, but in
> the East Midlands of England although we get a few OSM-curious people
> coming along I don't think we've seen any new "heavy mappers" coming into
> the project that way; people just stumble across the project somehow and
> sometimes stick around.
>
> The rough analysis I did ages ago (in Italy I think) didn't suggest that
> local "welcome messages" had an effect on retention (over the couple of
> months that I looked at the data).  It didn't look at mapping quality
> though; maybe there was an effect there.
>
> I suspect that "trying to be nice to newbies" has an effect (though I've
> no idea how you'd measure that independently of other variables) and I also
> suspect that "making the web editor nicer" has an effect too, but that
> can't really be measured independently either.
>
> So I'd suggest just "get lots of press where the OpenStreetMap name is
> used" and "be really helpful to the new mappers who show up, no matter how
> many unwritten rules they break with their first edits"*.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> * It's worth mentioning that most "comments to new mappers" _are_ really
> polite and helpful (see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions ).
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

2015-10-14 Thread Simon Poole


No, I'm not going to tell you who to vote for in the elections :-).

However I believe there is some substantial misunderstanding of the
numbers involved.

Martijn noted in his manifesto that the daily editors numbers was flat
for the US and Michael used that as one of the corner points in his
diary post. However the daily editor number is the slowest growing
metric for OSM in general increasing from roughly 2000/day to 3000/day
since 2012, compared to that the growth in the US since 2012 is from
roughly 100 to 250 and there is no indication that it is stagnating at
all. In comparison the same metric has been flat in D-A-CH over the same
period. IMHO I don't see any indications that this is a real issue, it
is likely more a result of partial exhaustion of some of the well mapped
areas.

Now Martijn is correct in focusing on contributor growth in that the US
community is relatively speaking substantially smaller that say D-A-CH
and is still falling behind (new mappers last 7 days  D-A-CH 266, US
229, population D-A-CH roughly 1/3 of the US). Note: community still
growing substantially in D-A-CH despite the stagnating daily editor metric.

But the thing to take away from the above is that the US is nowhere near
saturation and there's plenty of room for improvement and if anything,
the numbers indicate that you are slowly digging yourself out of the
TIGER hole.

Now as how to facilitate growth, I don't have a recipe. Matter of fact I
tend to be a bit fatalistic about it, in that I don't believe the
underlying trend can be directly influenced at all, it is trivial to
create blips but over time they vanish in the noise.

I would however side with Andy in that what does seem to have some
lasting effect is constant news coverage. Vastly overrated in that
respect are mapping parties which are great as a fun focal point for the
community, but are hopeless at any measurable increase in new mappers.

Simon

PS: I do admit that I had to chuckle at the realisation in some of the
manifestos that SOTM-US size was/is a self-inflicted rat race.







signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras

2015-10-14 Thread Petr Vejsada

Dne St 14. října 2015 09:49:34, Petr Vozdecký napsal(a):

> same skvele zpravy

... a nové dobré zprávy

> za me urcite zmensit ty ikony rozcestniku tak na 40 pct jejich velikosti

hotovo

> k nazvum rozcestniku bych navrhnul pridat zobrazeni jejich #ref (asi by to
> pro dalsi strojove zpracovani mel byt udaj, ktery je vhodne do databaze
> dodat resp. zkompletovat, tak at je hned videt kde je/chybi)

hotovo

> rozhodne bych se primlouval za zobrazeni VSECH (ano, vim, je to dost siroky
> pojem) znacenych cest, ne jen KCT. Kdyz uz se toto dela a lide jsou do

Ta KČT vrstva (čáry) se kreslí ze speciální tabulky, která se poskládá z 
relací a čar. Zjednodušeně, je tam pak všechno, co je not NULL v kct_{red|
green|yellow|blue}

Vrstvy do taskmanu obecně přidávat nelze, ale už jsem se to naučil, třeba 
ortofoto :)
Nové vrstvy klidně udělám, je třeba si je ovšem rozmyslet.

> - lokalni (napr. bezecke) trasy http://waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=15=
> 49.20814=16.54646=0#routes

s tímhle může být problém. Geometrie beru ze schematu mapniku a do tabulek 
mapniku se nedostane nic, co nemá fyzický podklad. Takže běžecká trasa, která 
v zimě vede přes pole, ale když není snih, tak tam není nic mapovatelného, se 
mi do těch tabulek nedostane. Musel by se patchovat osm2pgsql, moc práce ;)

> - naucne stezky http://waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=15=49.24135=
> 16.50088=0#routes (kct_green:learning, kct_none:learning...)

kct_none (zatím) nevedu. Momentálně existuje jen 13 relací s kct_none. S 
kct_none prostě nepracuji a trochu mi to dělá zmatek. Třeba kct_green=major a 
kct_none=learning vykresluji jako obyčejnou zelenou. Kdyby bylo 
kct_green=learning, tak jí vykreslím jako learning. Nekázeň v tom tagování B-)

> - konske stezky (zvlaste kraj Vysocina do znaceni investoval, dokonce myslim
> prostrednictvim KCT! a v mape jsou jen stripky techto tras: http://riding.
> waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=12=49.26712=15.56149=0=
> 0.745#routes )

Koňské stezky vykresluji, ovšem záleží na prioritách.

10;local
20;learning
30;ski
40;horse
50;interesting_object
60;ruin
70;spring
80;peak
90;wheelchair

pokud je kombinace, tak beru jen to s nejvyšší prioritou a ostatní ignoruji. 
Ovšem že by šlo střídat symboly, no, já ty .xml dám klidně na web a někdo je 
může poeditovat ;-)

> Doatz - ty identifikovane geometricky poskozene trasy by se nedaly nejak
> zvyraznit v mape?

ano, je třeba vymyslet barvy, aby se vědělo, co k čemu patří. Asi by šlo 
vymyslet třeba 10 barev a ty by se pak střídaly, rozbitá_A bude zelená, 
rozbitá_B růžová atd. a rozbitá_K zase zelená.?

> Treba v samostatne prepinatelne vrstve? Umoznuje toto
> reseni nejake prepinatelne vrstvy?

už ano :)

--
Petr


___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [Talk-us] Growing OSM (was OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates)

2015-10-14 Thread Harald Kliems

One example I encountered yesterday: A bike friend posted a link to
http://gravelmap.com/ on Facebook. It's a website where people collect the
unpaved roads that have become increasingly popular in the US cycling
community. The GravelMap slippy map is Google Maps, and I'm assuming their
data is also stored using some sort of Google infrastructure. This seems
like a prime candidate for collaborating with an existing community. Of
course the first response when I mentioned OSM was: "OSM surface data is
totally incomplete. Google MapMaker already has the surface data, so we're
better off using that."

 Harald (who started mapping when he still lived in Germany, where free (as
in beer and speech) maps were much harder to come by than in the US)

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:18 PM Marc Gemis  wrote:

> After 11 editions of "Mapper of the Month" in Belgium and number 12
> coming, we see that almost all people started mapping because they are
> coming for from Open Source/Data communities or because the other map
> solutions are lacking for their needs.
>
> They need a map for hiking, cycling, etc. and the commercial providers do
> not give them that.
> The map from the commercial providers is not updated fast enough.
> There are features (POIs, amenities) that are not available on the maps of
> commercial providers, examples: AEDs, bread vending machines,
> historical/listed buildings.
>
> Perhaps the maps of the commercial providers fulfil the needs of the US
> users better in those areas ? If not, why not contacting the communities
> for which those commercial map are not sufficient ? Isn't that more
> efficient than PR-message to the "whole" world ?
>
> Do we really understand why OSM is popular in e.g. Germany and the UK ?
> Are those reasons applicable in the USA as well, or why not ?
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
>> On 14/10/2015 16:21, Steve Coast wrote:
>>
>>> (snipped)
>>>
>>> What we’ve tried so far:
>>>
>>> * SOTM getting bigger every year
>>> * We tried paid ambassadors at CloudMade, running mapping parties with
>>> some success but the timeframe was very long to see people turn in to
>>> editors.
>>> * We've tried making the web editor nicer multiple times (potlatch,
>>> mapzen, iD etc) and that doesn’t lead to meaningful growth in editors.
>>> * Mapping parties appear to have some traction, but take a long time
>>> * Getting schools involved appears to work briefly, then everyone goes
>>> home or to the next class
>>> * Competitions to map areas (google also tried this for mapmaker)
>>>
>>
>> From a UK perspective, what _definitely_ increases the short-term signup
>> rate is any sort of national press coverage.  Re social meetups, I don't
>> know whether any of other the local groups can report differently, but in
>> the East Midlands of England although we get a few OSM-curious people
>> coming along I don't think we've seen any new "heavy mappers" coming into
>> the project that way; people just stumble across the project somehow and
>> sometimes stick around.
>>
>> The rough analysis I did ages ago (in Italy I think) didn't suggest that
>> local "welcome messages" had an effect on retention (over the couple of
>> months that I looked at the data).  It didn't look at mapping quality
>> though; maybe there was an effect there.
>>
>> I suspect that "trying to be nice to newbies" has an effect (though I've
>> no idea how you'd measure that independently of other variables) and I also
>> suspect that "making the web editor nicer" has an effect too, but that
>> can't really be measured independently either.
>>
>> So I'd suggest just "get lots of press where the OpenStreetMap name is
>> used" and "be really helpful to the new mappers who show up, no matter how
>> many unwritten rules they break with their first edits"*.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> * It's worth mentioning that most "comments to new mappers" _are_ really
>> polite and helpful (see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions ).
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

2015-10-14 Thread Mike Dupont

Hi there, I would organize a local mapathon for a specific project
that people are interested. Lets map X that you care about.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> Martijn's recent diary post "How can we double the number of active mappers
> in the US in a year?" has an interesting proposition, rather than one big
> annual Meetup, we hold smaller regional meetups. The problem is that the big
> meetup doesn't produce more mappers. I've attended three SOTM-US
> conferences. Common to the three I've attended is the small number of active
> mappers. I wonder what percentage of attendees are active mappers? My sense
> is that it is small. I don't doubt that a great number of attendees have
> made an edit or two. But most are either users of the data or supporters of
> OSM, not contributors. Certainly most don't go back home figure out how to
> build a OSM community.
>
> Before we can tackle mapper growth, let's collect data to help quantify the
> problem. Let's survey mappers to find out what got them here and why they
> stay. Further, let's attempt to contact mappers that have be absent to find
> out why. We should also reach out to Meetup organizers to find what works,
> what doesn't and what additional tools they need. For example, we have an
> active Meetup group in Seattle. But we need more help contacting new
> mappers. Currently the only why is to manually look for new mappers. We need
> better tools. When we conduct mapping parties, it would be nice to have
> handouts to give businesses.
>
> Some other crazy suggestions:
> Partner with incident response teams and create a tool to people to map
> their neighborhood. [2]
> Fund people to travel and give talks at events
> Reduce the cost of admission to SOTM-US. Substantially increase the number
> of scholarships and lower the bar to getting a scholarship.
>
> Martijn has given us an excellent goal. I hope the Board decides to adopt
> this is one of its priorities.
>
> We have a chance to influence future of the US Chapter by voting for
> candidates that will focus on increasing the number of active mappers in the
> US. Remember, we are voting for a position of leadership, not who is the
> best mapper. Please ignore the silly suggestions coming from across the pond
> and vote for the best people to Lead OSM in the US.
>
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/36087
> [2]
> http://mil.wa.gov/emergency-management-division/preparedness/map-your-neighborhood
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Kansas Linux Fest http://kansaslinuxfest.us
Free/Libre Open Source and Open Knowledge Association of Kansas
http://openkansas.us
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org
Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] était Subject=Re: SeFaireConnaitre :|, devient SeFaireConnaitre :)

2015-10-14 Thread osm . sanspourriel

Bien, merci d'améliorer votre processus de production/validation de 
données afin d'éviter de placer un lieu à 1,3 km de son lieu réel 
(distance en voiture selon OSRM).
Ici par exemple comme déjà dit un lien sur un emplacement d'arrêt de 
tram doit faire tiquer.

