Re: [talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Andrew Davidson]

On 7/10/17 08:59, Warin wrote:


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


Yeap, need to be careful when interpreting ABS data. In 2011 Biniguy was 
a 2500 square kilometre locality and had a population of 625. By 2016 
the Biniguy locality had been shrunk considerably and has a population 
of 147. The population of the "CBD" around the silo is a massive 78 
(plus/minus the random error the ABS adds "to protect the 
confidentiality of data"). The old NATMAP standard was that you needed a 
population of at least 200 to be considered a populated place, so I'm 
not sure if Biniguy even qualifies to be a hamlet.




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



I don't know. When I started importing the NSW admin_level 10 boundaries 
the existing tagging practice was to add a place tag. I set all of my 
place tags to locality by default and added a fixme tag to review this. 
The most important thing seems to be to add the place node to the admin 
relation as a label as this lets consumers like Nominatim know that they 
are the same thing (it also allows the two place tags to be 
programmatically checked).


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Stěhování poloha.net

[Marián Kyral]

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Petr Vejsada 
Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 9. 10. 2017 1:55:59
Předmět: [Talk-cz] Stěhování poloha.net
"Ahoj,

za chvíli nastane (doufám) krátký výpadek poloha.net za účelem stěhování z
Amsterdamu do Mnichova k Contabo.

V Contabo jsou "trošku" výhodnější parametry, nuž posuďte sami.

TransIP (současný hosting):
Cena: 25E/měsíc
RAM: 4GB
Disk: 150GB SSD
CPU: 2

Contabo (nový hosting):
Cena: 9E/měsíc
RAM: 12GB
Disk: 300GB SSD
CPU: 4

Stěhování proběhne tak, že je synchronizovaná DB na starém a novém
hostingu přes streaming replikaci. Následně vypnu služby na starém
hostingu a na novém udělám major upgrade na PostgreSQL 10, což nelze dělat
online a prakticky doba upgrade databáze je tou dobou výpadku. Je to
odzkoušené, tak se to snad naostro povede stejně jako se povedlo při
pokusu. Po upgrade DB zapnu služby na starém i novém serveru tak, že že
vše na starém serveru se bude obracet na databázi na novém serveru. Pak
přijde změna DNS a v průběhu několika hodin už byste měli dostávat IP
adresu nového hostingu. Do té doby se dají očekávat pomalejší odezvy,
neboť databáze bude v jiné zemi než web.

IP adresa nového serveru je 5.189.142.205 a 2a02:c207:2014:1541::1.

Díky Michalu Grézlovi, že tento nový hosting objevil :).
"



Ahoj,

díky za info. A držím palce.




Marián


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Jak najít smazaná data?

[Marián Kyral]

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Jan Macura 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 8. 10. 2017 17:44:14
Předmět: [Talk-cz] Jak najít smazaná data?
"



Ahoj,


někdo smazal cestu, a mě zajímá kdo, kdy a proč.
Existuje nějaký mechanismus, jak tuto cestu (a tyto informace) nalézt, když
vím jen to, kde dříve byla?




"



Ahoj,

když si na openstreetmap.org najedeš na danou oblast a stiskneš tlačítko
"Historie", tak se ti otevře seznam changesetů, které danou oblast obsahují.
Bohužel tam budou i changesety, které jsou třeba přes celou republiku nebo i
Evropu.










Co konkrétně daný changeset změnil se dá zobrazit pomocí https://overpass-
api.de/achavi/?changeset=12345

kde za 12345 zadáš číslo changesetu, které tě zajímá. Ovšem funguje to dobře
jen na menší changesety. U těch velkých, přes velkou oblast mi to bohužel
málokdy funguje :-(




Možná existuje i nějaká lepší cesta, ale tu neznám.




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

[Talk-cz] Stěhování poloha.net

[Petr Vejsada]

Ahoj,

za chvíli nastane (doufám) krátký výpadek poloha.net za účelem stěhování z 
Amsterdamu do Mnichova k Contabo.

V Contabo jsou "trošku" výhodnější parametry, nuž posuďte sami.

TransIP (současný hosting):
Cena: 25E/měsíc
RAM: 4GB
Disk: 150GB SSD
CPU: 2

Contabo (nový hosting):
Cena: 9E/měsíc
RAM: 12GB
Disk: 300GB SSD
CPU: 4

Stěhování proběhne tak, že je synchronizovaná DB na starém a novém 
hostingu přes streaming replikaci. Následně vypnu služby na starém 
hostingu a na novém udělám major upgrade na PostgreSQL 10, což nelze dělat 
online a prakticky doba upgrade databáze je tou dobou výpadku. Je to 
odzkoušené, tak se to snad naostro povede stejně jako se povedlo při 
pokusu. Po upgrade DB zapnu služby na starém i novém serveru tak, že že 
vše na starém serveru se bude obracet na databázi na novém serveru. Pak 
přijde změna DNS a v průběhu několika hodin už byste měli dostávat IP 
adresu nového hostingu. Do té doby se dají očekávat pomalejší odezvy, 
neboť databáze bude v jiné zemi než web.

IP adresa nového serveru je 5.189.142.205 a 2a02:c207:2014:1541::1.

Díky Michalu Grézlovi, že tento nový hosting objevil :).

--
Petr

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

[OSM-talk] Example found: Re:Overlapping brands (was "Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*")

[Holger Jeromin]

Andy Townsend  Wrote in message:
> On 27/09/2017 15:35, John F. Eldredge wrote:
.
> 
> Can anyone think of an example where two unrelated brands share the same 
> name and category of business in the same geographical area?
> 


i have not read the full thread in detail, but in case no one has
 written it:

There are two german supermarkts with the same name "netto"!

The "black"  one https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Netto_(Handelskette) is imho located more in the east of germany
 (not connected with the old DDR?) and the "yellow" one
 https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netto_Marken-Discount is more
 active in the western parts.

But there is no sharp geographic line!

-- 
Holger


Android NewsGroup Reader
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/


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

[talk-au] Brisbane's First Ever Missing Maps Mapathon is coming soon (28th October)

[David Dean]

Help put the world's vulnerable people on the map!


