Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved
> someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other
> contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction of all
> parties.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm doing major work in Alaska and although my current focus is
> primarily on adding geographic features, this issue has practical
> implications for me. The George Parks Highway and the Alaska Highway come
> to mind immediately. They are a bit of a mish-mash with some sections
> tagged motorway, some trunk, and the speed limit varies from 65 mph in
> rural areas down to 40 mph in towns. That's the nature of the highway
> system in Alaska where a single highway serves an immense largely
> unpopulated geographical and area. Most sections of those highways are
> "trunk" roads by most definitions yet they have normal at-grade
> intersections, intersections with driveways, tracks, etc.
>

I don't consider intersections with driveways to be a dealbreaker.  On the
primary/trunk edge cases, particularly on the "major highway/freeway
cancelled after construction started" type situation, the relative lack of
driveways and relative prevalence of ramps along with historical context
might be the only claim to the very lowest end of trunk on a dual
carriageway and potentially highest end of primary for a single carriageway
(I'd only consider a single carriageway to be a trunk if it's completely
controlled access with no at grade intersections or driveways).


> I'm a novice with highway tagging of this sort but if any of you more
> experienced mappers would care to take a look at those two highways, any
> feedback would be appreciated.
>

I'm a bit rusty on my Alaska geography, so if you got a relation or way ID
to work with, that might help.  Excluding the unpaved primaries that I'm
aware of that compose most of Alaska DOT's mileage, I'd hazard to guess
Alaska has considerably more "trunk" than "motorway" miles, particularly
outside of metro Anchorage.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Dave Swarthout]

I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved
someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other
contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction of all
parties.

Meanwhile, I'm doing major work in Alaska and although my current focus is
primarily on adding geographic features, this issue has practical
implications for me. The George Parks Highway and the Alaska Highway come
to mind immediately. They are a bit of a mish-mash with some sections
tagged motorway, some trunk, and the speed limit varies from 65 mph in
rural areas down to 40 mph in towns. That's the nature of the highway
system in Alaska where a single highway serves an immense largely
unpopulated geographical and area. Most sections of those highways are
"trunk" roads by most definitions yet they have normal at-grade
intersections, intersections with driveways, tracks, etc.

I'm a novice with highway tagging of this sort but if any of you more
experienced mappers would care to take a look at those two highways, any
feedback would be appreciated.

Keep up the good work.

AlaskaDave

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Bill Ricker  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Richie Kennedy
>>  wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.
>>
>> > OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the
>> > classification. I would consider that to be bad faith.
>>
>> > Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral
>> > changes to the map.
>>
>> Largely separate from the wiki/tag debate about how America should
>> implement Brit-centric tags (that defy common sense here), the above
>> portion of the exchange is also important.
>>
>
> Well, except I legitimately had no reason to expect Richie to be upset
> when I was catching up on my (then rather huge) backlog of notes; more on
> that below.
>
>
>> NE2 was "objectively wrong" *^ _and_ /unilaterally/ /bulk-editing/
>> from the /armchair/.
>>
>
> Annoyingly, a lot of the current trunk debacle is leftover from the mass
> edit he did on ref:US to highway=trunk, when it was already in active use
> to fill that "bigger than primary, but not a freeway" gap that didn't get
> reverted.  Most DOTs have, even on their own maps, in the US have a
> different classification for that "freeway like thing with a mix of
> intersections and ramps" and "super 2" style roads that is roughly
> analogous (in America's own idiosyncratic ways) to a trunk the OSM
> classification.  I don't think anybody's really clear what NE2's definition
> was on that one other than "anything with a US in the route number is a
> trunk if it's not a motorway".  With that in mind, I would encourage to
> check the history on trunks (particularly edge cases that could slide to
> motorway or primary) and take NE2's opinion with a grain of salt.
>
> Martijn van Exel's dealing with this problem in Utah right now.  I feel
> like we'd be closer to a consensus on this in general had the
> bulk-edit-to-trunk situation had at least reverted to what was in the TIGER
> import.  It wouldn't have been perfect but it would have been closer to
> reality than what we got left with, hindsight being 20/20 on this.
>
>
>> If one of us coastal armchair mappers unilaterally bulk-edits Richie's
>> local roads, we'd have three out of four NE2-likeness points on us.
>> There is plenty of wrong to fix without declaring edit-war on Richie's
>> roads.
>> Let's give the local mapper the benefit of the doubt in the DB at
>> least until the Wiki-war is finished.
>> (And even then, cut the local some slack.)
>
>
> We're both relatively local to the place in question.  Richie might be
> closer, but I'm not obliviously ignorant to the area in question.  We've
> crossed paths on the map before and, to my recollection, we've never had
> issues.  In my 8 years on the project so far, I can pretty safely say this
> is a very cooperative community.  I felt a little blindsided on that, hence
> my initial response.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Bill Ricker  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Richie Kennedy
>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
>
> >> That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.
>
> > OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the
> > classification. I would consider that to be bad faith.
>
> > Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral
> > changes to the map.
>
> Largely separate from the wiki/tag debate about how America should
> implement Brit-centric tags (that defy common sense here), the above
> portion of the exchange is also important.
>

Well, except I legitimately had no reason to expect Richie to be upset when
I was catching up on my (then rather huge) backlog of notes; more on that
below.


> NE2 was "objectively wrong" *^ _and_ /unilaterally/ /bulk-editing/
> from the /armchair/.
>

Annoyingly, a lot of the current trunk debacle is leftover from the mass
edit he did on ref:US to highway=trunk, when it was already in active use
to fill that "bigger than primary, but not a freeway" gap that didn't get
reverted.  Most DOTs have, even on their own maps, in the US have a
different classification for that "freeway like thing with a mix of
intersections and ramps" and "super 2" style roads that is roughly
analogous (in America's own idiosyncratic ways) to a trunk the OSM
classification.  I don't think anybody's really clear what NE2's definition
was on that one other than "anything with a US in the route number is a
trunk if it's not a motorway".  With that in mind, I would encourage to
check the history on trunks (particularly edge cases that could slide to
motorway or primary) and take NE2's opinion with a grain of salt.

Martijn van Exel's dealing with this problem in Utah right now.  I feel
like we'd be closer to a consensus on this in general had the
bulk-edit-to-trunk situation had at least reverted to what was in the TIGER
import.  It wouldn't have been perfect but it would have been closer to
reality than what we got left with, hindsight being 20/20 on this.


> If one of us coastal armchair mappers unilaterally bulk-edits Richie's
> local roads, we'd have three out of four NE2-likeness points on us.
> There is plenty of wrong to fix without declaring edit-war on Richie's
> roads.
> Let's give the local mapper the benefit of the doubt in the DB at
> least until the Wiki-war is finished.
> (And even then, cut the local some slack.)


We're both relatively local to the place in question.  Richie might be
closer, but I'm not obliviously ignorant to the area in question.  We've
crossed paths on the map before and, to my recollection, we've never had
issues.  In my 8 years on the project so far, I can pretty safely say this
is a very cooperative community.  I felt a little blindsided on that, hence
my initial response.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 27.09.2017 21:49, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> That is helpful. Let us know when you have re-executed the analysis and
> posted the results.

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/chdr.details

A new list (CSV file) with way id, coordinates, and country/state/county
information. I've eliminated all objects that have been reported to be
ok, and plan to remove or change the names on these remaining ones. (To
avoid misunderstandings: There's a column in the file that says what I
plan to do, either "change to XYZ" or "delete", but that does NOT mean
"delete the object", just "delete the name tag"!)