Ce n'est bon ni pour votre client, ni pour vous ni pour OpenStreetMap.
Les deux premiers points c'est votre problème.
Le troisième aussi mais c'est surtout celui qui nous concerne.

Pour votre pénitence, vous leur proposerez une alternative à ceci :
http://juvignac.apef-services.fr/contact.html#map
;-).

Jean-Yvon

Le 14/10/2015 09:23, Support Sefaireconnaitre - 
supp...@sefaireconnaitre.com a écrit :

Bonjour,
Merci pour le signalement, j'ai bien repositionné le point de vente.

Amandine Nicolas - Ubiflow



___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

2015-10-14 Thread Martijn van Exel

Great points in this thread. I feel more inspired than ever to work on 
improving the US map, whether I will be on the board or not. We have a great 
group of mappers in the US, it’s just way too small. 

I want to pick up on the word ‘community’ which is used differently by 
different people to suit their needs. When I talk about community I mean you - 
the folks who actually map, build the tools to enable others to map, and 
organize the events that mappers come to. Not companies and institutions that 
use OSM or are interested in doing so. 
I would be curious to hear the other candidates define community.

Suggesting that board members need to be heavy mappers is really beyond the 
pale and I thought we had dispensed with this notion years ago. It is sad to 
see it rear its head again. I have worked with a great group of people this 
last year and couldn’t have cared less if they had made 10 edits or 1.

Lastly. Everyone, please do vote. It’s important we hear from you now. We can 
only function if we have a strong mandate from you, the mappers.

Martijn

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 1:46 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> 
> 
> No, I'm not going to tell you who to vote for in the elections :-).
> 
> However I believe there is some substantial misunderstanding of the
> numbers involved.
> 
> Martijn noted in his manifesto that the daily editors numbers was flat
> for the US and Michael used that as one of the corner points in his
> diary post. However the daily editor number is the slowest growing
> metric for OSM in general increasing from roughly 2000/day to 3000/day
> since 2012, compared to that the growth in the US since 2012 is from
> roughly 100 to 250 and there is no indication that it is stagnating at
> all. In comparison the same metric has been flat in D-A-CH over the same
> period. IMHO I don't see any indications that this is a real issue, it
> is likely more a result of partial exhaustion of some of the well mapped
> areas.
> 
> Now Martijn is correct in focusing on contributor growth in that the US
> community is relatively speaking substantially smaller that say D-A-CH
> and is still falling behind (new mappers last 7 days  D-A-CH 266, US
> 229, population D-A-CH roughly 1/3 of the US). Note: community still
> growing substantially in D-A-CH despite the stagnating daily editor metric.
> 
> But the thing to take away from the above is that the US is nowhere near
> saturation and there's plenty of room for improvement and if anything,
> the numbers indicate that you are slowly digging yourself out of the
> TIGER hole.
> 
> Now as how to facilitate growth, I don't have a recipe. Matter of fact I
> tend to be a bit fatalistic about it, in that I don't believe the
> underlying trend can be directly influenced at all, it is trivial to
> create blips but over time they vanish in the noise.
> 
> I would however side with Andy in that what does seem to have some
> lasting effect is constant news coverage. Vastly overrated in that
> respect are mapping parties which are great as a fun focal point for the
> community, but are hopeless at any measurable increase in new mappers.
> 
> Simon
> 
> PS: I do admit that I had to chuckle at the realisation in some of the
> manifestos that SOTM-US size was/is a self-inflicted rat race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras

2015-10-14 Thread Petr Vejsada

Já se pokoušel upravit titulní stránku podle tohoto README v custom.mako, ale 
takřka jakákoli změna vedla k Error500 :-(, ale možná by to šlo přes tu 
lokalizaci.

Dne Čt 15. října 2015 00:21:32, Michal Pustějovský napsal(a):

> Co zkusit přidat k tasking manageru českou lokalizaci, ať je to se vší
> parádou?
> 
> Něco jsem našel na githubu
> (https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager2/blob/master/README.md), ale
> nejsem z toho moc moudrý...



___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Minh Nguyen

Mike Thompson  gmail.com> writes:

> 
> Sometimes, such as in the case of the boundary between the US states of
Ohio and Kentucky, it is the low water mark on one bank[1] (in this case the
court held that it was the low water mark of the north bank of the Ohio
River in 1792, not the present low water mark of the north bank, and
therefore the boundary and the river should not share geometry in this case).

I've been guilty of mistakenly joining state boundaries to the Ohio River's
thalweg in the past, and by now I've had to correct those boundaries on
several occasions. It's unfortunate that few mappers are aware of these
complexities. The full situation is spelled out in a wiki page:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio_River

If any other natural features tend to attract misinformed edits, I suggest
writing up a similar page so you can easily point mappers to it in changeset
comments etc.

Ironically, I was recently involved in a minor car collision onboard a ferry
crossing this river. The police officer who responded had to call around to
verify that he had jurisdiction. Perhaps if his department had distributed
OSM-based maps, we could've been on our way a bit sooner. ;-)

-- 
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us

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

[Talk-it] possibile caso di mancata attribuzione

2015-10-14 Thread Alessandro Barbieri

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Oggi sono stato in autogrill e nel connettermi alla loro rete mi è
stato proposto di installare l'app "myway" di autostrade per l'Italia.
L'ho installata, i dati che utilizza mi sembrano di osm, ma in basso a
sinistra compare solo la scritta google e nessuna traccia
dell'attribuzione a osm.
- -- 


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWHs7gAAoJEA/Z4QLlYWVuyeQH/iN/MwZdgFTxgRf3cKDkwtr6
/Bg/f+6uhFBG1X0gIVAApvOmJArLrxLzj8QqXS/4Xd3khwNKUNs2Llk1O/+AQxGB
bYXTnmCwWyBHjBAtljfXXwMUw6qHcBA5zECfaLaFb3eZNiv3M1SU7FxNr18a68Ui
xhkrcYUX+7ED3bYp4GNcEdq6CMwmB9SkAyrHZ2En00SiEokFOcjIqO/lXsrNErgS
5pG22Y1qe8Wsj89OFC1tx8JyVrkdYRzqmJcId4zsMPQBEgRO3wuCyJM3oJ5730oh
fnZuUnIuH6DX2Se61nOqr8QsuBYTW889zqL71FNuU95VFVSR+0FNwEGeZLviY90=
=NS4E
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


0xE561656E.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


0xE561656E.asc.sig
Description: PGP signature
<>___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras

2015-10-14 Thread Michal Pustějovský

Co zkusit přidat k tasking manageru českou lokalizaci, ať je to se vší 
parádou? 

Něco jsem našel na githubu
(https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager2/blob/master/README.md), ale 
nejsem z toho moc moudrý...

Michal


-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Petr Vejsada 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 14. 10. 2015 22:17:23
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras

"Dne St 14. října 2015 09:49:34, Petr Vozdecký napsal(a):

> same skvele zpravy

... a nové dobré zprávy

> za me urcite zmensit ty ikony rozcestniku tak na 40 pct jejich velikosti

hotovo

> k nazvum rozcestniku bych navrhnul pridat zobrazeni jejich #ref (asi by to
> pro dalsi strojove zpracovani mel byt udaj, ktery je vhodne do databaze
> dodat resp. zkompletovat, tak at je hned videt kde je/chybi)

hotovo

> rozhodne bych se primlouval za zobrazeni VSECH (ano, vim, je to dost 
siroky
> pojem) znacenych cest, ne jen KCT. Kdyz uz se toto dela a lide jsou do

Ta KČT vrstva (čáry) se kreslí ze speciální tabulky, která se poskládá z 
relací a čar. Zjednodušeně, je tam pak všechno, co je not NULL v kct_{red|
green|yellow|blue}

Vrstvy do taskmanu obecně přidávat nelze, ale už jsem se to naučil, třeba 
ortofoto :)
Nové vrstvy klidně udělám, je třeba si je ovšem rozmyslet.

> - lokalni (napr. bezecke) trasy http://waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=15
=
> 49.20814=16.54646=0#routes

s tímhle může být problém. Geometrie beru ze schematu mapniku a do tabulek 
mapniku se nedostane nic, co nemá fyzický podklad. Takže běžecká trasa, 
která 
v zimě vede přes pole, ale když není snih, tak tam není nic mapovatelného, 
se 
mi do těch tabulek nedostane. Musel by se patchovat osm2pgsql, moc práce ;)

> - naucne stezky http://waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=15=49.24135=
> 16.50088=0#routes (kct_green:learning, kct_none:learning...)

kct_none (zatím) nevedu. Momentálně existuje jen 13 relací s kct_none. S 
kct_none prostě nepracuji a trochu mi to dělá zmatek. Třeba kct_green=major 
a 
kct_none=learning vykresluji jako obyčejnou zelenou. Kdyby bylo 
kct_green=learning, tak jí vykreslím jako learning. Nekázeň v tom tagování B
-)

> - konske stezky (zvlaste kraj Vysocina do znaceni investoval, dokonce 
myslim
> prostrednictvim KCT! a v mape jsou jen stripky techto tras: http://riding.
> waymarkedtrails.org/cs/?zoom=12=49.26712=15.56149=0=
> 0.745#routes )

Koňské stezky vykresluji, ovšem záleží na prioritách.