** Brisbane's First Ever Missing Maps Mapathon is coming soon (28th October)

Hi OSM,

Brisbane is going to have its first ever Missing Maps Mapathon in a few short 
weeks, at Toowong Library from 15:00 - 18:00 on Saturday the 28th of October.

Details below, please register at 
http://openstreetmap.us16.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f9d4c3db0d039ad4bed7a1489=4f10229caa=a657d4157e.

I hope to see you there, and please pass this message onto anyone who you think 
might be interested. Everyone is welcome!


** Schedule:


We’ll be mapping throughout the afternoon, in addition to:

14:45: Registration & set-up

15:00: Introduction to Missing Maps and practical information

15:15: Missing Maps Training

16:00: Lightning talks & snacks

17:30: End of day presentation and mapping progress talk

18:00: Social event/dinner at Royal Exchange Hotel


** What is it?


The aim of the Missing Maps Project 
(http://openstreetmap.us16.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f9d4c3db0d039ad4bed7a1489=d2ef8b0bf5=a657d4157e)
  is to map the most crisis-prone parts of the developing world. With your help 
we can directly improve the lives of some of the planet’s most vulnerable 
people. Both beginners and experienced mappers are welcome to join this 
mapathon.


** Where will we be mapping?


We will be mapping high priority tasks from The HOT Tasking Manager 
(http://openstreetmap.us16.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f9d4c3db0d039ad4bed7a1489=833ed9af9a=a657d4157e)
 .


** What do I need?


Just a laptop (please bring your own with you), a mouse and enthusiasm (mouse 
isn’t absolutely necessary but makes the mapping A LOT faster).


** Where is it?


This time we’re very kindly hosted by the Toowong Library, located in Toowong 
Village Shopping Centre at 9 Sherwood Rd, Toowong, or 
http://openstreetmap.us16.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f9d4c3db0d039ad4bed7a1489=c00381813e=a657d4157e
 in OpenStreetMap.


You are receiving this email because you have corresponded with me about 
OpenStreetMap in Brisbane.

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences 
(http://openstreetmap.us16.list-manage.com/profile?u=f9d4c3db0d039ad4bed7a1489=9d8b5f8071=a657d4157e)
or ** unsubscribe from this list 
(http://openstreetmap.us16.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=f9d4c3db0d039ad4bed7a1489=9d8b5f8071=a657d4157e=e9bada6c82)
.
 Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter_medium=email_campaign=monkey_rewards=f9d4c3db0d039ad4bed7a1489=1___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> Kevin Kenny  writes:
>
> > Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were
> > to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character
> > and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve
> > different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly mismatched?
> > Then the discussion could revolve around the question of what
> > tagging is for physical character, what tagging is for regional
> > significance, and what are objective criteria for assessing
> > significance. (It's somewhat subjective, and therefore
> > contrary to the OSM spirit of "tag what is visible only on the
> > ground", but it's so necessary to getting mapping and routing
> > right that I think we have to grasp that particular bull by
> > the horns.)
>
> I think that would be a great step forward.
>
> The elephant in the room, though, is that the behavior of the default
> render is considered extremely important, and I think a lot of the
> debate is at least somewhat tied to controlling how that comes out.
>

Not sure where my previous reply in the thread went.  I'm wondering if
there's another tag that's in common with this situation?  That way the
highway tag can just deal with whether the way is some sort of surface road
or if it's an expressway or if it's a freeway.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Greg Troxel]

Kevin Kenny  writes:

> Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were
> to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character
> and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve
> different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly mismatched?
> Then the discussion could revolve around the question of what
> tagging is for physical character, what tagging is for regional
> significance, and what are objective criteria for assessing
> significance. (It's somewhat subjective, and therefore
> contrary to the OSM spirit of "tag what is visible only on the
> ground", but it's so necessary to getting mapping and routing
> right that I think we have to grasp that particular bull by
> the horns.)

I think that would be a great step forward.

The elephant in the room, though, is that the behavior of the default
render is considered extremely important, and I think a lot of the
debate is at least somewhat tied to controlling how that comes out.


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

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

[Tod Fitch]

FYI, I reviewed the ways with redacted names in California (all in San Diego 
County) and where possible set the names per Tiger 2017 data. In most cases the 
names set by chdr matched the Tiger names but there were some exceptions.

There are a roads that did not have names showing in the Tiger 2017 overlay 
image layer in JOSM. Unfortunately there was no Mapillary imagery for guidance 
on those so they were left unnamed.

Tod

> On Oct 7, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> 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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Select and correct a discovered key duplication of sorts in JOSM

[Michael Booth]

I think select all includes all of the vertex nodes in each of the ways. 
You need to select all, ctrl + F, then choose "find in selection" and 
click "type:way" to select only the ways.


On 08/10/2017 15:50, Bob Hawkins wrote:
I return to this thread because there is something I do not 
understand.  I wish not to make an error undertaking the change I 
plan.  I queried ‘ref:chiltern_society=* within South Oxfordshire in 
Overpass Turbo and exported the result to JOSM.  Selecting all, and 
viewing the results I see in excess of 3,000 unset values against the 
keys. ‘ref_chiltern_society’ reads ‘<220 different, 3416 unset>’, for 
example.  ‘prow_ref’ shows the same, fortunately, because the numbers 
should match.  I fail to understand the number of unset values if I 
have queried a particular key.  Why are there not 220 ways selected?  
I ran the query without nodes and relations and the result was the 
same.  I believe it would be acceptable to edit the tags in question 
but am concerned to know the answer before I do so.
One further question: how do I search for the keys 
‘ref:chiltern_society’ and ‘source:prow_ref’ in JOSM?  It appears that 
the use of a colon is not recognised in these cases because of its use 
in other circumstances?


 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


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



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

Re: [Talk-it] Disallineamento delle immagini satellitari e vertici IGM95

[Damjan Gerl]

Solo una domanda: ma siamo sicuri che i vertici igm siano posizionati 
precisamente sulla vetta e non altrove?


Damjan


08.10.2017 - 22:24 - mbranco:

Ho notato che in Wikipedia sovente le pagine delle cime di montagne riportano
longitudine e latitudine (per es. [1],[2]). Alcune di queste pagine
riportano anche, nelle note, il link alla "scheda Monografica Vertice
IGM95".