I'll start doing that in ~ 20 hours from now.

I'll then redact the versions that carried the "bad" name.

The redaction will also affect a few historic objects that *used* to
have a "bad" name and where the name has meanwhile been changed again,
or where the object has been deleted; these redactions will be of little
consequence.

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-us] [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 27.09.2017 21:49, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> That is helpful. Let us know when you have re-executed the analysis and
> posted the results.

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/chdr.details

A new list (CSV file) with way id, coordinates, and country/state/county
information. I've eliminated all objects that have been reported to be
ok, and plan to remove or change the names on these remaining ones. (To
avoid misunderstandings: There's a column in the file that says what I
plan to do, either "change to XYZ" or "delete", but that does NOT mean
"delete the object", just "delete the name tag"!)

I'll start doing that in ~ 20 hours from now.

I'll then redact the versions that carried the "bad" name.

The redaction will also affect a few historic objects that *used* to
have a "bad" name and where the name has meanwhile been changed again,
or where the object has been deleted; these redactions will be of little
consequence.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Warin]

The road names are correct according to the LPI base map.
Don't see anything wrong with it - roads do change their names through 
towns, particularly at right angle turns.




The relationship 6069701 - administration boundary says its source is 
the LPI base map - yet that has no information on population
 so I assume it comes from somewhere else. This also has a postcode 
attached ..


I would think any admin boundary will have some population in it .. so 
it could not possibly be an OSM locality?
I do think it might be worth looking for these relations with admin 
boundary and locality and 'fixing' them. Anyone?


-
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales

Biniguy was a village, from a services view point, over 30 years ago .. had a 
post office, store.



On 07-Oct-17 06:39 PM, m.james wrote:

Just notice the main road coming off the highway has a different name as it 
passes by Biniguy to that of the surrounding road section.

You might want to check that out as well.



-Original Message-
From: m.james [mailto:m.ja...@internode.on.net]
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 5:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

The village designation is coming from nswgnb, I tried to get their info for 
why it has that designation but got a 404 link from their website.

We should fall back on the osm standards which give it as a hamlet as it is not 
>1000 in population.

The second node should be removed as it is describing the same thing.

I like to have these tagged as an area around the main part of the settlement 
but they tend to not render on the standard osm rendering engine even though 
area is an acceptable method of tagging for places, you can decide which ever 
you prefer.

Not sure if we are allowed to pull the postcode info from AP or not but if we 
can you should add it as it is nice to have that info.

The relation looks like it has been edited recently, you could message the 
person working on that to get them to check it for correctness.

-Original Message-
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 7:59 AM
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there are some 
'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.


However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

   Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


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



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



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



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

hebdoOSM Nº 376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 376 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/9517/

Bonne lecture !

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

hebdoOSM Nº 376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 376 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/9517/

Bonne lecture !

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

hebdoOSM Nº 376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 376 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/9517/

Bonne lecture !

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ht mailing list
Talk-ht@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ht
Notez! Vous pouvez utiliser Google Translate (http://translate.google.com) pour 
traduire les messages.

hebdoOSM Nº 376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 376 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/9517/

Bonne lecture !

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-africa mailing list
Talk-africa@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-africa

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] subway (et railway=station)

[JB]

Bonsoir,
J'ai suivi un peu la discussion (peut-être moins assidument que les 
spécialistes transport), et les deux derniers messages proviennent d'un 
Roland Olbricht assez énervé disant que les « clarifications » d'Ilya 
modifient certaines pratiques bien établies, suivi d'un message de 
Frederik Ramm récapitulant que la proposition d'Ilya n'était peut-être 
pas si bienveillante que précédemment indiqué.
Du coup, à vérifier si les erreurs listées sont réellement des erreurs, 
ou des « trucs » que le système de traitement mis en place n'aime juste pas.

JB.

Le 07/10/2017 à 19:52, Jérôme Amagat a écrit :
Il y a une discussion sur talk en anglais sur les réseau de métro dans 
le monde.
Il y a quelqu'un qui donne ici : http://osmz.ru/subways/ des erreurs 
sur ces réseaux


Déjà je veux dire que j'ai pas vraiment suivie la discussion (mon 
anglais est mauvais et j'ai la flemme :) )


Il y a pas mal d'erreur en France en rapport avec le tag 
railway=station. Soit il est en double pour une station de métro, soit 
il n'est pas là, soit il n'est pas un node.

En fait je sais pas trop comment on doit l'utiliser?
ce que je comprends c'est qu'il faut qu'il soit sur un node tout seul 
au milieu de la station de métro.
Il y a des problème a Lyon, paris, rennes, Marseille (des way au lieu 
de node)


Il y a aussi un problème à Lyon avec une ligne de "light rail". Je 
sais pas trop ce que c'est :) , ce que j'ai compris c'est que c'est 
entre le train et le tramway. A Lyon c'est utilisé pour la ligne de 
Rhônexpress qui va de Lyon centre jusqu’à l’aéroport, les "vehicules" 
ressemble beaucoup aux tram, cette ligne utilise les voies de tramway 
sur les 3/4 du chemin puis des rails qui ne servent qu'a cette ligne 
jusqu' a l’aéroport. les arrêts sont peu nombreux sur cette ligne (2 
sur la dizaine de la ligne de tram) alors voila je ne sais pas si 
c'est un "light rail", un train ou un tram ?



___
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: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

[Safwat Halaby]

Thank you. 

On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 10:55 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I would be careful interpreting the lack of objections to your
> automated 
> edits in the local community as universal approval though.  There
> are 
> likely also locals who do not think this is a good idea but due to
> the 
> low intensity and low volume of edits they don't see it necessary to 
> say anything.

That's a good point. I'll keep it in mind. 

It's worth noting I always look at a small sample of changes before
hitting the final "upload" button. The bot does not upload fully
autonomously. I'm still uncomfortable with a fully automatic bot. This
human supervision already proved helpful on several occasions. In one
recent case, the bot would have conflicted with Yuri's recent Wiki
edits, and the manual supervision caught this and we then coordinated
properly: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51350214

If my bot were fully automatic, it would have annoyed Yuri and
interfered with his project without discussion. Worst still, If the two
edits were being made by fully automatic bots, a perpetual bot edit war
would have possibly ensued. (Depending on the way the bots were coded)

As for local particularities, I completely agree. For instance, Israel
has a unique case where the "name" tag is always duplicated at
"name:he" or "name:ar". A theoretical global bot which removes
name/name:lang whenever the values are duplicated would cause local
damage and wouldn't be aware of the local conventions, even though such
a change may be welcome elsewhere.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Importation des hauteurs de bâtiments sur Nice

[Romain MEHUT]

Bonjour,

Je rajoute Nancy cf.
http://opendata.grandnancy.eu/jeux-de-donnees/detail-dune-fiche-de-donnees/?tx_icsoddatastore_pi1%5Bpage%5D=1_icsoddatastore_pi1%5Bcategories%5D%5B0%5D=45_icsoddatastore_pi1%5Bcategories%5D%5B1%5D=42_icsoddatastore_pi1%5Buid%5D=115_icsoddatastore_pi1%5BreturnID%5D=447

Romain

Le 6 octobre 2017 à 23:42, Vincent Frison  a
écrit :