10;local
20;learning
30;ski
40;horse
50;interesting_object
60;ruin
70;spring
80;peak
90;wheelchair

pokud je kombinace, tak beru jen to s nejvyšší prioritou a ostatní ignoruji.

Ovšem že by šlo střídat symboly, no, já ty .xml dám klidně na web a někdo je

může poeditovat ;-)

> Doatz - ty identifikovane geometricky poskozene trasy by se nedaly nejak
> zvyraznit v mape?

ano, je třeba vymyslet barvy, aby se vědělo, co k čemu patří. Asi by šlo 
vymyslet třeba 10 barev a ty by se pak střídaly, rozbitá_A bude zelená, 
rozbitá_B růžová atd. a rozbitá_K zase zelená.?

> Treba v samostatne prepinatelne vrstve? Umoznuje toto
> reseni nejake prepinatelne vrstvy?

už ano :)

--
Petr


___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz;___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-ja] 公園と児童遊園

2015-10-14 Thread tomoya muramoto

muramotoです。
私は、児童公園も含めてleisure=parkでタグ付けし、公園内の遊具が置かれているエリアまたは遊具そのものにleisure=playgroundを付けるのが良いのではないかと考えています。

以下その理由です。

欧米ではparkとplaygroundが明確に区別されているらしいのですが、日本ではその区別は曖昧だと思います。
例えば横浜の公園で言えば、私がタグ付けするとしたらこんな感じで悩みます。
・山下公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35866698)
海沿いの広い公園で散歩に適している。遊具はない。→これはpark
・双葉公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162109)
非常に小さな公園で、遊具はない。→散歩はできないけど、parkなのか？
・蒔田公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150481376)
そこそこ大きな公園で、一角に大きな遊具がある→park?playground?
・中村公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316160549)
そんなに大きい公園ではないがプールがある。遊具も少し。→park?playground?
・中居公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316164376)
住宅地によくある感じの公園で、小さな広場と遊具がある→playgroundかな
・中村冒険パーク(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162101)
アトラクション的な公園。→これはplayground

「主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている」を基準にするのは、なかなか判断が難しいので、なんらかの指針が欲しいなと思います。
公園をparkで、遊具をplaygroundでタグ付けすれば、判断基準がクリアになるのではないかと思います。

2015年10月14日 19:16 tomoya muramoto :

> muramotoです。
>
> 私は、児童公園も含めてleisure=parkでタグ付けし、公園内の遊具が置かれているエリアまたは遊具そのものにleisure=playgroundを付けるのが良いのではないかと考えています。
>
> 以下その理由です。
>
> 欧米ではparkとplaygroundが明確に区別されているらしいのですが、日本ではその区別は曖昧だと思います。
> 例えば横浜の公園で言えば、私がタグ付けするとしたらこんな感じで悩みます。
> ・山下公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35866698)
> 海沿いの広い公園で散歩に適している。遊具はない。→これはpark
> ・双葉公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162109)
> 非常に小さな公園で、遊具はない。→散歩はできないけど、parkなのか？
> ・蒔田公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150481376)
> そこそこ大きな公園で、一角に大きな遊具がある→park?playground?
> ・中村公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316160549)
> そんなに大きい公園ではないがプールがある。遊具も少し。→park?playground?
> ・中居公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316164376)
> 住宅地によくある感じの公園で、小さな広場と遊具がある→playgroundかな
> ・中村冒険パーク(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162101)
> アトラクション的な公園。→これはplayground
>
> 「主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている」を基準にするのは、なかなか判断が難しいので、なんらかの指針が欲しいなと思います。
> 公園をparkで、遊具をplaygroundでタグ付けすれば、判断基準がクリアになるのではないかと思います。
>
>
> 2015年10月14日 9:27 Satoshi IIDA :
>
>
>> いいだです。
>>
>> leisure=parkでよいのじゃないかと思います。
>> その場所のコンセプトによっては、leisure=gardenのほうがしっくりくる場合もあるかと思いますが。
>>
>> 観点は2つあるかと思います。
>>
>> ■法律による指定にもとづき、国庫からの助成があるか？あるいは公的機関が管理を行っているか？
>> 管理主体を考えた場合、parkでもplaygroundでも、
>> operatorタグを加えることで対応できると思います。
>> （ごく小規模のポケットパークの場合、operatorが公的機関以外のparkになる）
>>
>> ■ポケットパークといいながら、大規模なものもあるようだ
>> 変に新しいタグを作る必要もなさそうに思えます。
>>
>>
>> いろいろある公園施設のうち、
>> 主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている小規模な公園、を
>> leisure=playground としてタグ付けするのはどうか、というあたりは異論ありますか？
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015年10月14日 7:14 ribbon :
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:58:01AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
>>>
>>> > ■公園と、児童公園（児童遊園）のタグ付けについて
>>> > 公園 (leisure=park) と、児童公園 (leisure=playground)のタグ付けが、
>>> > wikiの説明と実際のOSMでの適用状況に大きくズレがあるのではないか？という指摘がありました。
>>> >
>>> > 具体的には、小規模な児童公園は leisure=playgroundとしてタグ付けするよう定義されていますが、
>>> > これを leisure=parkとタグづけしていることが多いのではないか？ということです。
>>> >
>>> > 基本的に、以下のような分類になっているかと思います。
>>> >
>>> > ・公園 (park) : 大規模〜中規模な公園 (例: 代々木公園,
>>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20028330)
>>> > ・児童公園 (playground) : 街中に存在する、子供用の遊具が主に設置された公園
>>> >
>>> > 大規模な公園の一部に遊具が設置されている場合があると思いますが、その場合は parkでタグづけしてしまってよいのかな、と思っています。
>>>
>>> 逆に、小さな公園でも、遊具施設が無い場合は、leisure=park でいいんでしょうか?
>>>
>>>
>>> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9D%E3%82%B1%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%83%91%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AF
>>> (ポケットパーク)
>>>
>>> というのもあります。
>>>
>>> ribbon
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ja mailing list
>>> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Satoshi IIDA
>> mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
>> twitter: @nyampire
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ja mailing list
>> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-ja] 公園と児童遊園

2015-10-14 Thread tomoya muramoto

二重送信してしまいました。申し訳ありません。
muramoto

2015年10月14日 19:16 tomoya muramoto :

> muramotoです。
>
> 私は、児童公園も含めてleisure=parkでタグ付けし、公園内の遊具が置かれているエリアまたは遊具そのものにleisure=playgroundを付けるのが良いのではないかと考えています。
>
> 以下その理由です。
>
> 欧米ではparkとplaygroundが明確に区別されているらしいのですが、日本ではその区別は曖昧だと思います。
> 例えば横浜の公園で言えば、私がタグ付けするとしたらこんな感じで悩みます。
> ・山下公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35866698)
> 海沿いの広い公園で散歩に適している。遊具はない。→これはpark
> ・双葉公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162109)
> 非常に小さな公園で、遊具はない。→散歩はできないけど、parkなのか？
> ・蒔田公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150481376)
> そこそこ大きな公園で、一角に大きな遊具がある→park?playground?
> ・中村公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316160549)
> そんなに大きい公園ではないがプールがある。遊具も少し。→park?playground?
> ・中居公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316164376)
> 住宅地によくある感じの公園で、小さな広場と遊具がある→playgroundかな
> ・中村冒険パーク(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162101)
> アトラクション的な公園。→これはplayground
>
> 「主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている」を基準にするのは、なかなか判断が難しいので、なんらかの指針が欲しいなと思います。
> 公園をparkで、遊具をplaygroundでタグ付けすれば、判断基準がクリアになるのではないかと思います。
>
> 2015年10月14日 19:16 tomoya muramoto :
>
> muramotoです。
>>
>> 私は、児童公園も含めてleisure=parkでタグ付けし、公園内の遊具が置かれているエリアまたは遊具そのものにleisure=playgroundを付けるのが良いのではないかと考えています。
>>
>> 以下その理由です。
>>
>> 欧米ではparkとplaygroundが明確に区別されているらしいのですが、日本ではその区別は曖昧だと思います。
>> 例えば横浜の公園で言えば、私がタグ付けするとしたらこんな感じで悩みます。
>> ・山下公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35866698)
>> 海沿いの広い公園で散歩に適している。遊具はない。→これはpark
>> ・双葉公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162109)
>> 非常に小さな公園で、遊具はない。→散歩はできないけど、parkなのか？
>> ・蒔田公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150481376)
>> そこそこ大きな公園で、一角に大きな遊具がある→park?playground?
>> ・中村公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316160549)
>> そんなに大きい公園ではないがプールがある。遊具も少し。→park?playground?
>> ・中居公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316164376)
>> 住宅地によくある感じの公園で、小さな広場と遊具がある→playgroundかな
>> ・中村冒険パーク(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162101)
>> アトラクション的な公園。→これはplayground
>>
>> 「主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている」を基準にするのは、なかなか判断が難しいので、なんらかの指針が欲しいなと思います。
>> 公園をparkで、遊具をplaygroundでタグ付けすれば、判断基準がクリアになるのではないかと思います。
>>
>>
>> 2015年10月14日 9:27 Satoshi IIDA :
>>
>>
>>> いいだです。
>>>
>>> leisure=parkでよいのじゃないかと思います。
>>> その場所のコンセプトによっては、leisure=gardenのほうがしっくりくる場合もあるかと思いますが。
>>>
>>> 観点は2つあるかと思います。
>>>
>>> ■法律による指定にもとづき、国庫からの助成があるか？あるいは公的機関が管理を行っているか？
>>> 管理主体を考えた場合、parkでもplaygroundでも、
>>> operatorタグを加えることで対応できると思います。
>>> （ごく小規模のポケットパークの場合、operatorが公的機関以外のparkになる）
>>>
>>> ■ポケットパークといいながら、大規模なものもあるようだ
>>> 変に新しいタグを作る必要もなさそうに思えます。
>>>
>>>
>>> いろいろある公園施設のうち、
>>> 主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている小規模な公園、を
>>> leisure=playground としてタグ付けするのはどうか、というあたりは異論ありますか？
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015年10月14日 7:14 ribbon :
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:58:01AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:

 > ■公園と、児童公園（児童遊園）のタグ付けについて
 > 公園 (leisure=park) と、児童公園 (leisure=playground)のタグ付けが、
 > wikiの説明と実際のOSMでの適用状況に大きくズレがあるのではないか？という指摘がありました。
 >
 > 具体的には、小規模な児童公園は leisure=playgroundとしてタグ付けするよう定義されていますが、
 > これを leisure=parkとタグづけしていることが多いのではないか？ということです。
 >
 > 基本的に、以下のような分類になっているかと思います。
 >
 > ・公園 (park) : 大規模〜中規模な公園 (例: 代々木公園,
 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20028330)
 > ・児童公園 (playground) : 街中に存在する、子供用の遊具が主に設置された公園
 >
 > 大規模な公園の一部に遊具が設置されている場合があると思いますが、その場合は parkでタグづけしてしまってよいのかな、と思っています。

 逆に、小さな公園でも、遊具施設が無い場合は、leisure=park でいいんでしょうか?