Ho i seguenti dubbi:

1) Anche se il sito IGM consiglia [3] di consultare i dati "gratuiti" (tra
cui le coordinate) prima di procedere all'acquisto dei punti geodetici,
suppongo che le esigenze di licenza di OSM non siano comunque soddisfatte,
vero? (e per Wikipedia invece sì?)

2) Le coordinate IGM sono secondo ETRF2000. Ora, rispetto al nostro WGS84,
mi risulta [3] che la differenza con ETRF2000 sia inferiore a 40 cm.
Però la differenza che vedo rispetto ai dati OSM - per es. per la cima del
Monte Emilius - è anche di 100-200 metri, come mai?

3) Se mai si liberassero i dati dei punti geodetici IGM, non avremmo un modo
ottimale per riallineare le immagini satellitari?

Un saluto,
Marco

[1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Emilius
[2] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colma_di_Mombarone
[3] https://www.igmi.org/it/descrizione-prodotti/elementi-geodetici-1
[4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/qgis_utenti_fvg/1Ud62nlWiys


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

[Talk-it] Disallineamento delle immagini satellitari e vertici IGM95

[mbranco]

Ho notato che in Wikipedia sovente le pagine delle cime di montagne riportano
longitudine e latitudine (per es. [1],[2]). Alcune di queste pagine
riportano anche, nelle note, il link alla "scheda Monografica Vertice
IGM95".

Ho i seguenti dubbi:

1) Anche se il sito IGM consiglia [3] di consultare i dati "gratuiti" (tra
cui le coordinate) prima di procedere all'acquisto dei punti geodetici,
suppongo che le esigenze di licenza di OSM non siano comunque soddisfatte,
vero? (e per Wikipedia invece sì?)

2) Le coordinate IGM sono secondo ETRF2000. Ora, rispetto al nostro WGS84,
mi risulta [3] che la differenza con ETRF2000 sia inferiore a 40 cm.
Però la differenza che vedo rispetto ai dati OSM - per es. per la cima del
Monte Emilius - è anche di 100-200 metri, come mai?

3) Se mai si liberassero i dati dei punti geodetici IGM, non avremmo un modo
ottimale per riallineare le immagini satellitari? 

Un saluto,
Marco

[1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Emilius
[2] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colma_di_Mombarone
[3] https://www.igmi.org/it/descrizione-prodotti/elementi-geodetici-1
[4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/qgis_utenti_fvg/1Ud62nlWiys



--
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-us] Trunk

[Nathan Mills]

On October 8, 2017 3:46:07 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>County and rural roads, particularly of the 3- and 4-digit National
>Forest
>routes and...really pick an unpaved section line almost anywhere in an
>area
>bounded by the Rocky Mountain frontier, the Appalachian frontier, the
>Rio
>Grande River, and the permafrost line in Canada.  Unclassified could
>mean
>anything from so steep and unmaintained as to be barely passable by a
>4x4
>in otherwise pristine weather, to a 15 meter wide, graded-and-packed
>gravel
>road allowing a city car to rip along at 80+ km/h without trouble; a
>beat-up, worse-than-unpaved gravel-and-tar car-rolled tarmac to a
>smooth-as-glass concrete surface.  

Seems like some of those would be more properly tagged as a track. I was 
thinking more in terms of network classification for the primary and lesser 
highways. In that sense, while tertiary (for example) may be different quality 
in different areas, it serves the same purpose in the road network. Not too 
long ago many primary and lesser routes were unpaved or poorly maintained 
between cities, after all, especially out west and still today in some 
mountainous and particularly rural areas in the US. That said, if a family car 
can't safely navigate it, it should be a track given my understanding. 
Regardless, there is already a wide variation in what a primary, secondary, etc 
looks like between cities and suburbs/exurbs/rural areas. Obviously, they will 
vary even more in the wilderness.

There aren't a whole lot of through roads that are unusable in a sedan in good 
weather that I've seen in the lower 48, though. My standards are pretty low on 
that count, so maybe my opinion on that differs from others. I've been down a 
lot of barely maintained mountainous forest roads in small sedans without much 
incident. You just have to be prepared and know when to turn back. ;)

And just a minor bit of Tulsa history pedantry: The Riverside expressway plan 
never actually went beyond paper due to opposition from people living in Maple 
Ridge near the north end of Riverside, who had the clout in city hall to keep 
it from happening. The closest to it is the part between 71st and 91st, but 
that is the way it is because it wasn't built until well after the rest of it 
so the adjacent properties were mostly already developed with access to the 
east, thus the lack of intersections and driveways except at the section lines 
and the few developments that have been allowed between Riverside and the river 
itself.

-Nathan
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:28 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.

Personally, I would not tag those two highways with anything below
'trunk', no matter how bad they get. (I can surely remember a time when the
Alaska Highway was not hard-surfaced owing to the difficulties of laying
down pavement over permafrost.) They are of too great regional importance
to show as anything less.

And this discussion is offering me, at least, some insight that may be
obvious to everyone else. The mention that there are three things being
conflated: administrative level, regional importance, and physical character;
has set some of the mental wheels in motion.

Looking through the lens of a data consumer:

Administrative level, which NE2 confused with the other two, is pretty
much a 'don't care.' If a highway is a freeway, for drawing it on a map,
it doesn't much matter whether it's Interstate 95 or County Road 40. All
that really effects is the shape of the shield on the highway's placards.

Relative local importance is what a renderer will use to decide whether
or not to show a road at a given map scale. I'd be entirely comfortable if
a map that fit all of the Northeast on a single piece of paper were to omit
a lot of the suburban motorways. I would not appreciate it, however,
if such a map in northern New England were to omit US highways
1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 201, 302; Maine 11, 16, 27, and so on. They are just
two-lane roads, often with lowered speed limits and narrow shoulders,
but they are the arteries of the communities they serve. You can't
get to Rutland (the third-largest city in Vermont) without driving
one of those trunk roads - if trunk roads they are.