> Le 6 octobre 2017 à 18:37, marc marc  a écrit :
>
>> Le 04. 10. 17 à 21:19, Vincent Frison a écrit :
>> > malheureusement il n'y a pas beaucoup
>> > de villes en France où je peux trouver en open data le MNT et le MNS
>> > (avec une bonne résolution en plus).
>>
>> est-ce parce qu'ils n'ont pas de moyen de rendre la donnée facilement
>> accessible ou simplement parce qu'elle n'est pas opendata ?
>>
>
> De ce que j'ai pu voir voici les villes qui proposent actuellement du MNT
> (ou des courbes de niveaux) en open data:
> - Nice
> - Montpellier
> - Lyon
> - Lille
> - Bordeaux
> - Poitiers
> - Clermont
> - Genève
>
> Mais apparemment aucune ville ne propose directement des MNS mis à part
> Genève et Montpellier (Christian vient d'ailleurs de m'aider sur le forum
> pour convertir le MNT de cette dernière: http://forum.openstreetmap.fr/
> viewtopic.php?f=5=6585).
>
> Ceci dit pour Nice je leur ai envoyé un mail pour obtenir le MNS (qui leur
> a permis de construire leur MNT j'imagine), peut-être ça pourrait aussi
> marcher avec les autres villes qui proposent déjà un MNT. En tout cas ça ne
> coûte pas grand chose de demander...
>
>
> ___
> 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: [OSM-talk-fr] Hiérarchie des relations d’itinéraire cyclistes

[Adrien Grellier]

Bonjour,

J'ai procédé de la même manière pour l'Euro-vélo 1, qui inclut le Canal
de Nantes à Brest, et l'Euro-vélo 6, qui inclut la Loire à Vélo.

Il me semble que c'est une bonne manière de procéder, simple et qui
évite là duplication de données. En plus ça respecte totalement l'esprit
des grands circuits, qui se reposent en pratique sur les tracés plus locaux.

Bonne journée

Adrien

Le 07/10/2017 à 09:18, Axelos a écrit :
> Salut les contributeurs d’OSM,
>
> J’ai participé dernièrement à l’inauguration d’une voie verte faisant
> partie de la véloroute V54 dans le Grand-Est, j’ai donc retranscrit
> l’aménagement puis modifier les métas donnés des relations qui d’après
> les historiques représentaient bien la V54 puis se sont transformé en un
> itinéraire touristique qui est apparu officiellement en 2016 « La Meuse
> à Vélo ».
> V54 est national, Meuse à Vélo Européen.
> À terme il est probable que les deux itinéraires utilisent les mêmes
> chemins.
> Comme la V54 n’était plus référencé j’ai du la remettre, bref… il
> fallait passer par cette étape.
>
> Après m’être bien tâté sur comment faire, je me suis posé une question :
> est-il possible d’utiliser un morceau de relation d’un itinéraire (la
> V54) pour l’intégrer dans une autre relation d’un autre itinéraire ?
> J’ai testé.
>
> J’ai utilisé la carte https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org pour avoir un
> visu sur mes modifications, et j’ai consulté cette page :
> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/help/rendering/hierarchies
>
> Qui répond à ma question : oui. Elle explique aussi que si les tags
> network sont similaires, alors la relation enfant est prit en compte
> uniquement dans la relation parent, c’est-à-dire que l’enfant n’est pas
> visible sur la carte.
> À contrario si le network est différent, alors les deux relations
> restent présentes.
> Dans la pratique, j’ai constaté que les tags from et to si utilisés
> doivent être aussi identique pour ignorer l’enfant.
>
> Donc ça permet de jongler dans l’intégration de relations enfants qui
> font partie du même itinéraire, donc inutiles seuls, mais aussi
> d’itinéraires d’un niveau inférieur (icn > ncn > rcn > lcn) tout en les
> gardant disponibles dans la carte.
>
> Comme j’ai pour projet prochain de prolonger la relation V52
> (Paris-Stransbourg) sur le secteur de Nancy, et que celle-ci empreinte
> un itinéraire régional sur environ 35 km (la Boucles de la Moselle). Il
> y a également un itinéraire européen (Paris-Prague) dont la relation
> existe déjà en proposed.
> L’intérêt est ne pas créer trois relations qui reprennent sur ces 35 km
> tout le cheminement.
> Mais plutôt intégrer ces chemins dans une relation enfant Boucles de la
> Moselle, dont la relation est intégrée dans la V52, dont celle-ci sera
> probablement intégrée dans la route Paris-Prague.
>
> Mais avant de commercer, deux questions me viennent à l’esprit :
> Dans le wiki, je n’ai pas trouvé de documentation similaire à ce qui est
> indiqué sur https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/ Est-ce que la pratique
> est réellement légitime, est-ce que finalement je ne tag pas pour le rendu ?
>
> Cette pratique ne risque-t-elle pas d’être trop compliqué pour les
> contributeurs « néophytes » qui désire eux aussi contribuer à ces
> relations ?
>
> J’ai déjà édité de nombreuses relations enfants, mais les parents
> étaient toujours des relations du même itinéraire.
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr




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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] subway (et railway=station)

[Francescu GAROBY]

C'est un tram-train  :-)

Le 7 octobre 2017 à 19:52, Jérôme Amagat  a écrit :

> Il y a une discussion sur talk en anglais sur les réseau de métro dans le
> monde.
> Il y a quelqu'un qui donne ici : http://osmz.ru/subways/ des erreurs sur
> ces réseaux
>
> Déjà je veux dire que j'ai pas vraiment suivie la discussion (mon anglais
> est mauvais et j'ai la flemme :) )
>
> Il y a pas mal d'erreur en France en rapport avec le tag railway=station.
> Soit il est en double pour une station de métro, soit il n'est pas là, soit
> il n'est pas un node.
> En fait je sais pas trop comment on doit l'utiliser?
> ce que je comprends c'est qu'il faut qu'il soit sur un node tout seul au
> milieu de la station de métro.
> Il y a des problème a Lyon, paris, rennes, Marseille (des way au lieu de
> node)
>
> Il y a aussi un problème à Lyon avec une ligne de "light rail". Je sais
> pas trop ce que c'est :) , ce que j'ai compris c'est que c'est entre le
> train et le tramway. A Lyon c'est utilisé pour la ligne de Rhônexpress qui
> va de Lyon centre jusqu’à l’aéroport, les "vehicules" ressemble beaucoup
> aux tram, cette ligne utilise les voies de tramway sur les 3/4 du chemin
> puis des rails qui ne servent qu'a cette ligne jusqu' a l’aéroport. les
> arrêts sont peu nombreux sur cette ligne (2 sur la dizaine de la ligne de
> tram) alors voila je ne sais pas si c'est un "light rail", un train ou un
> tram ?
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>


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

[OSM-talk-fr] subway (et railway=station)

[Jérôme Amagat]

Il y a une discussion sur talk en anglais sur les réseau de métro dans le
monde.
Il y a quelqu'un qui donne ici : http://osmz.ru/subways/ des erreurs sur
ces réseaux

Déjà je veux dire que j'ai pas vraiment suivie la discussion (mon anglais
est mauvais et j'ai la flemme :) )