 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9D%E3%82%B1%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%83%91%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AF
 (ポケットパーク)

 というのもあります。

 ribbon

 ___
 Talk-ja mailing list
 Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Satoshi IIDA
>>> mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
>>> twitter: @nyampire
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ja mailing list
>>> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapování tras KČT na taskmanu

2015-10-14 Thread Marián Kyral



-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Miroslav Suchy 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 14. 10. 2015 10:53:57
Předmět: [Talk-cz] Mapování tras KČT na taskmanu

"Na:
http://taskman.poloha.net/
jsem založil nový projekt "Mapování turistických tras KČT"
http://taskman.poloha.net/project/2

Ten projekt-1 bych ponechal na testování, ať si každý může vyzkoušet to 
WebUI.

Když kliknete na Instructions, tak jsou tam - doufám - vyčerpávající 
informace.
"



Pěkné, moc pěkné. Koukám, že stránka http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:
information%3Dguidepost by potřebovala přeložit ;-)



"
Časem založím další projekty na mapování cyklostezek a další na mapování 
lyžařských cest.
Pokud mě někdo předběhne budu jenom rád.

Pokud máte připomínky k instrukcím, tak jsem jedno velké ucho a rád to ještě
upravím.

Takže hurá na mapování :)
"



Hned bych začal, ale poslední dobou mám čím dál tím méně času :-( Snad se to
v listopadu zlepší.




Marián



"
Mirek

___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz;___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSRM-talk] State of the Art - Dynamic Routing

2015-10-14 Thread Patrick Niklaus

> certain edges in the contracted graph should have to be ignored


If that set of 'dynamic edges' is known in advance you could use a
technique that does not contract nodes adjacent to that edges. This
would mean for those edges you could update the weights without
re-contraction. On the pre-processing side adding support for this is
quite trivial, essentially it is a variation of partial contraction.
However adding an interface for
updating the graph would be new. The main problem there is that you
either add some sort of "override set" to the query graph, or have a
copy for each graph for each thread.
The first implementation will incur high penalties on query time (you
would need an additional check every time you read the edge weight),
the second approach would have a high memory usage.

Currently we don't plan to implement this. But if anyone likes to give
it a try, I will of course help were I can.

Best,
Patrick

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Matthias Loeks  wrote:
> HI Patrick,
>
> many thanks for your extensive answer and your interesting insights into the
> possibilities of achieving dynamic routing with CH.
>
> While partial graph contraction may be an option for adding traffic data
> e.g. every 15 minutes, I'm afraid that it is still not an option if each
> individual request has to deal with e.g. different  avoid areas.
> Each request would then need a differently contracted/pre-processed graph...
> (impossible to pre-process on the fly)
>
> Do you think there is any possibility to add some sort of "dynamic layer" on
> top of the contracted graph? Based on the information in this layer, certain
> edges in the contracted graph should have to be ignored by the routing
> algorithm.
> Is such a thing possible and are there any plans to incorporate this (or
> similar concepts) into OSRM? Or is this just contrary to the CH approach and
> only solveable with a usual (slow) Dijkstra?
>
> Thanks a lot for your help!
>
> Cheers,
> Matthias
>
>
> On 09.10.2015 15:37, Patrick Niklaus wrote:
>
> If you want to ingest dynamic data like traffic information into the
> routing, the main objective is to reduce pre-processing times so that
> the data will not be stale before you can actually serve requests from
> it.
>
> There are several ways you can achieve this:
> 1. Don't do any pre-processing.
>  In that case you just use a normal Dijkstra based search.
> 2. Do pre-processing but don't update it on traffic updates.
> For example if you use something ALT-based you can calculate the
> heuristic using the average value and still yield good performance.
> 3. Re-run pre-processing and make it fast enough for your given update
> cycle.
> The primary knobs you can turn there are:
> - reduce the size of your dataset
> - reduce the quality of the pre-processing
>
> We have been working on supporting 3 in OSRM with CH. We added a
> parameter to now contract the graph completely but only partially.
> This as dire consequences for query times however, depending on which
> quality factor you pick. If you contract the graph only 95% you will
> half your pre-processing time and increase the runtime 100x depending
> on your dataset size. Features like alternative searches, distance
> tables and similar will not work with this approach since it is much
> too slow.
>
> You can try partial contraction with `4.8.1` by using the `-k`
> parameter like `-k 0.95` will contract the graph only to 95%.
>
> Supporting real time traffic updates while still supporting
> continental sized networks is not exactly trivial, even more so if you
> support advanced features like turn restrictions. Consider the fact
> that just reading/writing such a graph from/to disk might take longer
> than your usual update cycle.
>
> We are working on making it easier to support this for smaller
> datasets though (like countries). Of course CH is really not suited
> that well for this task, but it enables you to use the same platform
> and process until CH can be replaced with alternative approaches.
>
> Best,
> Patrick

___
OSRM-talk mailing list
OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Wednesday 14 October 2015, Colin Smale wrote:
> Boundaries are often downloadable from authoritative sources. The
> downloadable data is however not always the legal definition of the
> boundary, but derived from that definition [...]

A large fraction of 'authorative' sources of boundary data have very 
little to do with the legal/contractual definition of the boundary.  I 
would probably go as far as saying the most inaccurate boundaries in 
OSM come from authorative sources.

>
> The boundary is where the government says it is...

Not in OSM - see the 'on the ground rule'.  For OSM the boundary is what 
locals treat as the boundary.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-ja] 公園と児童遊園

いいだです。

判断に迷うくらいのものであれば parkとして、「これは明らかにplaygroundだろう」というものだけを
playgroundとしてタグづけする、というのでは困るでしょうか。。。

過去の類似の議論は、法律による分類などに依拠を求めたりすることがままありましたが、
「困った場合にどこを探してよいかわからない、結局、煩雑。資料を見たら見たで、Valid Source?の問題」
「（今回の場合もそうですが）法律でも決まっていない」という
無限ループのような陥ってしまう可能性が高く、あまり現実的ではないなぁ、という印象を持っています。

あげていただいたなかでゆけば、このへんの、迷うようなものは parkかな、と。

・双葉公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162109)
非常に小さな公園で、遊具はない。→散歩はできないけど、parkなのか？
・蒔田公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150481376)
そこそこ大きな公園で、一角に大きな遊具がある→park?playground?
・中村公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316160549)
そんなに大きい公園ではないがプールがある。遊具も少し。→park?playground?


現実的なところでゆくと、アームチェアマッピングする場合、
たいていの場合はまず parkとしてマッピングすることになるのかな、と思っています。
（遊具があるかどうかとか、詳細がわからないので）

> 遊具に付与
そのものずばりで playground=* というタグがあり、
遊具ひとつひとつをNodeとして表現しますので、
使うならばこちらのほうがよいかな？と思います。

たとえば砂場だったら、 playground=sandpit とかです。

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:playground




2015年10月14日 19:16 tomoya muramoto :

> muramotoです。
>
> 私は、児童公園も含めてleisure=parkでタグ付けし、公園内の遊具が置かれているエリアまたは遊具そのものにleisure=playgroundを付けるのが良いのではないかと考えています。
>
> 以下その理由です。
>
> 欧米ではparkとplaygroundが明確に区別されているらしいのですが、日本ではその区別は曖昧だと思います。
> 例えば横浜の公園で言えば、私がタグ付けするとしたらこんな感じで悩みます。
> ・山下公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35866698)
> 海沿いの広い公園で散歩に適している。遊具はない。→これはpark
> ・双葉公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162109)
> 非常に小さな公園で、遊具はない。→散歩はできないけど、parkなのか？
> ・蒔田公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150481376)
> そこそこ大きな公園で、一角に大きな遊具がある→park?playground?
> ・中村公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316160549)
> そんなに大きい公園ではないがプールがある。遊具も少し。→park?playground?
> ・中居公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316164376)
> 住宅地によくある感じの公園で、小さな広場と遊具がある→playgroundかな
> ・中村冒険パーク(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162101)
> アトラクション的な公園。→これはplayground
>
> 「主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている」を基準にするのは、なかなか判断が難しいので、なんらかの指針が欲しいなと思います。
> 公園をparkで、遊具をplaygroundでタグ付けすれば、判断基準がクリアになるのではないかと思います。
>
>
> 2015年10月14日 9:27 Satoshi IIDA :
>
>
>> いいだです。
>>
>> leisure=parkでよいのじゃないかと思います。
>> その場所のコンセプトによっては、leisure=gardenのほうがしっくりくる場合もあるかと思いますが。
>>
>> 観点は2つあるかと思います。
>>
>> ■法律による指定にもとづき、国庫からの助成があるか？あるいは公的機関が管理を行っているか？
>> 管理主体を考えた場合、parkでもplaygroundでも、
>> operatorタグを加えることで対応できると思います。
>> （ごく小規模のポケットパークの場合、operatorが公的機関以外のparkになる）
>>
>> ■ポケットパークといいながら、大規模なものもあるようだ
>> 変に新しいタグを作る必要もなさそうに思えます。
>>
>>
>> いろいろある公園施設のうち、
>> 主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている小規模な公園、を
>> leisure=playground としてタグ付けするのはどうか、というあたりは異論ありますか？
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015年10月14日 7:14 ribbon :
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:58:01AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
>>>
>>> > ■公園と、児童公園（児童遊園）のタグ付けについて
>>> > 公園 (leisure=park) と、児童公園 (leisure=playground)のタグ付けが、
>>> > wikiの説明と実際のOSMでの適用状況に大きくズレがあるのではないか？という指摘がありました。
>>> >
>>> > 具体的には、小規模な児童公園は leisure=playgroundとしてタグ付けするよう定義されていますが、
>>> > これを leisure=parkとタグづけしていることが多いのではないか？ということです。
>>> >
>>> > 基本的に、以下のような分類になっているかと思います。
>>> >
>>> > ・公園 (park) : 大規模〜中規模な公園 (例: 代々木公園,
>>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20028330)
>>> > ・児童公園 (playground) : 街中に存在する、子供用の遊具が主に設置された公園
>>> >
>>> > 大規模な公園の一部に遊具が設置されている場合があると思いますが、その場合は parkでタグづけしてしまってよいのかな、と思っています。
>>>
>>> 逆に、小さな公園でも、遊具施設が無い場合は、leisure=park でいいんでしょうか?
>>>
>>>
>>> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9D%E3%82%B1%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%83%91%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AF
>>> (ポケットパーク)
>>>
>>> というのもあります。
>>>
>>> ribbon
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ja mailing list
>>> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Satoshi IIDA
>> mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
>> twitter: @nyampire
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ja mailing list
>> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
>