Physical character is what's of most interest to routers - the speed at
which you can traverse a road and the volume of traffic that it can
handle are the key things that a router will want to have in order to
decide whether to send traffic there or elsewhere.

Similarly, physical character is really what a renderer should use
to choose HOW to render a road (rather than WHICH roads to
render at a given scale. A freeway remains a freeway even if
it is of only local importance. A narrow, winding, two-lane
highway remains such even if you have the misfortune of
needing to drive a hundred miles on it to reach your destination.

So, all three attributes are important. (Administrative level is
the least so, except as a poor surrogate for 'regional importance.')
In a well-ordered country like much of Europe, administratative
level is a much better indicator of importance, and important
roads are more reliably maintained to a higher standard, so
all three attributes tend to run quite closely together. We
Americans inhabit a country that is fundamentally messier,
and this has led me to tag combinations like "highway=secondary
surface=compacted smoothness=bad lanes=2" for particularly
bad roads that are still the only reasonable connection between
two populated places.

Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were
to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character
and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve
different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly mismatched?
Then the discussion could revolve around the question of what
tagging is for physical character, what tagging is for regional
significance, and what are objective criteria for assessing
significance. (It's somewhat subjective, and therefore
contrary to the OSM spirit of "tag what is visible only on the
ground", but it's so necessary to getting mapping and routing
right that I think we have to grasp that particular bull by
the horns.)

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

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

[Vincent Frison]

@Fédérico: cool, Lyon le propose aussi il me semble, et il devrait y avoir
moyen de récupérer assez facilement une hauteur max..

@Romain: chouette la liste s'allonge pour les MNT !

Quand j'aurai le temps j'essayerai de contacter ces fournisseurs pour voir
lesquels pourraient fournir également un MNS en plus de leur MNT.

Merci, Vincent.


Le 7 octobre 2017 à 21:51, Romain MEHUT  a écrit :

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:

> Riverside in Tulsa is fairly clearly a primary for most of its length. It
> isn't part of a larger trunk route nor is it an expressway.
>

Fair enough.  It does retain a lot of it's features from when it was the
Riverside Turnpike and it's difficult to get out into (moreso than 71st or
Memorial) and unusually fast for most of it's length, hence why I was on
the fence on that one.  I've retagged it as primary given this additional
input.


> Personally, I think of trunk as more like motorway than like the other
> highway values. Motorway is clearly used only for controlled access
> freeways (excepting short sections in extremely rural areas where an
> Interstate doesn't quite meet the standard). I think of trunk as the same
> thing, but for expressways. For routes that are not primarily expressway, I
> think primary is a better classification. That assumes it otherwise meets
> the standard for primary.
>

Agreed.  As previously mentioned, I'm inclined to include paper interstates
as trunks as well, mostly because of the unique role such highways play in
the system overall.  Though outside of Alaska, the only paper interstates I
can think of offhand are in Puerto Rico (Interstates PR-*), all of which
are motorways anyway, downtown Tulsa (the unsigned I 444, the entire length
of which shares motorway with about 7 kilometers of US 75), and northwest
Portland (Interstate 505, a spur of I 405, but this may have been an
aborted interstate and shares about 3 kilometers of motorway with US 30),
making this almost certainly an Alaskan issue.  I'm relatively certain all
of Hawaii's interstates are, in fact, signed and motorway.

I can't think of any situations off the top of my head where
> unclassified/residential/tertiary/secondary/primary don't provide enough
> differentiation between sub-expressway roads.
>

County and rural roads, particularly of the 3- and 4-digit National Forest
routes and...really pick an unpaved section line almost anywhere in an area
bounded by the Rocky Mountain frontier, the Appalachian frontier, the Rio
Grande River, and the permafrost line in Canada.  Unclassified could mean
anything from so steep and unmaintained as to be barely passable by a 4x4
in otherwise pristine weather, to a 15 meter wide, graded-and-packed gravel
road allowing a city car to rip along at 80+ km/h without trouble; a
beat-up, worse-than-unpaved gravel-and-tar car-rolled tarmac to a
smooth-as-glass concrete surface.  Even if you take into account surface
and other qualitative tagging, the relative lack of low-end differentiation
is kind of a big ask for much of America.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/08/2017 09:06 PM, Harald Hartmann wrote:
> Ok, ich habe gerade bei einem Geldautomaten in meiner Gegend gesehen,
> dass dort kein network gepflegt ist und trotzdem die Zuordnung nur rein
> über den operator (namen) erfolgt ist, d.h. es gibt anscheinend doch
> eine halbautomatische Zuweisung, auch wenn network fehlt? Da wäre ich
> dann auch daran interessiert, wie genau das gemacht wird ... bzw. würde
> ich das eher weglassen, damit einem eben auffällt, wo es noch fehlt um
> es eindeutig zu machen.

Aber ist das denn gut? Wenn die Postbank sich dann entscheidet, dass sie
doch nimmer bei der "Cash Group" mitmachen will sondern lieber bei den
Sparkassen, müssen wir alle Postbank-Automaten umtaggen - obwohl sich am
Automaten selbst ja eigentlich gar nichts verändert hat. Dass einzelne
Postbank-Automaten zum anderen "network" gehören, ist doch eher
unwahrscheinlich. Brauchen wir dann ein Datenmodell, mit dem wir das
abbilden können?

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Nathan Mills]

Riverside in Tulsa is fairly clearly a primary for most of its length. It isn't 
part of a larger trunk route nor is it an expressway.

Personally, I think of trunk as more like motorway than like the other highway 
values. Motorway is clearly used only for controlled access freeways (excepting 
short sections in extremely rural areas where an Interstate doesn't quite meet 
the standard). I think of trunk as the same thing, but for expressways. For 
routes that are not primarily expressway, I think primary is a better 
classification. That assumes it otherwise meets the standard for primary.