Il y a pas mal d'erreur en France en rapport avec le tag railway=station.
Soit il est en double pour une station de métro, soit il n'est pas là, soit
il n'est pas un node.
En fait je sais pas trop comment on doit l'utiliser?
ce que je comprends c'est qu'il faut qu'il soit sur un node tout seul au
milieu de la station de métro.
Il y a des problème a Lyon, paris, rennes, Marseille (des way au lieu de
node)

Il y a aussi un problème à Lyon avec une ligne de "light rail". Je sais pas
trop ce que c'est :) , ce que j'ai compris c'est que c'est entre le train
et le tramway. A Lyon c'est utilisé pour la ligne de Rhônexpress qui va de
Lyon centre jusqu’à l’aéroport, les "vehicules" ressemble beaucoup aux
tram, cette ligne utilise les voies de tramway sur les 3/4 du chemin puis
des rails qui ne servent qu'a cette ligne jusqu' a l’aéroport. les arrêts
sont peu nombreux sur cette ligne (2 sur la dizaine de la ligne de tram)
alors voila je ne sais pas si c'est un "light rail", un train ou un tram ?
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-es] contact:website erróneo en la importación de farmacias de Madrid

[Alejandro Moreno]

He estado buscando el conjunto de datos original y parece que ha
desaparecido de la web de Datos abiertos del Ayuntamiento de Madrid por lo
que no hay url que podamos actualizar. En el caso de que el conjunto de
datos se recuperase la url apuntaba a página del ayuntamiento y no la
página de la farmacia (las que tengan) por lo que no creo que esa url deba
estar informada.

El 4 de octubre de 2017, 11:18, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso 
escribió:

> Hola.
>
> La web ha desaparecido totalmente o han pasado la misma información a otra
> url? Si tienen la misma información en otra url creo que sería más correcto
> modificar que eliminar.
>
> El lun., 2 oct. 2017 22:08, Rafael Avila Coya 
> escribió:
>
>> Hola, Alejandro:
>>
>> Bastaría con descargar con overpass las farmacias, y luego eliminar el
>> atributo de aquellas que no hayan cambiado el campo contact:website
>> He descargado todas las farmacias, y todas salvo una tienen el
>> contact:website de la importación. La única que tiene uno diferente es
>> contact:website="http://www.russianpost.ru;, que parece bastante
>> sospechoso de ser incorrecto.
>>
>> Eliminar la etiqueta de todas las farmacias es trivial, pero tiene que
>> estar de acuerdo la comunidad OSM, especialmente la local. Además, yo lo
>> haría con una cuenta especial...
>>
>> Un saludo,
>>
>> Rafael.
>>
>> On 02/10/17 17:11, Alejandro Moreno wrote:
>> > El ayuntamiento ha debido hacer algún cambio en su web y las url que se
>> > importaron en el campo contact:website de las farmacias de Madrid ya no
>> > existe. ¿Sabéis si hay alguna forma automatizada de eliminar este
>> atributo?
>> >
>> > Un saludo.
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-es mailing list
>> > Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-es mailing list
>> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>>
> --
> Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso - Sanchi
> Blog http://jorgesanz.es/ 
>
> ___
> Talk-es mailing list
> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>
>
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [OSM-talk] All the subway systems in the world

[Frederik Ramm]

Ilya,

   as a relative public transport outsider I have read your proposal and
it claimed to "merely document existing practice" and "clarify" some
things. I thought: That's great but why does it need a vote then? Now I
read from Roland, who I know is heavily involved in railway mapping,
that your proposal "conflicts with well-established mapping rules".

I think that it is very important that, if you ever want to put this to
a vote, people know whether they are voting for a change of things, or
just for a "clarification" of existing vagueness.

I'd really appreciate a compilation of exactly what I would be voting
for if I voted to accept the proposal. If people are told that they are
just voting for a "clarification" of existing rules and later find out
that they actually voted to change what Roland calls "well-established
mapping rules", that would render the whole voting process moot.

It shouldn't be too difficult to compile a factual list of where exactly
(if anywhere) your proposal actually aims to *change* something rather
than just *clarify*, and crucially it should be possible for those in
the know, including you and Roland, to agree that this list is correct.

Should your proposal be voted on and accepted, it would also be good to
modify any existing wiki pages accordingly, and ideally the proposal
could already contain the changes to be made: "Page XYZ will be amended
with this, page ABC will be clarified as follows, and paragraph
so-and-so on page ZXY will be removed".

Roland, the things you have pointed out in your message sound like
relatively minor issues that could be fixed in the proposal, rather than
leading to outright rejection. Ilya has said that his aim is not to add
more contradictions and confusions - so if you help him to refine the
proposal so it doesn't do that, everyone should win?

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-talk] All the subway systems in the world

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 2017-10-07 um 09:11 schrieb Roland Olbricht:
> I strongly suggest to oppose the proposal. To do so, you need to add
> 
> {{vote|no}} --[[User:|]] date
> 
> under the headline == Voting == once voting is opened. Said in short:
> Adding more contradictions and confusion in public transport mapping
> makes a too complex topic worse in terms of complexity.
> 
> In detail, there is a whole bunch of reasons
> 
> […]

I agree with the reasons given by Roland although I would not write them
that harsh.

There is another reason why I oppose. The proposals suggests the usage
of light_rail=yes and route=light_rail but the Public Transport version
2 schema it is based on does not contain the route type "light_rail".
That type was added after the voting (not by the author of the
proposal). I don't really know why the original proposal does not
contain this type but "light_rail" was abused a lot at that time
(2010/2011), mainly for many German S-Bahn systems which are normal trains.

Thank you, user Weide, for pointing me to this issue.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=666777#p666777

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 14:51:30 -0600
> From: Martijn van Exel 
> To: OSM Talk US 
> Subject: [Talk-us] Fwd:  Trunk
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Martijn van Exel 
> Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> To: Mark Bradley 
> Cc: OSM Talk US 
> 
> 
> I think this is the best 'procedure' we have -- discussion. It can take a 
> long time, but it
> is the only way to ensure a broad spectrum of opinions is heard. This is one 
> of the
> important things that set us apart from other maps, where decisions about 
> these
> topics are made for you.
> 
> That said -- yes it can be frustrating that some topics never seem to get 
> resolved. In
> part this is the nature of a collaborative project.. But in this case, I 
> tried to propose
> something actionable (a proposal for a
> definition) based on past and fresh insights. My hope is that it leads there 
> is enough
> of a consensus to improve the wiki.
> 
> What would you propose we do instead?
> 
> Martijn


[...]


This subject was discussed at great length in the Wiki on this page[1], 
beginning ten years ago.  No conclusion was reached.  There were basically 
three main ways of classifying roads that were proposed:  based on 
administrative level, based on physical characteristics, and functional 
classification.  It seems these systems are mutually exclusive, so in my 
opinion we must agree to adopt one of these classifications as the foundation 
of our tagging system (possibly with some agreed-upon exceptions).  Unless we 
do that, I believe this discussion will go on forever, because each system has 
some merits.

Mark

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging


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

Re: [OSM-talk] All the subway systems in the world

[Ilya Zverev]

Hi Roland. I sense a lot of hostility in your message. This is actually the 
first time in my OSM experience that I see a call to (negative) voting in this 
list. Even weirder that the voting won't start for a week or so.

> Adding more contradictions and confusion in public transport mapping makes a 
> too complex topic worse in terms of complexity.
Awesome: the page that tries to compile all the practices is making it worse 
and too complex. I wonder why nobody else have done it in six years since the 
proposal has been accepted.