-- 
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

[Talk-es] circuito niños para aprender señales tráfico

2015-10-14 Thread Juan Antonio Fdez-Cañadas


Hola:
Estoy intentando nombrar una pista del Ayuntamiento de mi pueblo con un
circuito para bicis, en la que los niños aprenden las señales de
tráfico. En principio la he nombrado como "Pista de carreras no
motorizada" pero no me convence nada.
Muchas gracias
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [OSM-ja] 公園と児童遊園

いいだです。

>恐らくiDで編集時に左の検索欄で「公園」を検索した際の結果に
> 「児童公園」が出ないのが大きな原因ではと考えます。

"公園"でも出てくるようになることを期待して
transifexで検索候補用語に追加してみました。

これで見えるかな。。。項目1065番です。（要ログイン）
https://www.transifex.com/ideditor/id-editor/translate/#ja/presets/18746385



2015年10月14日 10:52 多田 真遵 :

> お世話になっております。うぃるこむです。
>
> > 公園 (leisure=park) と、児童公園 (leisure=playground)のタグ付けが、
> > wikiの説明と実際のOSMでの適用状況に大きくズレがあるのではないか？という指摘がありました。
> 私も気になっておりました。
> 恐らくiDで編集時に左の検索欄で「公園」を検索した際の結果に
> 「児童公園」が出ないのが大きな原因ではと考えます。
>
> > いろいろある公園施設のうち、
> > 主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている小規模な公園、を
> > leisure=playground としてタグ付けするのはどうか、というあたりは異論ありますか？
> 異論無しです。
>
> 以上、宜しくお願いします。
>
>
> -元のメッセージ-
> 差出人: Satoshi IIDA 
> 宛先: OpenStreetMap Japanese talk 
> 送信日時: 2015/10/14, 水, 9:28
> 件名: Re: [OSM-ja] 公園と児童遊園
>
>
>
>
> いいだです。
>
> leisure=parkでよいのじゃないかと思います。
> その場所のコンセプトによっては、leisure=gardenのほうがしっくりくる場合もあるかと思いますが。
>
> 観点は2つあるかと思います。
>
> ■法律による指定にもとづき、国庫からの助成があるか？あるいは公的機関が管理を行っているか？
>
> 管理主体を考えた場合、parkでもplaygroundでも、
> operatorタグを加えることで対応できると思います。
> （ごく小規模のポケットパークの場合、operatorが公的機関以外のparkになる）
>
>
> ■ポケットパークといいながら、大規模なものもあるようだ
> 変に新しいタグを作る必要もなさそうに思えます。
>
>
> いろいろある公園施設のうち、
> 主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている小規模な公園、を
>
> leisure=playground としてタグ付けするのはどうか、というあたりは異論ありますか？
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015年10月14日 7:14 ribbon :
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:58:01AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
>
> > ■公園と、児童公園（児童遊園）のタグ付けについて
> > 公園 (leisure=park) と、児童公園 (leisure=playground)のタグ付けが、
> > wikiの説明と実際のOSMでの適用状況に大きくズレがあるのではないか？という指摘がありました。
> >
> > 具体的には、小規模な児童公園は leisure=playgroundとしてタグ付けするよう定義されていますが、
> > これを leisure=parkとタグづけしていることが多いのではないか？ということです。
> >
> > 基本的に、以下のような分類になっているかと思います。
> >
> > ・公園 (park) : 大規模〜中規模な公園 (例: 代々木公園,
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20028330)
> > ・児童公園 (playground) : 街中に存在する、子供用の遊具が主に設置された公園
> >
> > 大規模な公園の一部に遊具が設置されている場合があると思いますが、その場合は parkでタグづけしてしまってよいのかな、と思っています。
>
> 逆に、小さな公園でも、遊具施設が無い場合は、leisure=park でいいんでしょうか?
>
>
> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9D%E3%82%B1%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%83%91%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AF
> (ポケットパーク)
>
> というのもあります。
>
> ribbon
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Satoshi IIDA
> mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
> twitter: @nyampire
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing
> list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>



-- 
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-ja] Yahoo data cleanup

2015-10-14 Thread Douglas Perkins




  * Has the import data helped Japan map to improve and the community
to grow? How is the OSM coverage compared to other maps?

I remember before we got the Yahoo/ALPS data.  For most of the country, 
there were very few roads mapped.  You couldn't navigate using OSM back 
then, except maybe in a few cities.  Once the import happened, you could 
navigate well, and you still can.


  * How to best cleanup the import: continue to leave the data as is?
do a partial revert to make it easy for new mappers? Organize a
nationwide mapping movement?

To me as a mapper, importer, hiker, and motorcycle rider, the most 
notable thing about the imported data is that in some areas it's 
inaccurate by 10-50 meters in some direction.  The roads described 
mostly exist, though.  What I do to improve things is make tracks when I 
travel, so I can fix the road, or if I have a track to properly align 
some overhead photography I can use that to adjust other roads in that area.


I can't see how a revert has any real value.  It would destroy much of 
the great work the community here has done in the last five years.  And 
it wouldn't help new mappers.  Indeed, if you take a usable map, remove 
lots of data, and then say "go fill in the blanks", people will see all 
the blanks and go look for a different map.  (But since that seems 
really obvious, perhaps I have misunderstood the intent behind some of 
the previous posts?  Feel free to correct me should that be the case.)


Removing data like erroneous road width makes good sense.  Also coming 
from the Yahoo/ALPS import, many rural roads are classified as 
"residential" when they are more likely "track" or "unclassified" or 
"tertiary".  That would be nice to fix.  I imagine surveys are the best 
way, albeit time consuming.
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras / inline

2015-10-14 Thread vrs



-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Petr Vozdecký 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 14. 10. 2015 9:51:02
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras

"
a pak dat treba sanci, aby se zacaly mapovat ci zobrazovat napr route:inline
_skates (nejak nechapu, ze by v CR nebyla v OSM temer zadna zaznacena inline
stezka? http://skating.waymarkedtrails.org/cs/relation/3376572?zoom=15=
50.52717=13.61129=0=0.745
"



Jen k těm inline stezkám: máme u nás vůbec nějaké ZNAČENÉ bruslařské trasy? 
Já jsem nikdy žádnou neviděl - podle mě máme jen cyklostezky, které lidi 
využívají pro bruslení, které jsou pro inliny subjektivně vhodné. Já je 
označuju takhle:




* inline_skates=yes   (i když to je vlastně nesmysl, protože to označuje, že
tam je bruslení povolené, což ale v ČR platí všude, kde můžou pěší + na 
cyklostezkách)

* smoothness=excellent  (nebo aspoň good)

* surface=asphalt





Žádné lepší tagy asi nejsou k dispozici, nebo ano? Nerenderuje se to 
každopádně nikde, to je fakt.




Jinak taky tleskám za ten task manager.




Honza

"

"___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Paul Norman


On 10/14/2015 1:23 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

You'd have to research how the boundary is defined. If there is some
sort of legal definition that goes "the boundary has the following
geometry: from lat/lon A to lat/lon B to lat/lon C...", independent of
the river or highway, then it makes sense to have two different
geometries. But if the legal definition goes "the municipality of X
extends until the middle of the river Y" then it would be wrong to have
two different geometries in OSM.


There's another possibility, found more commonly in remote areas, and 
not often in Europe: none of the above.


Boundaries are not always rigorously defined, and it may not be set if 
the boundary precisely follows the river or not, or in the case of 
multiple similar branches, which branch is followed.


There's also the case where the boundary is defined to be the river, but 
not follow when the river shifts, or only follow some types of river shifts.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

 

On 2015-10-14 13:04, Christoph Hormann wrote: 

> On Wednesday 14 October 2015, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> Boundaries are often downloadable from authoritative sources. The
>> downloadable data is however not always the legal definition of the
>> boundary, but derived from that definition [...]
> 
> A large fraction of 'authorative' sources of boundary data have very 
> little to do with the legal/contractual definition of the boundary.  I 
> would probably go as far as saying the most inaccurate boundaries in 
> OSM come from authorative sources.

I would be interested in some supporting evidence for this... 

>> The boundary is where the government says it is...
> 
> Not in OSM - see the 'on the ground rule'.  For OSM the boundary is what 
> locals treat as the boundary.

That's a different boundary then. The area between the two might be
"disputed", or there might be a difference between "de jure" and "de
facto" boundaries - which are both right, just in different contexts.
There is room in OSM for both perspectives. 

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

Re: [OSM-ja] 公園と児童遊園

2015-10-14 Thread ribbon

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:16:02PM +0900, tomoya muramoto wrote:
> 
> 「主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている」を基準にするのは、
> なかなか判断が難しいので、なんらかの指針が欲しいなと思います。
> 公園をparkで、遊具をplaygroundでタグ付けすれば、判断基準がクリアになる
> のではないかと思います。

なるほど。確かに一部の公園は、一般的な公園と児童向け部分とが共存しているところが
ありますね。

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BE%BD%E6%A0%B9%E6%9C%A8%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%83%BC%E3%83%91%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AF

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/35.65855/139.65512

などが良い例だと思います。
この場合は、羽根木公園全体をparkにして、羽根木プレイパークの部分を
playgroundにする必要がありますね。

と思ったら「ピクニック場」になってました。

ですので、
1) 大きな公園の一部に児童公園的なところがあるのは、
   parkとplaygroudをネストして描画

2) その公園の大部分に遊具があるのであれば playground

じゃないかと思います。
あと、区別方法とすれば、その公園を管理している自治体がどう管理しているか、
かなあと。

ribbon

___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

Boundaries are often downloadable from authoritative sources. The
downloadable data is however not always the legal definition of the
boundary, but derived from that definition - either by surveying if the
definition is descriptive, or by generalisation as the full level of
detail is too much for the download (for whatever reason), or by
reprojection (if the boundary is legally defined in a different datum
such as OSGB36). But the result of all that is a set of coordinates
which we effectively cannot dispute. 

The boundary is where the government says it is... 

//colin 

On 2015-10-14 12:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: 

> On Wednesday 14 October 2015, Maarten Deen wrote: 
> Academic detail. "Is" the boundary the river, or is the boundary a
> thing
> its own right, the geometry of which is described by the river? I
> think you can argue either way. 
> And the legal part can be different too. It can be that the boundary
> is the river and it will change when the river changes, it can also
> be that the boundary has been defined as the river at a point in time
> and if the river changes after that point, the boundary does not
> change with it.