I can't think of any situations off the top of my head where 
unclassified/residential/tertiary/secondary/primary don't provide enough 
differentiation between sub-expressway roads. Using trunk to mean "more primary 
than primary" seems to reduce the usefulness of the map to simple data 
consumers that don't/can't take into account lanes and similar tags. Using 
trunk and motorway to mean "limited access expressway" and "controlled access 
freeway," respectively, seems to express the US road network better than 
conflating primary and trunk as NE2's edits often did. (And still are, in many 
places)

-Nathan

On October 8, 2017 2:29:26 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Shawn K. Quinn 
>wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/2017 05:30 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> > Question for you all:
>> >
>> > What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than
>> primaries?
>> >
>> > To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade
>> > intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road
>in the
>> > US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not
>built
>> > to interstate standards / not having an interstate designation...
>I'm
>> > not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to
>> understand.
>>
>> On a related note, I recently downgraded Allen Parkway in Houston
>from
>> trunk to primary, based on the somewhat recent reconfiguration,
>adding
>> traffic signals and lowering the speed limit (which I removed without
>> adding a replacement, knowing only that it's no longer 40 mph but I
>> forgot if they made it 35 mph or 30 mph). It's possible the western
>part
>> (closer to where it changes names to Kirby Drive) may still
>technically
>> qualify as trunk, but it is kind of an edge case even then.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
>Looks fair to me, I could see the argument going either direction on
>that
>one, falling into a similar situation to Tulsa's Riverside Parkway
>(which
>could a small trunk being a cancelled freeway or a large primary; I'm
>legitimately on the fence on that one myself).

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Harald Hartmann]

Ok, ich habe gerade bei einem Geldautomaten in meiner Gegend gesehen,
dass dort kein network gepflegt ist und trotzdem die Zuordnung nur rein
über den operator (namen) erfolgt ist, d.h. es gibt anscheinend doch
eine halbautomatische Zuweisung, auch wenn network fehlt? Da wäre ich
dann auch daran interessiert, wie genau das gemacht wird ... bzw. würde
ich das eher weglassen, damit einem eben auffällt, wo es noch fehlt um
es eindeutig zu machen.

Am 08.10.2017 um 20:58 schrieb Harald Hartmann:
> Hast du mal ein paar konkrete Beispiele? Ich würde vermuten, dass dort
> `network` gar nicht (oder falsch) gepflegt ist. siehe auch
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Datm
> 
> 
> Am 08.10.2017 um 20:21 schrieb Stephan Olbrich:
>> Hallo Nils,
>>
>> wie ist denn die Zuordnung zu den Bankverbünden realisiert?
>> Die BW-Bank gehört zum Sparkassenverbund, das wird aber nur manchmal so 
>> angezeigt. Mein Eindruck ist, dass "LBBW" und "BW Bank" erkannt wird,
>> "BW-Bank" aber nicht.
>>
>> Gruß,
>> Stephan
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-de mailing list
>> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
>>
> 
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
> 

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

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

[Harald Hartmann]

Hast du mal ein paar konkrete Beispiele? Ich würde vermuten, dass dort
`network` gar nicht (oder falsch) gepflegt ist. siehe auch

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Datm


Am 08.10.2017 um 20:21 schrieb Stephan Olbrich:
> Hallo Nils,
> 
> wie ist denn die Zuordnung zu den Bankverbünden realisiert?
> Die BW-Bank gehört zum Sparkassenverbund, das wird aber nur manchmal so 
> angezeigt. Mein Eindruck ist, dass "LBBW" und "BW Bank" erkannt wird,
> "BW-Bank" aber nicht.
> 
> Gruß,
> Stephan
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
> 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

> On 10/05/2017 05:30 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > Question for you all:
> >
> > What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than
> primaries?
> >
> > To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade
> > intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the
> > US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not built
> > to interstate standards / not having an interstate designation... I'm
> > not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to
> understand.
>
> On a related note, I recently downgraded Allen Parkway in Houston from
> trunk to primary, based on the somewhat recent reconfiguration, adding
> traffic signals and lowering the speed limit (which I removed without
> adding a replacement, knowing only that it's no longer 40 mph but I
> forgot if they made it 35 mph or 30 mph). It's possible the western part
> (closer to where it changes names to Kirby Drive) may still technically
> qualify as trunk, but it is kind of an edge case even then.
>
> Thoughts?
>

Looks fair to me, I could see the argument going either direction on that
one, falling into a similar situation to Tulsa's Riverside Parkway (which
could a small trunk being a cancelled freeway or a large primary; I'm
legitimately on the fence on that one myself).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

A little context, since I don't know how routine it is for folks to be
aware of the difference between an expressway (which is what I would call a
trunk in OSM terms) and a freeway (OSM's motorway).  I use the same
criteria as AASHTO, where a freeway is always dual carriageway, fully
controlled access, and no direct access to abutters.  Expressways would be
partially controlled dual carriageway with limited or no direct access to
abutters or fully controlled single carriageway with no direct access to
abutters.

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> >I'd hazard to guess Alaska has considerably more "trunk" than "motorway"
> miles, particularly outside of metro Anchorage.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Here's a query for the George Parks Highway that runs between Fairbanks
> and Anchorage:
>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/scw
>
> no relations, only ways are involved
>

Relation 331099 (highway A3), looks like.

Looks like a motorway from where it leaves A1 to the end of the median just
west of Seward Meridian near Anchorage.  Assuming Bing's imagery is
current, it should be mapped as a single carriageway, and I'd call that a
primary typically until it becomes a two lane road, and after that as a
secondary (since it's a state highway, that's the lowest I would take it)
until median starts again just west of Geist Road in Fairbanks where it
goes dual carriageway and becomes a motorway again (I wouldn't consider any
single carriageway as a motorway).  I would not normally consider a
single-carriageway without full access control (ie, exclusively accessible
via freeway style ramps) as a trunk.  *However*, its status as Interstate
A4, I would be inclined to call it a trunk anyway for that reason alone,
for the entire distance that it's not a motorway.

In Fairbanks, specifically, I'd call that dual carriageway a trunk from
where it begins on the west end to where it ends at A2, and not a motorway,
even if it wasn't an interstate, because of its mix of ramps and
intersections; it's definitely not a motorway in Fairbanks.  Motorways
shouldn't have intervening intersections or terminate on an intersection.
Trunks can have a mix of intersections and interchanges.

The relation for A3 was a hot mess, I couldn't resist the urge to clean
that up and make it easier for y'all to maintain, but I did *not* change
the tags or geometry on any of the ways.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Stephan Olbrich]

Hallo Nils,

wie ist denn die Zuordnung zu den Bankverbünden realisiert?
Die BW-Bank gehört zum Sparkassenverbund, das wird aber nur manchmal so 
angezeigt. Mein Eindruck ist, dass "LBBW" und "BW Bank" erkannt wird,
"BW-Bank" aber nicht.

Gruß,
Stephan


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

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

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Ilya,

Am 2017-10-08 um 14:53 schrieb Ilya Zverev:
> Michael, this is the first time I'm hearing about that light_rail 
> controversy. It is documented somewhere? If not, why does it make my proposal 
> worse?

Dig a little bit in the history of the wiki page and you will see the
edit wars.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport=history
The current version contains light_rail.

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

[Talk-cz] Jak najít smazaná data?

[Jan Macura]

Ahoj,

někdo smazal cestu, a mě zajímá kdo, kdy a proč.
Existuje nějaký mechanismus, jak tuto cestu (a tyto informace) nalézt, když
vím jen to, kde dříve byla?

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

Re: [Talk-de] Routenplanung mit osrm

[mmd]

Am 08.10.2017 um 15:37 schrieb chris66:
> Am 08.10.2017 um 15:22 schrieb Peter Pointner:
> 
>> derzeit nicht verfügbar ist, da der bislang dafür verwendete
>> OSRM-Demoserver ohne
>> Vorwarnung vom Netz genommen wurde."
> 
> Ja, daran liegt es wohl. Andere Frage ist, wieso der Link dann auf
> openstreetmap.org nicht temporär entfernt wird oder zumindest ein
> passender Hinweis eingeblendet wird.
> 

Diesen Vorschlag gab es auch schon hier:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1637

Nur tut sich leider recht wenig in der Sache.

-- 




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

Re: [Talk-de] Routenplanung mit osrm

[Patrick Niklaus]

Hey,

sorry eigentlich haben wir nichts vom Netz genommen, wir werden nur
regelmäßig von Leuten DDOSed und dann geht der Server halt down.
OSM.org wollen wir nur wechseln weil es relativ viel Arbeit ist zwei
Server zu betreuen und die meisten nicht wirklich Lust haben sich da
Sonntag Nachmittag darum zu kümmern.
Ich habe es mal neu gestartet, sollte wieder gehen.

Cheers,
Patrick

2017-10-08 13:37 GMT+00:00 chris66 :
> Am 08.10.2017 um 15:22 schrieb Peter Pointner:
>
>> derzeit nicht verfügbar ist, da der bislang dafür verwendete
>> OSRM-Demoserver ohne
>> Vorwarnung vom Netz genommen wurde."
>
>
> Ja, daran liegt es wohl. Andere Frage ist, wieso der Link dann auf
> openstreetmap.org nicht temporär entfernt wird oder zumindest ein
> passender Hinweis eingeblendet wird.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] GeoCodage et uMap

[Cédric Frayssinet]

Bonjour,

Je mets ici la solution trouvée à ma problématique. J'ai réussi à faire
ma carte uMap de tous les établissements scolaires de mon académie en
utilisant la méthode que j'ai décrite sur ce journal :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/C%C3%A9dric%20F/diary/42458

Bonne fin de week-end,

Cédric

Le 29/09/2017 à 23:58, Cédric Frayssinet a écrit :
>
> Le 29/09/2017 à 23:24, Christian Quest a écrit :
>> Si tu as juste le nom de l'établissement et la commune, c'est
>> chaud... pas de code UAI d'établissement (il est dans l'adresse email
>> générique des établissements) ?
>
> Si, je peux l'avoir effectivement, j'ai vu qu'il était dans les tags
> des établissements scolaires. Disons que là, çà me fait retravailler
> le fichier.
>
> Avec le moteur http://photon.komoot.de/ çà semblait bien fonctionner
> avec simplement le nom et la commune, c'est pourquoi j'étais parti sur
> cette idée...
>
> Et avec l'UAI, quelle serait la technique ?
>
> Merci pour ton aide,
>
> Cédric
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
> -- 
> En cure de désintoxication  de
> Google ! Client d'Enercoop
> , l'énergie militante
>
> Également sur Mastodon : @bristow...@framapiaf.org
> 
>
> Promouvoir et soutenir le logiciel libre 
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr


-- 
En cure de désintoxication  de
Google ! Client d'Enercoop
, l'énergie militante

Également sur Mastodon : @bristow...@framapiaf.org


Promouvoir et soutenir le logiciel libre 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Select and correct a discovered key duplication of sorts in JOSM

[Bob Hawkins]

I return to this thread because there is something I do not understand.  I wish 
not to make an error undertaking the change I plan.  I queried 
‘ref:chiltern_society=* within South Oxfordshire in Overpass Turbo and exported 
the result to JOSM.  Selecting all, and viewing the results I see in excess of 
3,000 unset values against the keys. ‘ref_chiltern_society’ reads ‘<220 
different, 3416 unset>’, for example.  ‘prow_ref’ shows the same, fortunately, 
because the numbers should match.  I fail to understand the number of unset 
values if I have queried a particular key.  Why are there not 220 ways 
selected?  I ran the query without nodes and relations and the result was the 
same.  I believe it would be acceptable to edit the tags in question but am 
concerned to know the answer before I do so.
One further question: how do I search for the keys ‘ref:chiltern_society’ and 
‘source:prow_ref’ in JOSM?  It appears that the use of a colon is not 
recognised in these cases because of its use in other circumstances?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] les dates de terrain survey:date, de test fonctionnel, d'import, de source source:date

[marc marc]

Bonjour,

N'ayant reçu aucun objection, j'ai harmonisé  l'échelle de la France
source_date et date:source en faveur du tag majoritaire source:date
date:survey en faveur du tag majoritaire survey:date

Pour bien faire, il reste à faire :
- faire la même chose ailleurs (je lancerai la discussion sous peu de 
l'autre côté de la frontière, voir au niveau mondial si motivé)
- relancer la proposition sur les tests fonctionnel operational_status
- essayer de raffiner ceux dont le sens exact est inconnu (lastcheck, 
check_date)

Le 29. 09. 17 à 17:32, Marc M. a écrit :
> Bonjour,
> 
> Vu que l'inventaire semble complet,je propose de fusionner :
> source_date et date:source en faveur du tag majoritaire source:date
> date:survey en faveur du tag majoritaire survey:date
> 
> ok ? objection ?
> 
> Cordialement,
> Marc
> 
> Le 12. 09. 17 à 14:01, Marc M. a écrit :
>> @tous : il ne manque aucun besoin avec ces 3 type survey <> 
>> fonctionnel <> source externe ?
>>
>> @Christian l'outil est prometteur.
>> C'est un bon exemple d'interface simple même si quelques détails 
>> serraient utile (valider une porte d'entrée, pas sur de l'utilité).
>> Je vais e tester un peu plus pour proposer des améliorations.
>>
>> @Violaine
>> que veux-tu dire par mixer ? ce serrait au contraire plus clair si on 
>> fait 3 catégories bien distincte comparé par exemple au tag check_date 
>> où il est impossible de savoir qu'est-ce qui a été précisément vérifié 
>> (la position, l’existence, le fonctionnel)
>> Exemple fictif : les bornes incendies d'une commune
>> Lors de l'import on précise sur le changeset source=lacommune 
>> source:date=2015/01/01
>> Si quelqu'un voit la borne sur le terrain et veux préciser la date,
>> il peux rajouter survey:date=2017/09/12 (sinon on suppose que c'est
>> une date proche de la modif, pas besoin de raffiner cela à l’extrême)
>> Si un technicien teste la borne comme fonctionnelle, on peux encoder 
>> cette information avec operational_status=operating 
>> operational_status:date=2017/09/12
>>
>> Pour l'étendue de la vérification, c'est justement le reproche que je 
>> fais à check_date. on ne sait pas si cela signifie que l'objet a été
>> vu sur le terrain, ou si l'objet a été comparé avec une liste opendata
>> ou s'il s'agit d'un test fonctionnel.
>> Je pense aussi que cela n'a de sens que sur des objets assez précis
>> que pour déduire que la vérification est complète.
>> On peux dire qu'on a vu un arrêt de bus ou testé une borne.
>> Prétendre la même chose sur un hôpital me semble délicat.
>> Etait-ce son existence ? son nom ? tout ces tags ?
>> Rien n’empêche de préciser capacity:bed:date par exemple
>> Peut-être faudrait-il préciser qu'un survey:date par exemple concerne 
>> tous les tags d'un objet. mais quid des infos provenant d'un import 
>> mais qui sont invérifiable sur le terrain (par exemple le diamètre du 
>> tuyau d'alimentation d'une borne lorsque l'info n'est pas sur la 
>> plaque) ?
>> Je n'ai pas de solution pour améliorer le sens.
>> Dupliquer tout les tags avec une date me semble impossible en pratique
>> vu la difficulté qu'il y a avec des schémas beaucoup plus simple.
>>
>> Le 11. 09. 17 à 21:21, Christian Quest a écrit :
>>> La webapp geocropping rend ce process de mise à jour d'une date de 
>>> contrôle sur terrain très simple et pas technique du tout.
>>>
>>> A voir ici: https://geocropping.xsalto.com/
>>>
>>> Le 11 septembre 2017 à 18:33, Violaine Doutreleau a écrit :
>>>
>>>     Bonjour Marc,
>>>
>>>     Pour moi la difficulté c'est qu'il ne faudrait pas mixer la source
>>>     d'une information (je suis ok pour  ajouter une info de date en
>>>     fonction de la source de données), par le check_date ou
>>>     operational_status:date, qui relève plutôt de la validation de
>>>     données. J'entends : la donnée est déjà créée, je repasse x jours
>>>     après sa création pour dire qu'elle est toujours valide. Healthsites
>>>     prévoit de faire ça sur la thématique santé... Par contre j'aime
>>>     beaucoup l'idée car on pourrait imaginer de la demande de validation
>>>     de données si le check_date est trop éloigné de la date du jour aux
>>>     utilisateurs de gps... Et ça pourrait donner un sacré coup de 
>>> pouce ...
>>>
>>>     Par contre j'ai le sentiment que ce n'est pas vraiment la place de
>>>     la validation, mais d'une base extérieure? Dailleurs ça risque
>>>     d'être trop tech pour des utilisateurs lambdas d'OSM, et pourtant
>>>     des informations faciles à donner par n'importe qui.
>>>
>>>     Sinon, une autre difficulté que je trouve c'est qu'il faudrait quasi
>>>     autant de check_date, que de tags, ou alors définir les éléments que
>>>     l'on souhaite vérifier. Non? Par exemple pour les centre de santés,
>>>     c'est pas évident de tout contrôler d'un coup si on est un
>>>     utilisateur lambda  (pas aussi simple de donner le nombre de staffs
>>>     par exemple)
>>>
>>>     Juste mes réflexions...
>>>
>>>     A bientôt,
>>>
>>>     V
>>>
>>>
>>> 

Re: [Talk-de] Routenplanung mit osrm

[chris66]

Am 08.10.2017 um 15:22 schrieb Peter Pointner:


derzeit nicht verfügbar ist, da der bislang dafür verwendete OSRM-Demoserver 
ohne
Vorwarnung vom Netz genommen wurde."


Ja, daran liegt es wohl. Andere Frage ist, wieso der Link dann auf 
openstreetmap.org nicht temporär entfernt wird oder zumindest ein

passender Hinweis eingeblendet wird.

Chris






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

Re: [Talk-de] Routenplanung mit osrm

[Peter Pointner]

Hallo Friedrich,

Am Sonntag, 8. Oktober 2017, 14:38:32 CEST schrieb Friedrich Strohmaier:

> die letzten Male hat mich das Glück verlassen, wenn ich mit osrm die Route
> anzeigen lassen wollte.

Auszug aus der letzten Wochennotiz ( http://blog.openstreetmap.de/ ):

"Tom Hughes bestätigt[1] auf der Mailingliste Dev, dass OSRM auf 
openstreetmap.org 
derzeit nicht verfügbar ist, da der bislang dafür verwendete OSRM-Demoserver 
ohne 
Vorwarnung vom Netz genommen wurde."

Vielleicht hat es damit was zu tun?

Gruß,
Peter


[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2017-October/030002.html
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [OSM-talk] Signup page: Public Doman "what-this?" button broken

[Simon Poole]

As has been pointed out many times the whole thing is meaningless for a
multitude of reasons and simply should be removed (checkbox and text).

Simon


Am 08.10.2017 um 11:54 schrieb Sebastian Kürten:
> Hi,
>
> During sign up for an OSM account, the user is presented with the
> Contributor terms [1]. There's an additional checkbox "In addition to
> the above agreement, I consider my contributions to be in the Public
> Domain (what's this?)". The "what's this?" link points to the
> osmfoundation wiki[2]. However the page it points to has been moved
> several times, forcing the user to follow the redirect by clicking
> the redirection link, three times. I suggest we change that link to
> point to the current location[3].
>
> Best,
> Sebastian
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms
> [2] 
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Licence/Why_would_I_want_my_contributions_to_be_public_domain=no
> [3] 
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ/Why_would_I_want_my_contributions_to_be_public_domain
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




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

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

[Ilya Zverev]

Thanks Frederik, I did exactly that in the "What This Affects" chapter of the 
proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Metro_Mapping#What_This_Affects

Basically it introduces (revives) stop_area_group relations and suggest using 
entrance=* on subway_entrances. Of course I could just silently create it in 
the main namespace and pretend it was there from the start. But when the page 
is announced like a proposal, we get a discussion that helps make it better. I 
have already got many comments that lead to many fixes in the page.

Michael, this is the first time I'm hearing about that light_rail controversy. 
It is documented somewhere? If not, why does it make my proposal worse?

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

[Talk-de] Routenplanung mit osrm

[Friedrich Strohmaier]

Hallo Openstreetmapgemeinde,

nochn Versuch via gmane..

die letzten Male hat mich das Glück verlassen, wenn ich mit osrm die Route 
anzeigen lassen wollte.

Einfaches Beispiel:

Graphhopper und Mapzen tun es hier:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car=48.40580%2C9.04790%3B48.40770%2C9.04341

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car=48.40580%2C9.04790%3B48.40770%2C9.04341

OSRM:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=48.40580%2C9.04790%3B48.40770%2C9.04341

Zeigt "Wir konnten keine Strecke zwischen diesen beiden Orten berechnen."

Tut's bei Euch?

Gruß

-- 
Friedrich Strohmaier
* http://bits-fritz.de/Friedrich_Strohmaier
* http://wikidesign.com  Webseiten nach Maß oder von der Stange
* http://www.wueste-welle.de/ einziges freies Radio für Tübingen - Reutlingen


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

Re: [Talk-at] JOSM Housenumber Tagging Tool

[gppes_osm]

Bei mir macht es jetzt und am am Vormittag keine Probleme. Sind Josm und plugin bei Dir aktuell?
 

Gesendet: Sonntag, 08. Oktober 2017 um 10:17 Uhr
Von: "Peter Kössler" 
An: Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: [Talk-at] JOSM Housenumber Tagging Tool

Das Housenumber Tagging Tool funktioniert bei mir nicht mehr wie früher
und schreibt in alle addr:postcode 

[Talk-de] Grebemaps im Hellweg Prospekt

[Richard]

Hi,

der Hellweg Bamarkt druckt auf der letzten Seite des Prospekts
eine Karte die offensichtlich OSM Daten benutzt.
Als Quellenangabe steht da "Kartographie grebemaps"

Grebemaps erwähnt OSM mehrmals auf seiner Webseite aber nicht
in der generierten Karte.
Hat sich das schon mal jemand angeschaut?

Richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

[Nick Hocking]

Can someone put up an OSM task so that we can replace these names , from
Tiger 2017?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] Signup page: Public Doman "what-this?" button broken

[Sebastian Kürten]

Hi,

During sign up for an OSM account, the user is presented with the
Contributor terms [1]. There's an additional checkbox "In addition to
the above agreement, I consider my contributions to be in the Public
Domain (what's this?)". The "what's this?" link points to the
osmfoundation wiki[2]. However the page it points to has been moved
several times, forcing the user to follow the redirect by clicking
the redirection link, three times. I suggest we change that link to
point to the current location[3].

Best,
Sebastian

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms
[2] 
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Licence/Why_would_I_want_my_contributions_to_be_public_domain=no
[3] 
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ/Why_would_I_want_my_contributions_to_be_public_domain

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

[Talk-it] Quando le mappe portano troppi turisti

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Divertente:


Nemo

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

[Talk-at] JOSM Housenumber Tagging Tool

[Peter Kössler]

Das Housenumber Tagging Tool funktioniert bei mir nicht mehr wie früher 
und schreibt in alle addr:postcode 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 10/05/2017 05:30 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Question for you all:
> 
> What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than primaries? 
> 
> To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade
> intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the
> US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not built
> to interstate standards / not having an interstate designation... I'm
> not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to understand.

On a related note, I recently downgraded Allen Parkway in Houston from
trunk to primary, based on the somewhat recent reconfiguration, adding
traffic signals and lowering the speed limit (which I removed without
adding a replacement, knowing only that it's no longer 40 mph but I
forgot if they made it 35 mph or 30 mph). It's possible the western part
(closer to where it changes names to Kirby Drive) may still technically
qualify as trunk, but it is kind of an edge case even then.

Thoughts?

(Memorial Drive from Detering Street to Bagby Street, BTW, is pretty
much a textbook case of trunk in the US. Speed limit 50 mph, mostly
controlled access but not up to full freeway specifications. West of
Detering the speed limit drops and it goes through Memorial Park, but
there's still a relatively limited number of intersections.)

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Dave Swarthout]

>I'd hazard to guess Alaska has considerably more "trunk" than "motorway"
miles, particularly outside of metro Anchorage.

Agreed.

Here's a query for the George Parks Highway that runs between Fairbanks and
Anchorage:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/scw

no relations, only ways are involved

No rush on any of this if you have more important work to do. Just sayin'

and, thanks for the feedback



On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>



-- 
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