> - The proposal conflicts with well-established mapping rules. The tag "layer" 
> is explicitly not to use on railway stations <...>
Ah, I see. I missed your reply at the discussion page from the 5th. Sorry for 
that, I'll update the proposal shortly to reflect this.

> - The proposal conflicts with reality. It requires a tag "colour" on lines, 
> but not all lines have a defined colour. Making colour required may lead 
> mappers to add fictitious information.
To repeat my answer from the discussion page: "official transit systems have 
official maps, which usually have consistent colours. Do you know of an 
exception?"

Also, it's not hard to find an official subway map. You don't have to go 
outside for that.

> - There are already a couple of established mapping instructions, namely 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport
> with details like
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStationMap#Level_of_Details
Five pages, 22 screen for four of these and I guess 30 more for OpenRailwayMap. 
I am trying to make a six-screen reference. All the relevant links are still 
there.

> - The author actively avoids discussion: The proposal has been announced much 
> later (2017-09-30) than it was opened (2017-09-23). It has not been announced 
> at all on the relevant mailing list (talk-transit). Even on comments on the 
> wiki discussion page, only part of them have been adressed.
Wait what.
The relevant mailing list for proposals is tagging@, and I announced the page 
on 2017-09-24: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-September/033580.html

I did not know about transit@ until you've mentioned it. Is it one of the major 
ones now, so everyone should know about it and be subscribed to it?

"Avoids discussion" — WTF.
The discussion page is 20 kilobytes, plus I answer everything in talk@ and 
tagging@.
The ONLY question not answered on the wiki discussion page is yours. I am sorry 
for that, as I said above, just missed it in the stream of other questions.

> All in all I suggest to retract the proposal and rather write a simple set of 
> instructions based on the existing wiki pages, with the errors in this 
> proposal then fixed.
That is what I did. I will not retract the proposal.

> I still do think that Ilya has good intent, and probably the intent was to 
> have a documentation what maps.me and/or the "validator" recognizes. But 
> making a wiki proposal is the wrong way to do so
Please tell of a correct way to document metro mapping, not through a wiki page.

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

Re: [OSRM-talk] OSRM trip service (TSP) limitation

[Julien Coupey]

Oops sorry, forgot links in previous message:

[1]: https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/1623
[2]: http://map.vroom-project.org/

Le 07/10/2017 à 14:49, Julien Coupey a écrit :

Hi Sasha,

For the record, you can read the ticket[1] where fixed start/end 
implementation has been discussed.


TL;DR: the same kind of approach should allow to serve your use-case 
(fix start but end at any location that is preferable for optimization). 
This is how I did it myself anyway, see link in the ticket or this demo[2].


Hope that helps,
Julien

Le 06/10/2017 à 16:17, Sasha Khapyorsky a écrit :

Hi Guys,

I've tried to use OSRM recently. Great stuff!

When using OSRM trip service, I've figured out that this call is
limited by option combintions:

rountrip=true&* or roundtrip=false=first=last

And rest combinations (such as
roundtrip=false=first=any , which I'm looking for)
marked as not implemented.

Do you have any idea about when such implementation is planned?

I'm very new with osrm-backend code (yet), but after commenting out
this limitation and using roundtrip=false=first=any
options OSRM provides the similar and valid paths (at least in couple
of tests, didn't check it in deep yet).

Any ideas, suggestions?

Many Thanks,
Sasha

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



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


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

Re: [OSRM-talk] OSRM trip service (TSP) limitation

[Julien Coupey]

Hi Sasha,

For the record, you can read the ticket[1] where fixed start/end 
implementation has been discussed.


TL;DR: the same kind of approach should allow to serve your use-case 
(fix start but end at any location that is preferable for optimization). 
This is how I did it myself anyway, see link in the ticket or this demo[2].


Hope that helps,
Julien

Le 06/10/2017 à 16:17, Sasha Khapyorsky a écrit :

Hi Guys,

I've tried to use OSRM recently. Great stuff!

When using OSRM trip service, I've figured out that this call is
limited by option combintions:

rountrip=true&* or roundtrip=false=first=last

And rest combinations (such as
roundtrip=false=first=any , which I'm looking for)
marked as not implemented.

Do you have any idea about when such implementation is planned?

I'm very new with osrm-backend code (yet), but after commenting out
this limitation and using roundtrip=false=first=any
options OSRM provides the similar and valid paths (at least in couple
of tests, didn't check it in deep yet).

Any ideas, suggestions?

Many Thanks,
Sasha

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



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

Re: [Talk-at] Landesstraßennamen

[Stefan Kopetzky]

On 2017-10-07 09:43, gppes_...@web.de wrote:
> Wieso wird in diveresn Plattformen alles so schlecht geredet? Vielleicht
> wollte der Mapper einfach die Karte verbessern und hat bei seinem
> Versuch ohne schlechten Vorsatz "ins Klo gegriffen". Sicher es ist nicht
> optimal wenn man im grossen Stil "Verbesserungen" durchfuehren moechte,
> sondern es waere von Vorteil in der Community (hier oder im Webforum)
> mal nachzufragen.
>  
> OSM ist ein tolles Projekt. Weniger jammern, mehr konstruktiv
> vorschlagen, freundlicher sein, einfach das Hobby geniessen und damit
> leben, dass es auch noch andere "Verbesserer" gibt, die moeglicherweise
> sogar "im eigenen Vorgarten" Aenderungen durchfuehren.

Ich gebe freimütig zu mich (ned grad konstruktiv) über den konkreten
Anlassfall lustig gemacht zu haben, aber im Kern hat das wenig mit
*schlechtreden* tun. Am Motiv "Verbesserung" ist grundsätzlich nix
falsches dran und ins Klo greift auch jeder einmal. Das ist
unbestritten. Was mich aber an der Herangehensweise, ich vermute,
einiger Weniger, grundsätzlich stört ist eher der Zugang, dass die
Hauptmotivation (das korreliert gefühlt mit dem Erfassungsgrad in
Mitteleuropa - woanders ist eh genug tabula rasa) dahin geht nicht Dinge
beizutragen, sondern großflächig zu "bereinigen". Das gepaart mit einer
nicht vorhandenen Diskussionsbereitschaft ist, egal ob Newbie oder
Langzeitmapper, nicht in Ordnung.

Grundsätzlich halt ich es ja, im Unterschied zu anderen FOSS-Projekten
für gut, dass jeder niederschwellig mitmachen kann und nicht durch die
Projektorganisation oder Relevanzkriterien (obwohl da schon die ganzen
"Inspektoren" in die Richtung weisen) o.ä. sich einem Haufen von
Torwächtern ausliefert, aber ein grundlegendes Moment hier ist halt
schon die Diskussionsbereitschaft. Wenn die nicht vorhanden ist, dann
gehts halt nicht, und schon gar nicht mit großflächigen Änderungen

LG,
Stefan


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] parking pour vélos et motos

[Éric Gillet]

Le 8 septembre 2017 à 17:23, marc marc  a écrit :

> je me suis demandé ce
> qui interdit à un vélo de se garer sur un parking moto.
> a mon avis rien. et donc probablement qu'un parking
> dit "2 roues" n'est rien d'autre qu'un parking moto


La forme des ancres moto peut être vraiment pas pratique pour un vélo sans
béquille, et inversement. Par exemple à Lyon :
- Borne vélo 
- Bornes moto 

Il y a un autre aspect pour l'accessibilité d'un parking "vélo" à des motos
: légalement les 2 roues motorisés n'ont pas le droit de rouler sur le
trottoir, donc les parkings vélos sur trottoir ne sont pas vraiment
utilisables par des 2RM.
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-it] Palermo - marciapiedi

[Irene Saltini]

Riguardo alla relazione, esistono sia street che associatedStreet, la
seconda mi pare di ricordare sia più utilizzata, ma dovrebbe includere
soltanto gli indirizzi. La prima invece può includere anche altre entità e
io personalmente l’ho usata per includere cestini dei rifiuti, parcheggi
per biciclette, etc.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Importation des hauteurs de bâtiments sur Nice

[Frédéric Rodrigo]

Le 06/10/2017 à 23:42, Vincent Frison a écrit :
Le 6 octobre 2017 à 18:37, marc marc > a écrit :


Le 04. 10. 17 à 21:19, Vincent Frison a écrit :
> malheureusement il n'y a pas beaucoup
> de villes en France où je peux trouver en open data le MNT et le MNS
> (avec une bonne résolution en plus).

est-ce parce qu'ils n'ont pas de moyen de rendre la donnée facilement
accessible ou simplement parce qu'elle n'est pas opendata ?


De ce que j'ai pu voir voici les villes qui proposent actuellement du 
MNT (ou des courbes de niveaux) en open data:

- Nice
- Montpellier
- Lyon
- Lille
- Bordeaux
- Poitiers
- Clermont
- Genève

Mais apparemment aucune ville ne propose directement des MNS mis à 
part Genève et Montpellier (Christian vient d'ailleurs de m'aider sur 
le forum pour convertir le MNT de cette dernière: 
http://forum.openstreetmap.fr/viewtopic.php?f=5=6585 
).


Ceci dit pour Nice je leur ai envoyé un mail pour obtenir le MNS (qui 
leur a permis de construire leur MNT j'imagine), peut-être ça pourrait 
aussi marcher avec les autres villes qui proposent déjà un MNT. En 
tout cas ça ne coûte pas grand chose de demander...


Sur Bordeaux il n'y a pas de MNS, mais il y a un modèle 3D du bâti. 
C'est même la approche, mais la données est aussi disponible :

https://data.bordeaux-metropole.fr/?new=80882

Frédéric.


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

Re: [Talk-de] Neue Karte zur Geldautomatensuche finde.cash!

[Walter Nordmann]

Hallo Nils,

nette kleine Karte.

Nur das Wort "Löschen" im Popup verwirrt (mich) ein wenig. 
"Bearbeiten/Löschen" oder was ähnliches wäre mMn. besser.


Gruss
walter


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

[Talk-de] Neue Karte zur Geldautomatensuche finde.cash!

[Nils Vierus]

Hallo OSM-Community,

ich bin seit fast 10 Jahren OSM-Mapper und Hobby-Kartenentwickler und habe mich 
bislang hauptsächlich mit Fahrradrouten, Verleihstationen, Fahrrad-Parkplätzen 
u.ä. beschäftigt, vor allem an meinem früheren Wohnort Luxemburg.
Die Karte zur Geldautomatensuche von M. Bleil 
(http://www.geldautomaten-suche.org/) hat mich vor einiger Zeit auf die Idee 
gebracht, etwas Ähnliches (und durchaus Nützliches) einmal selbst zu versuchen 
und eine solche Karte um eine möglichst einfache, Smartphone-taugliche 
Erfassungsmöglichkeit zu ergänzen, um die Datenlage im Bereich der 
Geldautomaten verbessern zu helfen. Das Ergebnis dieser Bemühungen findet sich 
nun in der Version 0.9.5 unter http://finde.cash.
Die Karte ist mit Leaflet realisiert, die responsive Oberfläche mit Bootstrap 
4. Die Daten werden mit der Overpass API gelesen. Für die Routenermittlung 
(derzeit nur zu Fuss, Fahrrad und ÖPNV sollen folgen) wird das Modul von 
route360.net verwendet.
Die Kartendarstellung fokussiert sich besonders auf die Öffnungszeiten, die 
bereits im Marker selbst angezeigt werden. Die Erfassung von Öffnungszeiten für 
neu einzutragende Geldautomaten erfolgt nach einem vereinfachten Schema, um die 
Einstiegshürde gering zu halten. Ein Erfassung komplexer Öffnungszeiten gemäß 
OSM Konvention ist aber auch möglich. Die Editiermöglichkeitern neuer Objekte 
reichen naturgemäß nicht an die großen Editoren heran, sollen sie aber auch 
nicht. Neben den wichtigen Attributen wie Operator, Name und Bankenverbund 
lassen sich aber auch die Adresse (unterstützt durch die reverse geolocation 
von Google) sowie max. drei freie Atrribute erfassen.

Die dt. Bankenverbünde werden durch farbige Marker dargestellt und lassen sich 
ein- bzw. ausblenden. Die Karte kann aber freilich auch weltweit verwendet 
werden (weitere Sprachen neben Deutsch sollen folgen).

Für das Eintragen bzw. Löschen von Geldautomaten wird ein OSM-Account benötigt. 
Geplant ist die Möglichkeit, bei bestehenden Automaten/Bankfilialen die 
Erfassung einer Öffnungszeit auch ohne OSM Account zu ermöglichen und dafür 
einen technischen Usernamen zu verwenden (ähnlich wie bei wheelmap). Es soll 
die Hürde für schnelle Edits senken (Mir ist bewusst, dass dieses Vorgehen 
durchaus diskussionswürdig ist).

Ich würde mich über Feedback über die Karte freuen, besonders über meine 
Vorgehensweise zur Erfassung von OSM-Objekten.

Eine Veröffentlichung des Projekts auf GitHub folgt in Kürze (sobald ich 
verstanden habe, wie das gemacht wird…).

Viele Grüße
Nils, Berlin 
(OSM: Nils_V)

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

[Talk-us] Code for America

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

have other members of this mailing list received an advertising email
from Code for America ("We have work to do together") today? Their web
site says that they subscribed me to their advertising list "because you
have either opted in, attended an event, or applied to our program",
none of which I remember doing. It's totally possible that I simply
forgot though.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

[Christoph Hormann]

Thanks,

i think this is a constructive approach to automated edits and if 
everyone worked this way i don't think we would have a problem.

In particular:

* your bot is well documented
* you discussed it with the local community
* it has a good supervision to editing volume ratio
* it runs only on a small area you are familiar with

The forum discussion by the way also in this case shows how important it 
is to look in depth at the area you work on and its particularities.

I would be careful interpreting the lack of objections to your automated 
edits in the local community as universal approval though.  There are 
likely also locals who do not think this is a good idea but due to the 
low intensity and low volume of edits they don't see it necessary to 
say anything.

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

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

Re: [Talk-it] Mapping party a Viverone

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Articolo chiaro.. credo porterà nuovi mapper. Complimenti
all'organizzazione :-)

http://www.lastampa.it/2017/10/06/edizioni/biella/con-le-mappe-digitali-sul-lago-il-turismo-gRFiQwarE40kG6xxpWGUFO/pagina.html

Il 23/set/2017 14:24, "Andrea Musuruane"  ha scritto:

> Ciao a tutti,
>
> *Domenica 1° ottobre 2017* OpenStreetMap organizza un *mapping party a
> Viverone (BI)*.
>
> L’evento si svolge in collaborazione con il BiLUG Biella Linux User Group
> , l'IvLUG Ivrea Linux User Group
> , lo ZAC! Hackers' Café
>  di Ivrea, la Compagnia dell’Armanac
>  di Santhià e con il patrocinio e supporto del Comune
> di Viverone  e dell'Associazione
> Slowland Piemonte.
> Un mapping party è un evento durante il quale nuovi appassionati ed
> esperti si ritrovano per rilevare un luogo e passare una giornata insieme.
> Tutti sono benvenuti e in particolare chi vuole saperne di più su
> OpenStreetMap e gli open data.
>
> *Il ritrovo è fissato per le 9.45 presso la Biblioteca, Via Umberto I 109,
> 13886 Viverone (BI) .*
>
> Il programma sarà il seguente:
>
>- *ore 9.45* ritrovo presso la biblioteca
>- *ore 10.00* inizio lavori e spiegazione introduttiva
>- *ore 10.30* divisione in gruppi e passeggiata con raccolta dati
>attraverso le vie di Viverone
>- *ore 13.00* pranzo al sacco
>- *ore 14.00* elaborazione dei dati raccolti e inserimento dei dati in
>OpenStreetMap
>- *ore 18.00* conclusione della giornata
>
> L’organizzazione fornirà le nozioni necessarie per poter raccogliere i
> dati sul territorio e le mappe cartacee su cui appuntarli. Alcuni
> collaboratori di OpenStreetMap seguiranno e aiuteranno i neofiti durante la
> rilevazione.
>
> Chi vuole può portare:
>
>- un ricevitore GPS, per acquisire tracce GPX e annotare waypoint
>- un macchina fotografica digitale, per georeferenziare le foto
>- uno smartphone, da usare come ricevitore GPS o come macchina
>fotografica digitale, oppure per l'uso di applicazioni specifiche (OsmAnd,
>OSM tracker, OSM Contributor, Street Complete, Vespucci)
>- un computer portatile, per l'inserimento dei dati tramite JOSM
>
> Durante la giornata sarà presente anche Alessandro Palmas
> , Project Manager
> OpenStreetMap per Wikimedia Italia.
>
> *Per motivi organizzativi, si pregano gli interessati di segnalare la loro
> partecipazione.*
>
> Ulteriori dettagli si possono trovare su http://tinyurl.com/Viverone
> oppure https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Viverone_mapping_party
>
>
> *Per adesioni e informazioni: mappingviver...@gmail.com
> *
> Ciao,
>
> Andrea
>
>
> ___
> 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: [Talk-it] Nome del costruttore

[demon.box]

dieterdreist wrote
> per una strada sarebbe meglio “constructor”
> non è usato molto, ma qualcuno c’è:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/constructor

grazie, sì mi sembra più pertinente.
ciao

--enrico





--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html

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

Re: [Talk-at] Landesstraßennamen

[gppes_osm]

Hallo liebe alle,

 

Stefan, das geht jetzt nicht ausdruecklich an Dich...

 

Wieso wird in diveresn Plattformen alles so schlecht geredet? Vielleicht wollte der Mapper einfach die Karte verbessern und hat bei seinem Versuch ohne schlechten Vorsatz "ins Klo gegriffen". Sicher es ist nicht optimal wenn man im grossen Stil "Verbesserungen" durchfuehren moechte, sondern es waere von Vorteil in der Community (hier oder im Webforum) mal nachzufragen.

 

OSM ist ein tolles Projekt. Weniger jammern, mehr konstruktiv vorschlagen, freundlicher sein, einfach das Hobby geniessen und damit leben, dass es auch noch andere "Verbesserer" gibt, die moeglicherweise sogar "im eigenen Vorgarten" Aenderungen durchfuehren.

 

Lg, Gppes

 

Gesendet: Samstag, 07. Oktober 2017 um 09:13 Uhr
Von: "Stefan Kopetzky" 
An: talk-at@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Talk-at] Landesstraßennamen

On 2017-10-06 23:06, grubernd wrote:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Negjana/history
> http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?Negjana
>
> eine grandiose Sammlung von Änderungen aus der Abteilung "ma ois wuascht
> was ihr sagts, i weiss es besser". da sind fast mehr Reverts als Edits
> drin:
>
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=399091

schaut ja eher aus wie ein sozialpsychologisches Forschungsprojekt, dass
versucht die Geduld der Community auszuloten...


___
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: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[m.james]

Just notice the main road coming off the highway has a different name as it 
passes by Biniguy to that of the surrounding road section.

You might want to check that out as well.



-Original Message-
From: m.james [mailto:m.ja...@internode.on.net] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 5:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

The village designation is coming from nswgnb, I tried to get their info for 
why it has that designation but got a 404 link from their website.

We should fall back on the osm standards which give it as a hamlet as it is not 
>1000 in population.

The second node should be removed as it is describing the same thing.

I like to have these tagged as an area around the main part of the settlement 
but they tend to not render on the standard osm rendering engine even though 
area is an acceptable method of tagging for places, you can decide which ever 
you prefer.

Not sure if we are allowed to pull the postcode info from AP or not but if we 
can you should add it as it is nice to have that info.

The relation looks like it has been edited recently, you could message the 
person working on that to get them to check it for correctness.

-Original Message-
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 7:59 AM
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there are some 
'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.


However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

  Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


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



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



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

Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[m.james]

The village designation is coming from nswgnb, I tried to get their info for 
why it has that designation but got a 404 link from their website.

We should fall back on the osm standards which give it as a hamlet as it is not 
>1000 in population.

The second node should be removed as it is describing the same thing.

I like to have these tagged as an area around the main part of the settlement 
but they tend to not render on the standard osm rendering engine even though 
area is an acceptable method of tagging for places, you can decide which ever 
you prefer.

Not sure if we are allowed to pull the postcode info from AP or not but if we 
can you should add it as it is nice to have that info.

The relation looks like it has been edited recently, you could message the 
person working on that to get them to check it for correctness.

-Original Message-
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2017 7:59 AM
To: talk-au 
Subject: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there are some 
'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.


However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

  Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


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



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

Re: [Talk-it] Palermo - marciapiedi

[Catonano]

Il giorno 15 settembre 2017 10:00, Roberto Inzerillo <
roberto.inzeri...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Ho appena aggiunto il tag name=* ai marciapiedi highway=footway /
> footway=sidewalk come suggerito nel wiki così da identificare i nomi delle
> strade per ogni marciapiede. Pensavo che così facendo, software di routing
> come mapzen avrebbero mostrato  esplicitamente il nome della via ...
>
> E però ho avuto un risultato inatteso e sgradito: adesso su OSM i tile
> vengono renderizzati con il nome della via su ogni marciapiede!!! Non si
> può guardare :-(
>

diciamo che non si mappa per il rendering ;-)

Il renderig di marciapiedi col nome può sempre essere corretto in seguito !

Ma comunque secondo me sevirebbe una relazione "strada" che dovrebbe
contenere la strada e tutti gli annessi. Marciapiedi, numeri civici,
slarghi, manifesti e cartelloni...

Poi non tutti i marciapiedi sono uguali. Alcuni sono larghissimi e alberati
e altri strettissimi. Una highway non tiene conto di questo, mi pare, a
meno di non scrivere la larghezza in un tag apposito (imagino il casino con
le unità di misura)

Senza usare relazioni direi che la higway mi pare la soluzione migliore,
non sono daccordo che diventa pesante in fase di editing (anche se non ho
ancora provato)
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk] Could we just pause any wikidata edits for a month or two?

[Safwat Halaby]

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 17:21 -0400, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> While I have nothing against pausing bulk wikidata additions for a
> month,
> we should be very clear here:
> * several communities use bots to maintain and inject these tags,
> e.g.
> Israel. Should they pause their bots?

I am the Maintainer of the IL bot. I don't think it should be paused.
Everyone here is fine with it, and it's not specific to wikidata tags.
It maintains shop/brand/fuel chains and keeps some of their tags
consistent. I documented[1] the bot transparently, and anyone can
easily modify the bot's "injected" tags easily if it's ever needed. 

Whatever is eventually decided regarding the Wiki tags can easily be
applied to the bot. I see no reason for the bot to cease working. It's
not a Wiki bot.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SafwatHalaby/scripts/brand



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

Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

[Safwat Halaby]

Drudgery is evil, well written bots save us from drudgery, and allow us
to use human time more productively, therefore well written bots are
good.

Why should a human clean up whitespace, or add the "cuisine" tag to a
hundred "Burger King" branches? Shouldn't our creative brains invest
their time elsewhere?

I don't think a generic sweeping rule is a good idea. Each bot should
be analyzed individually. Badly written bots, the ones that add work
rather than save work, should be stopped. Namespace or database
separation mean the bots cannot as effectively save us from drudgery.
The point of good bots is to save the work that needs to be done on the
actual OSM data.

However, I do think the "burden of proof" lies on the bot owner; It is
the owner's job to explain why the bot is needed, why it is "good", and
to document it extensively and make its operations very transparent. I
try *very hard* to do that with my scripts. Every single changeset and
algorithm is logged at my talk page, all changesets have the bot=yes
tag, a dedicated bot user is used, etc.

Again, I think every case is to be handled individually, with BOP on
the bot owner. bad/undocumented/undiscussed/non-transparent bots are
the problem.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SafwatHalaby#SafwatHalaby_bot

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Hiérarchie des relations d’itinéraire cyclistes

[Axelos]

Salut les contributeurs d’OSM,

J’ai participé dernièrement à l’inauguration d’une voie verte faisant
partie de la véloroute V54 dans le Grand-Est, j’ai donc retranscrit
l’aménagement puis modifier les métas donnés des relations qui d’après
les historiques représentaient bien la V54 puis se sont transformé en un
itinéraire touristique qui est apparu officiellement en 2016 « La Meuse
à Vélo ».
V54 est national, Meuse à Vélo Européen.
À terme il est probable que les deux itinéraires utilisent les mêmes
chemins.
Comme la V54 n’était plus référencé j’ai du la remettre, bref… il
fallait passer par cette étape.

Après m’être bien tâté sur comment faire, je me suis posé une question :
est-il possible d’utiliser un morceau de relation d’un itinéraire (la
V54) pour l’intégrer dans une autre relation d’un autre itinéraire ?
J’ai testé.

J’ai utilisé la carte https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org pour avoir un
visu sur mes modifications, et j’ai consulté cette page :
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/help/rendering/hierarchies

Qui répond à ma question : oui. Elle explique aussi que si les tags
network sont similaires, alors la relation enfant est prit en compte
uniquement dans la relation parent, c’est-à-dire que l’enfant n’est pas
visible sur la carte.
À contrario si le network est différent, alors les deux relations
restent présentes.
Dans la pratique, j’ai constaté que les tags from et to si utilisés
doivent être aussi identique pour ignorer l’enfant.

Donc ça permet de jongler dans l’intégration de relations enfants qui
font partie du même itinéraire, donc inutiles seuls, mais aussi
d’itinéraires d’un niveau inférieur (icn > ncn > rcn > lcn) tout en les
gardant disponibles dans la carte.

Comme j’ai pour projet prochain de prolonger la relation V52
(Paris-Stransbourg) sur le secteur de Nancy, et que celle-ci empreinte
un itinéraire régional sur environ 35 km (la Boucles de la Moselle). Il
y a également un itinéraire européen (Paris-Prague) dont la relation
existe déjà en proposed.
L’intérêt est ne pas créer trois relations qui reprennent sur ces 35 km
tout le cheminement.
Mais plutôt intégrer ces chemins dans une relation enfant Boucles de la
Moselle, dont la relation est intégrée dans la V52, dont celle-ci sera
probablement intégrée dans la route Paris-Prague.

Mais avant de commercer, deux questions me viennent à l’esprit :
Dans le wiki, je n’ai pas trouvé de documentation similaire à ce qui est
indiqué sur https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/ Est-ce que la pratique
est réellement légitime, est-ce que finalement je ne tag pas pour le rendu ?

Cette pratique ne risque-t-elle pas d’être trop compliqué pour les
contributeurs « néophytes » qui désire eux aussi contribuer à ces
relations ?

J’ai déjà édité de nombreuses relations enfants, mais les parents
étaient toujours des relations du même itinéraire.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] All the subway systems in the world

[Roland Olbricht]

Hi,

I strongly suggest to oppose the proposal. To do so, you need to add

{{vote|no}} --[[User:|]] date

under the headline == Voting == once voting is opened. Said in short:
Adding more contradictions and confusion in public transport mapping 
makes a too complex topic worse in terms of complexity.


In detail, there is a whole bunch of reasons

- The proposal conflicts with well-established mapping rules. The tag
  "layer" is explicitly not to use on railway stations, as
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer tells:

  "Ways in buildings (or similar structures like multilevel parking
   lots, shopping centers, airports, railway stations, some
   multilevel bridges and roads...) should be mostly described with
   level=* instead of layer."

- The proposal conflicts with reality. It requires a tag "colour" on
  lines, but not all lines have a defined colour. Making colour required
  may lead mappers to add fictitious information.

  Other examples where the proposal is at odds with reality is that most
  subway platforms in the world are on level -2, some on -3. Also,
  stop positions are not necessarily meaningful on networks with varying
  train lengths.

- There are already a couple of established mapping instructions, namely
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport
  with details like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStationMap#Level_of_Details

  Hence, yet another standard makes things more complicated.

- The author actively avoids discussion:

  The proposal has been announced much later (2017-09-30) than it was
  opened (2017-09-23). It has not been announced at all on the relevant
  mailing list (talk-transit).

  Even on comments on the wiki discussion page, only part of them have
  been adressed.

All in all I suggest to retract the proposal and rather write a simple 
set of instructions based on the existing wiki pages, with the errors in 
this proposal then fixed.


I still do think that Ilya has good intent, and probably the intent was 
to have a documentation what maps.me and/or the "validator" recognizes. 
But making a wiki proposal is the wrong way to do so, in particular 
given that the software still has the mentioned flaws.


Best regards,

Roland

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

Re: [Talk-at] Landesstraßennamen

[Stefan Kopetzky]

On 2017-10-06 23:06, grubernd wrote:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Negjana/history
> http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?Negjana
> 
> eine grandiose Sammlung von Änderungen aus der Abteilung "ma ois wuascht
> was ihr sagts, i weiss es besser". da sind fast mehr Reverts als Edits
> drin:
> 
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=399091

schaut ja eher aus wie ein sozialpsychologisches Forschungsprojekt, dass
versucht die Geduld der Community auszuloten...


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