Note practically this is usually 'academic detail' as well - most 
demarcated boundaries are not represented by actual demarcation points 
in OSM but by some approximately drawn line.  In case of boundaries at 
rivers this rarely gets worse when you attach the boundary to the 
accurately mapped river.  Examples:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/32.0077/35.5299
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/0.7489/29.9702 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-it] Import numeri cicivi Ferrara

2015-10-14 Thread Cascafico Giovanni

Se duplicati con stesse coord, fatto l'.osm puoi usare il validator di
josm. Anche se mi pare ogr2osm lo faccia di suo.

--
cascafico.altervista.org
twitter.com/cascafico
Il 13/ott/2015 17:45 "mircozorzo"  ha scritto:

> Ciao,
>
> vorrei fare l'import dei dati che il comune rilascia sul suo sito.
> Ho visto che ci sono dei nodi duplicati, qualcuno mi aiuta? Ci sono delle
> prassi rispetto a questo problema?
>
> Grazie.
>
>
> Ciao, Mirco
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-numeri-cicivi-Ferrara-tp5856903.html
> Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-ja] Yahoo data cleanup

Hello Arun

Thank you for detailed information!
Reporting of past & Plans for future, both are very appreciated.

English posts are welcomed.
Please do not hesitate to do so. :)

> Question & rough translation
```
* Has the import data helped Japan map to improve and the community to
grow? How is the OSM coverage compared to other maps?
* インポートされたデータは、日本のマップを改善し、コミュニティの成長に貢献していますか？ OSMと他の地図のカバレッジの比較はどうでしょう？

* How to best cleanup the import: continue to leave the data as is? do a
partial revert to make it easy for new mappers? Organize a nationwide
mapping movement?
* インポートのクリンナップ方針: データをそのまま残しておくほうがよい？ あるいは、新規マッパーのために、一部をリバートしたほうがよい？
国内すべてを対象とするマッピングムーブメントを企画する？
```

> I think it would be too difficult to revert the Yahoo! import, but,
identifying common problems would be helpful. New mappers could recognise
the common problems and fix them, which would help them gain experience.

+1 to Andrew's opinion.
if we could identify "source yahoo" + "version 1" object, it would be
helpful.

This "potential missing nature reserve" map have come to my mind.
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/potential-missing-local-nature-reserves-on-osm_55319#10/51.5933/-0.1744

> Is there a comprehensive documentation of such issues anywhere that we
can all add to? There is probably something in Japanese in the wiki already?
こういう（道路の品質とか、水路のlayer="-1"タグとかの）既知の問題点を追記できるドキュメンテーションはどこかに既にあったりしますか？
あるいは、wikiの日本ページなどから辿れたりしますか？

AFAIK, not yet.
I guess Japan wiki page is a bit old & need refinement.
So we could make some "Call for Problems".

from my view, followings are possible problems.

* "layer="-1"" on waterway line & some public facility node
* crossing coastline & forest/wood
* need devide of huge forest/wood multipolygon
* "XXX (yyy)" writing on name tag << maybe need more discussion

Regards,

--
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available

2015-10-14 Thread Ed Loach

Some time ago Chris wrote:

> In the blog article
> (http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/more-lidar-goodness.html) I
> explain a bit about the difference between DSM and DTM. DSM
> does include
> building outlines. I've processed a small part of the data to see them.
> Here's an example of a TIFF of DSM data with the building outlines:
> http://raggedred.net/shared/ta0230.tif
> 
> Suitably processed this could provide a source of building outlines.

For about the last eight days I have been following the notes in the blog 
article mentioned above to process and upload the DSM 2m, 1m, 50cm and 25cm 
data for TM01, TM02, TM03, TM11, TM12, TM13, TM21, TM22, and TM23 - the 30km x 
30km area which completely covers the Tendring district of Essex and gets a 
small bit of the surrounding area (Mersea Island, part of Colchester, part of 
south Suffolk including a bit of Felixstowe, for example). The 2m and 1m data I 
generated z9-z18 and 50cm and 25cm I generated z9-z19. This created just under 
1.5 million tiles (which totalled just under 11GB). There were probably quite a 
lot of completely transparent tiles in that number.

Results can be viewed at
http://www.loach.me.uk/Lidar/
with the steps I followed available at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:EdLoach/Tendring_LIDAR

Locally, the 25cm data seems to mainly follow coastlines with patches over 
Colchester and north Clacton (switch off the different layers to see coverage 
of each).

Ed

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-ja] 公園と児童遊園

2015-10-14 Thread ribbon

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:27:21AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:

> いろいろある公園施設のうち、
> 主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている小規模な公園、を
> leisure=playground としてタグ付けするのはどうか、というあたりは異論ありますか？

はい、これについては異論ありません。

___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes



sent from a phone

> Am 14.10.2015 um 12:27 schrieb Colin Smale :
> 
> The boundary is where the government says it is...


yes, but the governments of adjoining states  having different ideas about this 
is also not rare.

Cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

2015-10-14 Thread alyssa wright

I met with local wikpedians today and was impressed with the local events they 
hold around specific topics. For example they are having a women in 
architecture event tomorrow in like 7-10 places simultaneously. They were 
excited to coordinate something with OSM U.S. I think this is a really powerful 
topic especially considering the diverse audience it touched and was just 
representative of one of the many angles on how they approach the value of 
community and contribution. It might be good for us to follow up for more 
regional penetration. And I hope to attend some of the NYC all day event. 





> On Oct 14, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Mike Dupont  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi there, I would organize a local mapathon for a specific project
> that people are interested. Lets map X that you care about.
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Clifford Snow  
>> wrote:
>> Martijn's recent diary post "How can we double the number of active mappers
>> in the US in a year?" has an interesting proposition, rather than one big
>> annual Meetup, we hold smaller regional meetups. The problem is that the big
>> meetup doesn't produce more mappers. I've attended three SOTM-US
>> conferences. Common to the three I've attended is the small number of active
>> mappers. I wonder what percentage of attendees are active mappers? My sense
>> is that it is small. I don't doubt that a great number of attendees have
>> made an edit or two. But most are either users of the data or supporters of
>> OSM, not contributors. Certainly most don't go back home figure out how to
>> build a OSM community.
>> 
>> Before we can tackle mapper growth, let's collect data to help quantify the
>> problem. Let's survey mappers to find out what got them here and why they
>> stay. Further, let's attempt to contact mappers that have be absent to find
>> out why. We should also reach out to Meetup organizers to find what works,
>> what doesn't and what additional tools they need. For example, we have an
>> active Meetup group in Seattle. But we need more help contacting new
>> mappers. Currently the only why is to manually look for new mappers. We need
>> better tools. When we conduct mapping parties, it would be nice to have
>> handouts to give businesses.
>> 
>> Some other crazy suggestions:
>> Partner with incident response teams and create a tool to people to map
>> their neighborhood. [2]
>> Fund people to travel and give talks at events
>> Reduce the cost of admission to SOTM-US. Substantially increase the number
>> of scholarships and lower the bar to getting a scholarship.
>> 
>> Martijn has given us an excellent goal. I hope the Board decides to adopt
>> this is one of its priorities.
>> 
>> We have a chance to influence future of the US Chapter by voting for
>> candidates that will focus on increasing the number of active mappers in the
>> US. Remember, we are voting for a position of leadership, not who is the
>> best mapper. Please ignore the silly suggestions coming from across the pond
>> and vote for the best people to Lead OSM in the US.
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/36087
>> [2]
>> http://mil.wa.gov/emergency-management-division/preparedness/map-your-neighborhood
>> 
>> --
>> @osm_seattle
>> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> James Michael DuPont
> Kansas Linux Fest http://kansaslinuxfest.us
> Free/Libre Open Source and Open Knowledge Association of Kansas
> http://openkansas.us
> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org
> Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

2015-10-14 Thread Ed Hillsman

Back at the beginning of this discussion, there was some mention of getting 
press coverage. I’d like to suggest two possibilities, both with large numbers 
of readers, although I have no contacts at either publication.

National Geographic has had several short pieces on crisis mapping but not, as 
I recollect, anything on local US mapping. If we could work with them to 
develop an article that showcases good applications (uses, not just “apps”) of 
OSM data, and discusses the importance of local mapping to make them happen, 
that might encourage more people to start mapping. Most of these applications 
will be limited to one or a handful of different localitiesIt would be really 
great to identify at least one that emphasizes rural areas.

A second market to target, in a somewhat related way, is those of us who have 
retired, via one of the AARP publications. Again, this should highlight 
applications that might be of interest to older Americans, emphasize the 
dependence of these on data and, ideally (to fit in with the way AARP articles 
are written) highlighting examples of how older Americans have contributed 
data, pushed for development of the applications, and benefitted from them.

In both cases, the idea is to show things that lead the reader to say “Hey, I’d 
like to see that sort of thing where I live, and I’d be willing to put in some 
effort to put in the data for my part of town to make it happen.”

An observation about drop-out mappers. In the Albuquerque area, I’ve notices a 
number of cases that appear to be students at the University of New Mexico who 
do a bit of mapping and then, when they graduate, either stop or move out of 
the area.

Ed Hillsman
Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

2015-10-14 Thread stevea


Simon Poole writes:

I would however side with Andy in that what does seem to have some
lasting effect is constant news coverage.


Great to read this thread!

Yes, I agree.  And even YOU, too, can influence this, especially if 
you have a newsworthy bit of rah-rah to report about something 
recently completed in OSM (whether you actually did the contributing 
yourself, or you are "simply" the reporter-of-facts).  While I don't 
know what effect it had, I did publish in OSM's 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_in_the_media/2013 
for September (as that is when it occurred) an article about some 
success that OSM had achieved in our United Stated Bicycle Route 
System WikiProject.  It was that Adventure Cycling Association had 
published an article in its blog, offering accolades to OSM for 
harmonizing the national bicycle network in the USA.  Leveraging the 
media is GREAT!


Similarly, when I began my efforts to better express rail in the USA 
in this forum (talk-us, December 2014), and the need to correct noisy 
TIGER rail data, this got picked up by the "wochennotiz" (I think 
that's correct).  Concomitantly, this certainly had something to do 
with the explosion of good rail updates the USA has seen over the 
last ten months:  people do read "weekly news feeds" (whether in 
German, English, discontinued, started up again, or otherwise) as 
well as "press feeds."  You just don't know when these will get 
picked up by more local press (newspapers, the news department of a 
TV station, a weekly city paper...).  However, as they do, such 
"press coverage" definitely increases the exposure of OSM to a wider 
public that may be unfamiliar with it or what the project actually 
does.  (We MAP!)  This is a rolling snowball:  it starts slow, but it 
gets bigger and bigger and bigger.


You can't expect to move boulders with the flick of your wrist.  It 
takes a nudge here, a bit of effort there, a little bit of press 
coverage over in the distance.  Keep chipping away like this, bit by 
bit, over the long-term, and it really does make a difference!  We've 
had National Public Radio coverage and other national press, and we 
can keep that momentum going if we have the right things to report at 
the right times to "feed the media."  Let's do so!


SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

2015-10-14 Thread Greg Troxel


To me, one of the biggest things is about having all mappers act
reasonably toward each other.  We have some people that I'd describe as
"lone wolf mappers".  If they just add things, that's fine.  But if they
are retagging motorways as trunk, or deleting railroads, or otherwise
being hostile, it's a huge turnoff for others to be part of the
community.  In contrast, there are a lot of people that talk with the
other local mappers and it's far more friendly.

So I have two concrete suggestions:

- in each state, have a state mailinglist, limited to people who
  actively map in the state, because they live there, or because they
  drive there to work.  Explicitly discourage non-locals from joining.
  These lists would have more of a "people you might meet for a geobeer
  session someday" flavor, rather than people you've never met and
  won't.

- have project leadership be much more aggressive about requiring people
  that make edits other than local additions to engage with commenter
  and be part of the community, or be banned.  a few prolific editors
  that annoy many others are a net minus to the community, and I think
  that's pretty clear by now.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

I actually really like the idea of State mailing lists, could work, worth a try.

Steve

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> 
> To me, one of the biggest things is about having all mappers act
> reasonably toward each other.  We have some people that I'd describe as
> "lone wolf mappers".  If they just add things, that's fine.  But if they
> are retagging motorways as trunk, or deleting railroads, or otherwise
> being hostile, it's a huge turnoff for others to be part of the
> community.  In contrast, there are a lot of people that talk with the
> other local mappers and it's far more friendly.
> 
> So I have two concrete suggestions:
> 
> - in each state, have a state mailinglist, limited to people who
>  actively map in the state, because they live there, or because they
>  drive there to work.  Explicitly discourage non-locals from joining.
>  These lists would have more of a "people you might meet for a geobeer
>  session someday" flavor, rather than people you've never met and
>  won't.
> 
> - have project leadership be much more aggressive about requiring people
>  that make edits other than local additions to engage with commenter
>  and be part of the community, or be banned.  a few prolific editors
>  that annoy many others are a net minus to the community, and I think
>  that's pretty clear by now.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-ja] Discard yh:WIDTH tag

Hi List,

+1 to discard yh:WIDTH.

Appendix;
The reason why "yh:WIDTH" still leave is "maybe future mapper may use this
information to apply width tag."
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ja/2012-October/006797.html

But 3 years pass since discussion, no approach could be made.
And as Douglas said, many of yh:WIDTH value are wrong or estimate.



2015-10-14 20:42 GMT+09:00 Douglas Perkins :

> On 10/14/2015 03:20 PM, Arun Ganesh wrote:
>
> こんにちは
> In the data issues post[1] we noticed that the yh:WIDTH tag was not
> consistent and causes conflicts when trying to merge roads. Taichi-san
> already mentioned we could delete them and am thinking of adding it to the
> list of discardable tags in iD[2] and JOSM
>
> This will make it easy for new mappers to start merging ways without
> worrying about these tags. Good idea?
>
> I think so.  That width data is wrong most of the time, in my observation.
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MAPconcierge/diary/36106
> [2] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/discarded.json
>
> --
> Arun Ganesh
> (planemad) 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing 
> listTalk-ja@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
>


-- 
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-ja] ヘリポートについて

いいだです。

ちゃんと調べてないですが、Rもhelipadであることには変わりないので、
accessタグあたりで対応でしょうか。
（emergencyの時にだけ、とか）

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Rのほうが狭いんですね。



2015年10月14日 10:42 多田 真遵 :

> お世話になっております。うぃるこむです。
>
> ヘリポート（ヘリパッド）について質問が有ります。
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Tag:aeroway%3Dhelipad
> 航空写真等で「Ｈ」と写っている所にヘリポートをタグ付け
> されてはると思います。
>
> しかし、建物の屋上等には「Ｒ」と写っている場合が有ります。
> 「Ｈ」はHeliportで緊急離着陸場で「Ｒ」はRescueで緊急
> 救助用スペース、違いはヘリコプタが着陸出来るか否か
> の様です。
> 詳しくはこちら
> http://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/shobo/cmsfiles/contents/213/213007/11-2.pdf
>
> 「Ｈ」はaeroway=helipadなんですが、「Ｒ」には何を付けたら
> 良ぇんでしょうか？
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dlanding_site
> も緊急「着陸」なんで違う様な気がします…。
> 皆さん如何されてますか？
>
> 以上、宜しくお願いします。
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>



-- 
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-ca] Fixing an old typo...

2015-10-14 Thread Bruno Remy

Check this on MapCompare by Geofabrik:


http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#18/45.4439/-75.6682=4=mapnik=google-map=bing-map=nokia-map

OSM = OK
Google = KO
Bing = OK
Here(Nokia) = OK

Cheers!




2015-10-14 19:18 GMT-04:00 Gordon Dewis :

> I’ve added old_name and old_name:fr tags to it containing the name it was
> known by for 68 years. :)
>
>   —G
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Colin McGregor 
> wrote:
> >
> > Ran across the following story about the City of Ottawa fixing a 68
> > year old typo. in a street name:
> >
> >
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/feriand-street-renaming-comes-68-years-after-typo-1.3270002
> >
> > Being the SOB that I am I have fixed the typo. on OSM, so what is in
> > OSM matches the official name, NOT what the local residents want :-) .
> >
> > All the best :-) .
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Bruno Remy
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

2015-10-14 Thread Greg Troxel

Mike  Dupont  writes:

> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>> in each state, have a state mailinglist,
> I think that is a good idea, or a metro area
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States)
> mailing list.

Sure.The tension is to get critical mass, common interest (a lot of
issues are within states), and local enough to view the others as
neighbors not yet met.

> As for watching for bad edits and talking to people, I
> am sure given the right tools we can help automate this watching.

It's not about noticing - it's about actually fixing the problem.  We've
had recent discussions about railroad deletionists and now motorway
demotionists, and I don't think that in either case we had an
appropriate response.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

2015-10-14 Thread Paul Norman


On 10/14/2015 5:30 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:

- in each state, have a state mailinglist, limited to people who
   actively map in the state, because they live there, or because they
   drive there to work.  Explicitly discourage non-locals from joining.
   These lists would have more of a "people you might meet for a geobeer
   session someday" flavor, rather than people you've never met and
   won't.


We've got Puget Sound (northwest Washington State) and New York State 
lists. I wouldn't say either has been that much of a success. 
talk-us-pugetsound has had 4 messages in the last year, all 
announcements, and the region has a reasonably active OSM community for 
the US. talk-us-newyork has similar numbers, though I'm not sure how 
active the OSM community is there, as opposed to the geo- community.


The problem is that if you make a discussion group too small, it doesn't 
have enough activity to sustain interest in it.


Larger regions might work, but even a statewide group abandons the might 
meet for a geobeer idea where it takes 6 hours to drive across the state.


Unfortunately, I don't have any great ideas.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-ja] 公園と児童遊園

2015-10-14 Thread tomoya muramoto

＞判断に迷うくらいのものであれば parkとして、「これは明らかにplaygroundだろう」というものだけを
＞playgroundとしてタグづけする、というのでは困るでしょうか。。。
いえ、「迷ったらpark」という基準であれば、運用可能だと思いますので、私はOKです。

#今見なおしたら、leisure=playgroundの使い方をミスっていました。遊具そのものには付けないんですね。
#いままで遊具には、leisure=playground + playground=*を付けてました。修正しないと…

2015年10月14日 20:21 Satoshi IIDA :

>
> いいだです。
>
> 判断に迷うくらいのものであれば parkとして、「これは明らかにplaygroundだろう」というものだけを
> playgroundとしてタグづけする、というのでは困るでしょうか。。。
>
> 過去の類似の議論は、法律による分類などに依拠を求めたりすることがままありましたが、
> 「困った場合にどこを探してよいかわからない、結局、煩雑。資料を見たら見たで、Valid Source?の問題」
> 「（今回の場合もそうですが）法律でも決まっていない」という
> 無限ループのような陥ってしまう可能性が高く、あまり現実的ではないなぁ、という印象を持っています。
>
> あげていただいたなかでゆけば、このへんの、迷うようなものは parkかな、と。
>
> ・双葉公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162109)
> 非常に小さな公園で、遊具はない。→散歩はできないけど、parkなのか？
> ・蒔田公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150481376)
> そこそこ大きな公園で、一角に大きな遊具がある→park?playground?
> ・中村公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316160549)
> そんなに大きい公園ではないがプールがある。遊具も少し。→park?playground?
>
>
> 現実的なところでゆくと、アームチェアマッピングする場合、
> たいていの場合はまず parkとしてマッピングすることになるのかな、と思っています。
> （遊具があるかどうかとか、詳細がわからないので）
>
> > 遊具に付与
> そのものずばりで playground=* というタグがあり、
> 遊具ひとつひとつをNodeとして表現しますので、
> 使うならばこちらのほうがよいかな？と思います。
>
> たとえば砂場だったら、 playground=sandpit とかです。
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:playground
>
>
>
>
> 2015年10月14日 19:16 tomoya muramoto :
>
>> muramotoです。
>>
>>
>> 私は、児童公園も含めてleisure=parkでタグ付けし、公園内の遊具が置かれているエリアまたは遊具そのものにleisure=playgroundを付けるのが良いのではないかと考えています。
>>
>> 以下その理由です。
>>
>> 欧米ではparkとplaygroundが明確に区別されているらしいのですが、日本ではその区別は曖昧だと思います。
>> 例えば横浜の公園で言えば、私がタグ付けするとしたらこんな感じで悩みます。
>> ・山下公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35866698)
>> 海沿いの広い公園で散歩に適している。遊具はない。→これはpark
>> ・双葉公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162109)
>> 非常に小さな公園で、遊具はない。→散歩はできないけど、parkなのか？
>> ・蒔田公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150481376)
>> そこそこ大きな公園で、一角に大きな遊具がある→park?playground?
>> ・中村公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316160549)
>> そんなに大きい公園ではないがプールがある。遊具も少し。→park?playground?
>> ・中居公園(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316164376)
>> 住宅地によくある感じの公園で、小さな広場と遊具がある→playgroundかな
>> ・中村冒険パーク(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316162101)
>> アトラクション的な公園。→これはplayground
>>
>> 「主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている」を基準にするのは、なかなか判断が難しいので、なんらかの指針が欲しいなと思います。
>> 公園をparkで、遊具をplaygroundでタグ付けすれば、判断基準がクリアになるのではないかと思います。
>>
>>
>> 2015年10月14日 9:27 Satoshi IIDA :
>>
>>
>>> いいだです。
>>>
>>> leisure=parkでよいのじゃないかと思います。
>>> その場所のコンセプトによっては、leisure=gardenのほうがしっくりくる場合もあるかと思いますが。
>>>
>>> 観点は2つあるかと思います。
>>>
>>> ■法律による指定にもとづき、国庫からの助成があるか？あるいは公的機関が管理を行っているか？
>>> 管理主体を考えた場合、parkでもplaygroundでも、
>>> operatorタグを加えることで対応できると思います。
>>> （ごく小規模のポケットパークの場合、operatorが公的機関以外のparkになる）
>>>
>>> ■ポケットパークといいながら、大規模なものもあるようだ
>>> 変に新しいタグを作る必要もなさそうに思えます。
>>>
>>>
>>> いろいろある公園施設のうち、
>>> 主に児童が遊ぶことを目的として作成・整備されている小規模な公園、を
>>> leisure=playground としてタグ付けするのはどうか、というあたりは異論ありますか？
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015年10月14日 7:14 ribbon :
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:58:01AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:

 > ■公園と、児童公園（児童遊園）のタグ付けについて
 > 公園 (leisure=park) と、児童公園 (leisure=playground)のタグ付けが、
 > wikiの説明と実際のOSMでの適用状況に大きくズレがあるのではないか？という指摘がありました。
 >
 > 具体的には、小規模な児童公園は leisure=playgroundとしてタグ付けするよう定義されていますが、
 > これを leisure=parkとタグづけしていることが多いのではないか？ということです。
 >
 > 基本的に、以下のような分類になっているかと思います。
 >
 > ・公園 (park) : 大規模〜中規模な公園 (例: 代々木公園,
 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20028330)
 > ・児童公園 (playground) : 街中に存在する、子供用の遊具が主に設置された公園
 >
 > 大規模な公園の一部に遊具が設置されている場合があると思いますが、その場合は parkでタグづけしてしまってよいのかな、と思っています。

 逆に、小さな公園でも、遊具施設が無い場合は、leisure=park でいいんでしょうか?


 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9D%E3%82%B1%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%83%91%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AF
 (ポケットパーク)

 というのもあります。

 ribbon

 ___
 Talk-ja mailing list
 Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Satoshi IIDA
>>> mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
>>> twitter: @nyampire
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ja mailing list
>>> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ja mailing list
>> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Satoshi IIDA
> mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
> twitter: @nyampire
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
>
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-ja] Discard yh:WIDTH tag

2015-10-14 Thread Douglas Perkins


On 10/14/2015 03:20 PM, Arun Ganesh wrote:

こんにちは
In the data issues post[1] we noticed that the yh:WIDTH tag was not 
consistent and causes conflicts when trying to merge roads. Taichi-san 
already mentioned we could delete them and am thinking of adding it to 
the list of discardable tags in iD[2] and JOSM


This will make it easy for new mappers to start merging ways without 
worrying about these tags. Good idea?



I think so.  That width data is wrong most of the time, in my observation.

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MAPconcierge/diary/36106
[2] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/discarded.json

--
Arun Ganesh
(planemad) 


___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja


___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes

2015-10-14 Thread Jóhannes Birgir Jensson

It's not that simple. I work in an government agency and the issue of 
boundaries rises often, both for public and private issues.


Iceland is an advanced nation regarding technology adaption. However 
boundaries are not all clearly defined as GIS vectors and many of them 
are disputed.


There are many natural reserve areas, some small and some large - yet we 
do not have definite and GPS accurate definitions of them available yet. 
Most of them are based upon text descriptions of areas that were defined 
previously for another purpose. Travelling the country and documenting 
place names has proven to be an interesting experience - a survey was 
done earlier this century.


A common scenario is the definition of where two estates are adjacent to 
each other. The legal document defines the boundary as lying between 
place names #1 and #2, from where a direct line through to #3 and 
followed by the middle of a river. Not a single GPS point in that. Then 
we go to find where the place names are, it should be easy right? Not 
really, the new residents are unsure of where place name #1 is, it could 
possibly be that tiny hillock amongst many, or it could be the one 3 
hillocks over, next to the flat rock. So we already are unsure of our 
starting point, and each point has similar issues. Sometimes the place 
is defined as 50 paces from another place and then the measurement 
sticks used originally have been found and found wanting or being larger 
than they should...


A flash flood from a glacier melting changes the river regularly, 
shifting it faster around than in more stable geographical areas. And 
look at that, a volcano has just created a new lava field, which changed 
the course of a river by the virtue of completely closing off its 
previous path (Wikipedia: Nornahraun and Holuhraun and the river Jökulsá 
á Fjöllum).


There have been court battles and disputes all over the country and 
municipalities also have disputes, some based on these textual 
descriptions of places no one knows where are or where the features have 
shifted several times over since the original line was drawn in the 
unknown place.


So the government will tell you that the boundary is between these place 
names, and isn't always able to tell you if these place names are at the 
same spot as they originally were. There is work ongoing of converting 
these into GPS co-ordinates but that could have to go through courts in 
some cases.


So the government doesn't always have the definite answer via GPS 
points.




Þann 14.10.2015 11:43, Colin Smale reit:

Well, although it is definitely not unknown, I think it probably is
fair to call it rare in the grand scheme of things... The vast
majority of administrative boundaries in the world are not disputed,
and the ones that are, are more likely to be the national borders
(admin_level=2) than internal provincial or municipal boundaries, of
which there are many, many more.

On 2015-10-14 13:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


Am 14.10.2015 um 12:27 schrieb Colin Smale
:

The boundary is where the government says it is...


yes, but the governments of adjoining states having different ideas
about this is also not rare.

Cheers
Martin


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



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

[Talk-it] Oratore per LinuxDay ViGLug (Milano)

2015-10-14 Thread Fabio Alessandro Locati

Quest'anno, il ViGLug [0] partecipa al LinuxDay con un evento a Vignate (MI).
Abbiamo deciso di dedicare uno slot a OSM. Se qualcuno è interessato a
questo slot, siamo interessati a saperlo, se nessuno si fa avanti,
procederò io a fare il talk.

Come LUG, preferiamo avere persone esterne sia per evitare di essere
sempre noi, sia per sfruttare il LinuxDay per tessere nuove relazioni
con persone, comunità e gruppi nuovi dal momento che crediamo che nel
mondo open source le relazioni personali siano importanti.

Spero che ci siano persone interessate,
Fale

[0] https://viglug.org/

-- 
Fabio Alessandro Locati

PGP Fingerprint: B960 BE9D E7A8 FA12 273A  98BB 6D6A 29D6 709A 7851
https://keybase.io/fale

___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras / inline

2015-10-14 Thread Vojta

Není to úplně značená trasa, ale v Brně u Olympie je vyhrazená inline dráha:
http://www.olympia-centrum.cz/cz/olympia_park
O ničem jiném nevím, ale na inlinech nejezdím.

Vojta

Dne 14. října 2015 12:27  napsal(a):

>
> -- Původní zpráva --
> Od: Petr Vozdecký 
> Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
> Datum: 14. 10. 2015 9:51:02
> Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani turistickych tras
>
> a pak dat treba sanci, aby se zacaly mapovat ci zobrazovat napr
> route:inline_skates (nejak nechapu, ze by v CR nebyla v OSM temer zadna
> zaznacena inline stezka?
> http://skating.waymarkedtrails.org/cs/relation/3376572?zoom=15=50.52717=13.61129=0=0.745
>
>
> Jen k těm inline stezkám: máme u nás vůbec nějaké ZNAČENÉ bruslařské
> trasy? Já jsem nikdy žádnou neviděl - podle mě máme jen cyklostezky, které
> lidi využívají pro bruslení, které jsou pro inliny subjektivně vhodné. Já
> je označuju takhle:
>
>
> * inline_skates=yes   (i když to je vlastně nesmysl, protože to označuje,
> že tam je bruslení povolené, což ale v ČR platí všude, kde můžou pěší + na
> cyklostezkách)
>
> * smoothness=excellent  (nebo aspoň good)
>
> * surface=asphalt
>
>
> Žádné lepší tagy asi nejsou k dispozici, nebo ano? Nerenderuje se to
> každopádně nikde, to je fakt.
>
>
> Jinak taky tleskám za ten task manager.
>
>
> Honza
>
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>
>
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Nummering bruggen

2015-10-14 Thread Ben Laenen

Tegenwoordig pas? Ik heb in de provincie Antwerpen nooit anders geweten dat 
die nummers eraan hingen (maar als ik me goed herinner in een erg oud topic 
daarover zou de rest van Vlaanderen daar niet aan meedoen?).

Wat betreft de planimetrische punten, was het probleem daar niet dat dat in 
een database zit van het NGI en dat die dus niet vrij kan worden gekopieerd? 
En dat je die punten dus in realiteit niet juist kan onderscheiden (het gaat 
soms om de top van een kerktoren, of de ijzeren dingetjes die je in de grond 
overal ziet eens je erop let dienden enkel voor lokale aanleg maar zijn geen 
planimetrische punten van het NGI).

mvg,
Ben

On Tuesday 13 October 2015 17:23:55 Philippe Casteleyn wrote:
> Er verschijnen tegenwoordig gele viercijferige borden met het embleem van
> een leeuw op bruggen.Vroeger was het "ministerie" erg schuw met het
> vrijgeven van de brugnummers.Misschien is er nu een goede nummering
> gekomen.Op hun website vind ik alvast niets.Ik dacht even dat er een
> altimetrisch punt bij hoorde, maar dat is natuurlijk absurd.  Niettemin is
> er geen overdaad aan publiek gekende gematerialiseerde
> verdichtingspunten.De brug :  
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/308898682Bord met hoogteaanduiding : 
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/UIxzuIzwZDx2FixwAQnEmQ/photoInstructieboek
> voor opmaak van plannen
> :http://wegenenverkeer.be/sites/awv/files/docs/Instructiebundel%20voor%20st
> udie-%20en%20landmeetbureaus%20versie%202014%20%201%200%20AWV%20_0.pdfZijn
> er nog mensen geïnteresseerd in planimetrische punten ? 
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jyvs9YdE6LzPep0H-RhQOA/photohttp://www.ngi
> .be/gdoc/index.html?lang=nl=484878.74=6593757.54=20=ngi.c
> artoweb.topo_bw.be=alti_coord,plani_coord_visibility=false,tru
> e=openedIk gebruik moeilijke woorden in de hoop dat iemand ze mij
> uitlegt.Ph Casteleyn Dahliastraat 162800
> Mechelenanimals.slippers.loadersgsm 0486 516261Ctrl+v

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes