Re: [OSM-talk] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

[Johnparis]

Here's a link to this thread on the Tagging list :

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/041109.html

And a link to the main Tagging thread that most recently raises this
subject:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/040858.html

And finally a link to the proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries


On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:21 AM Johnparis  wrote:

> A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national
> level.
>
> I've read the discussions on the Tagging and Talk lists, and have given
> the matter considerable thought (and experimented with different
> approaches) before formulating the proposal. I hope it offers a mechanism
> to show boundary claims in addition to the current display of de facto
> boundaries.
>
> John
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk-fr] Cartographie OSM sans mention de ©

[Paul Desgranges]

Bonjour
 La cartehttps://www.fub.fr/membresne respecte pas a priori la licence 
OSM car la mention "© Contributeurs OpenStreetMap" ne figure pas sur le 
fond de carte. Je leur ai fait remarquer, voilà la réponse de la 
personne chargée de la com de la FUB :
/Nous avons mis le crédit dans notre page de mentions légales : 
https://www.fub.fr/mentions-legales//
//Normalement la mention devrait apparaître automatiquement sur la 
carte, mais notre webmaster ne sait pas pourquoi elle n’apparaît pas.//
//En espérant que cela puisse suffire comme cela, je reste à 
disposition au besoin.//

/
Je ne crois pas, mais préfère demander à la liste ...  ?
Bonne journée
Paul

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

Re: [Talk-de] Feature Proposal - RFC - Empfehlung zur Verwendung von Multipolygonen

[Marc Gemis]

Wie kartieren Sie Barrieren, wenn sie die Grenze eines
Landnutzungsgebiets bilden?
Zeichnen Sie eine zweite Linie über der Landnutzung?

(Extended in English:  feel free to reply in German - reading is no
problem for me)

How do you map barriers that form the border of a landuse ? e.g. a
barbed wire fence around a meadow ?
Do you map a second way on top of the way of the landuse ? Do you
create a multi-polygon for the meadow where the outer is the barrier ?
A second way a bit bigger than the meadow ? tags of fence and meadow
on the same way ? Another solution ? )

m.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:46 PM Tigerfell  wrote:
>
> Hallo,
>
> ich würde gern auf ein Proposal aufmerksam machen, welches sich mit der 
> Verwendung von Multipolygonen beschäftigt. Dieses folgt im Wesentlichen der 
> Diskussion im Forum (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64439 
> ).
> Das Proposal: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/Empfehlung_zur_Verwendung_von_Multipolygonen
>  
> 
>
> Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass wir uns auf die Bezeichnung "Empfehlung" 
> geeinigt haben. Damit ist gemeint, dass die Erfassung gemäß der "Empfehlung" 
> durchgeführt werden sollte, andere Vorschläge aber auch zukünftig nicht 
> verhindert werden sollen.
>
> Um die Diskussion zusammenzuhalten, empfehle ich die Diskussion über das oben 
> verlinkte Forum.
>
> Viele Grüße
> Tigerfell
> ___
> 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

[OSM-talk-fr] Concours vidéo #ScienceInfoStream - L’informatique une science qui bouleverse le monde

[Jean-Christophe Becquet]

Bonjour,

Le concours #ScienceInfoStream pourrait encourager des contributeurs à
créer et partager une vidéo de sensibilisation à OpenStreetMap. Une
opportunité à saisir ?

« la SIF invite tous les amoureux d’informatique, qu’ils
soient lycéens, étudiants, doctorants, chercheurs, enseignants,
ingénieurs, programmeurs, ou découvreurs de l’informatique, à faire
partager leur passion, en réalisant une vidéo sur le thème
L’informatique, une science qui bouleverse le monde. »

« Tous les formats sont acceptés, sous une licence Creative Commons
choisie par le ou les auteur(e)s. ». Il n'y a pas d'obligation a
utiliser une plateforme privatrice.

La « sensibilisation aux enjeux sociétaux de la science informatique »
fait partie des critères qui seront appréciés par le jury.


Concours de vidéos : #ScienceInfoStream « L’informatique en stream »
http://binaire.blog.lemonde.fr/2018/10/16/linformatique-en-stream-2/

Règlement du concours
https://www.societe-informatique-de-france.fr/mediation/reglement-du-concours-video-scienceinfostream/


Un exemple de vidéo de l'édition précédente sous licence libre Creative
Commons BY : Faire parler une machine à café
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xlA5af0COo

Bonne journée

JCB
-- 
Enjeux du logiciel libre, standards ouverts et interopérabilité
http://www.apitux.org

==APITUX : le choix du logiciel libre==

APITUX - Jean-Christophe Becquet
BP 32 - 04001 Digne-les-Bains Cedex
06 25 86 07 92 - j...@apitux.com - http://www.apitux.com
SIRET : 452 887 441 00031 - APE : 6202A

===




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

[OSM-talk] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

[Johnparis]

A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national
level.

I've read the discussions on the Tagging and Talk lists, and have given the
matter considerable thought (and experimented with different approaches)
before formulating the proposal. I hope it offers a mechanism to show
boundary claims in addition to the current display of de facto boundaries.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Percorso ciclabile per educazione stradale

[Sergio Manzi]

Può andare bene amenity=training + training=road_safety ?

Alternative?

Ciao!

Sergio


On 2018-11-26 23:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 26. Nov 2018, at 02:12, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> 
> wrote:
>
>> A me la risposta più sensata sembra essere quella data da Paul Allen, nel 
>> thread che citi, in [1 
>> ]:
>>
>> amenity=training + training=cycling
>>
>
>
> questi posti non sono per imparare di andare in bici però (cosa per me 
> descriverebbe il tag sopra), sono per imparare di muoversi nel traffico 
> (regole del traffico ecc), sia in bici che a piedi
>
>
> Ciao, Martin 
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-GB] Govt should pressure Google to release data

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi Gregory,

Leigh has expanded a bit on twitter:
https://twitter.com/ldodds/status/1066233917722845184

I think their argument is that some big tech companies are already sharing
back (e.g. into OSM) and this should be seen as the standard approach. This
becomes particularly true when big tech has used crowd sourcing to build
their data for free. It is also an aspiration to avoid duplication of work
so that we get to the stage where we unlock the benefits of geospatial data
sooner (they're thinking autonomous vehicles, etc). Problem is that there
is potential to commercialise data here. So first steps could be releasing
data where the commercial value is low yet there is still a public benefit.

I think ODI are true to their strategy: advocate greater availability of
open data for public good by asking big tech not to hoard data that can be
released - starting with data of low commercial value but high public
value. Data on wheelchair accessibility is given as an example.

Best regards,
*Rob*
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Martijn van Exel]

Resending from my personal email address, see below. 

> On Nov 26, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Martijn van Exel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> This is to inform you that the OSMF board did receive a formal request last 
> week to appeal the DWG decision referred to in this thread. 
> We are gathering information and are deliberating. We will let the community 
> know once we have an update.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Martijn van Exel
> Secretary, OSM Foundation 
> 
>> On Nov 19, 2018, at 11:15 PM, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello
>> 
>> I think this needs more attention and should not be silently buried
>> in archives.
>> 
>> OSMF/DWG has sided with Moscow to recognise illegal annexation of
>> Ukraine's territory - Crimea.
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea
>> 
>> Note that there was a vote in UN on this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262
>> only few countries on the level of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia,
>> Venezuela have recognised this international crime. Does OSMF/DWG want
>> to be in this group? Does OpenStreetMap has to be in this group?
>> 
>> PRACTICAL1: this will make it impossible to create a correct
>> political map using OSM data.
>> 
>> PRACTICAL2: It is also EXTREMELY damaging to OpenStreetMap
>> reputation. Now all opponents of OSM will be able to point fingers at
>> this decision - "OSM recognises Crimeas annexation". And it now makes
>> us all participate in Russian (ruled) project.
>> 
>> PRACTICAL3: While there are some talks about using OSM instead or
>> alongside of commercial GIS solutions in the context of EU INSPIRE
>> directive, such intentions will be seriously damaged by OSMF/DWG
>> actions, because Europe has a very clear position of not recognising
>> Crimeas annexation.
>> 
>> It would also be nice to know how members of DWG voted, to have more
>> information on their attitudes towards Russian aggression. This would
>> be important for those having a vote. But I do not know how to do that
>> correctly, so that not to cause personal damage and avoid bullying.
>> 
>> I personally do not know how/if I can proceed with pushing
>> OpenStreetMap to government or educational use...
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tomas
>> 
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 


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

Re: [Talk-it] Percorso ciclabile per educazione stradale

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Nov 2018, at 02:12, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> 
> A me la risposta più sensata sembra essere quella data da Paul Allen, nel 
> thread che citi, in [1]:
> 
> amenity=training + training=cycling
> 


questi posti non sono per imparare di andare in bici però (cosa per me 
descriverebbe il tag sopra), sono per imparare di muoversi nel traffico (regole 
del traffico ecc), sia in bici che a piedi


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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map houses

[Dan S]

Hi BD,

Ed's right that opinions will vary and there's often not one perfect
answer. Allow me to propose a modification of Martin's suggestion, for
the case where you have one single outline for a whole terrace and no
knowledge of exactly which housenumber sits where:

building=terrace
addr:housenumer=5-17
addr:interpolation=2
addr:street=Westbury Avenue

Using address interpolation on an outline is not that common, I admit,
but it does at least mean the data is there in machine-readable
format, i.e. it's relatively straightforward to write an automatic
query to know where to send someone if they're looking for 7 Westbury
Avenue.

The more orthodox use is described here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Using_interpolation
where, assuming you know which end of the row is number 5 and which is
number 17, you'd use building=terrace and then create a separate way
(typically not even connected to the building outline) that holds the
addresses and interpolation as shown in the little diagram you see on
that wiki page.

Best
Dan

Op ma 26 nov. 2018 om 19:22 schreef Martin Wynne :
>
> Hi BD,
>
> Try:
>
> building=terrace
>
> name=5-17 Westbury Avenue
>
> see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> 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] Percorso ciclabile per educazione stradale

[Matteo Zaffonato]

Grazie mille, ho di che riflettere adesso. :-)

Matteo

Il giorno lun 26 nov 2018, 02:13 Sergio Manzi  ha scritto:

> A me la risposta più sensata sembra essere quella data da Paul Allen, nel
> thread che citi, in [1
> ]:
>
> amenity=training + training=cycling
>
> Ciao,
>
> Sergio
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/tagging@openstreetmap.org/msg35758.html
>
> On 2018-11-25 23:27, Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Di questo si era parlato su tagging:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/tagging@openstreetmap.org/msg35752.html
>
> Alcuni hanno usato amenity=traffic_park ma sono stati proposti anche altri
> tag. Vedi tu :)
>
>
> Lorenzo
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.17.0

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

On 26.11.18 17:14, Marc Gemis wrote:

My intention was rather to hear about some general trends,

As far as I understand,

One general trend is to be "cleaner, have less information". ...

...The one trend I really like more icons for more items, maybe even a
zoom level where you can see lanes and turn:lanes.

m.
A commercial map is to pay the remuneration to thousands of employees. A 
natural long-term strategy for such a map would be to show information 
scarcely, to display predominantly advertising as information. Perhaps, 
this could be an explanation of the "cleaner, less information" trend, 
which we see at some commercial maps?


The OSM does not seem to have this constraint. In my opinion, if there 
is information available for an area it could be displayed upfront with 
nice intuitive icons. There is a lot of space and resolution on the 
large desktop monitors for it.


I agree, there should be a certain balance. I think Carto is doing it 
about just right at the moment.


Best regards,

O.



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

[Talk-de] Feature Proposal - RFC - Empfehlung zur Verwendung von Multipolygonen

[Tigerfell]

Hallo,

ich würde gern auf ein Proposal aufmerksam machen, welches sich mit der 
Verwendung von Multipolygonen beschäftigt. Dieses folgt im Wesentlichen der 
Diskussion im Forum (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64439 
).
Das Proposal: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/Empfehlung_zur_Verwendung_von_Multipolygonen
 


Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass wir uns auf die Bezeichnung "Empfehlung" 
geeinigt haben. Damit ist gemeint, dass die Erfassung gemäß der "Empfehlung" 
durchgeführt werden sollte, andere Vorschläge aber auch zukünftig nicht 
verhindert werden sollen. 

Um die Diskussion zusammenzuhalten, empfehle ich die Diskussion über das oben 
verlinkte Forum. 

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

Re: [Talk-es] Participación en Jornadas SIG Libre 2019

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

Hola

Me parece una idea genial. Lo que comentas de los tutoriales lo tenía en
mente con el fin de facilitar a gente con cualquier nivel digerir la guía
de importación. Pensaba en videotutoriales a partir de capturas de sesiones
de trabajo en Josm comentadas con audio. Sería un trabajo que quedaría
disponible para consulta en la red a un público potencialmente muy amplio,
mientras que los talleres en unas jornadas están limitados a unas fechas y
patrticipantes concretos.

Si salieran adelante estos vídeo tutoriales, sería fácil para cualquiera un
poco puesto en la materia asimilar el contenido e impartirlo en forma de
taller en estas jornadas y en cualquiera otras.

El problema por el que no había comentado esto antes, es que no tengo más
tiempo. Desarrollar el código, importar mis proyectos, validar los de otros
cuando puedo... y varios temas pendientes como preparar la importación de
las direcciones de Barcelona.

Si alguien se anima a participar y encontramos la forma de dividir el
trabajo y hacerlo colaborativo cuenten conmigo. Podríamos comenzar haciendo
unos guiones de los contenidos y a partir de ahí se puede darles forma de
videotutorial, taller o lo que queramos. La wiki podía ser un punto de
partida.

Respecto a la comunicación, quizá sería lo más fácil de hacer, pero es que
tampoco estoy muy animado en gastar días de vacaciones y dinero en ir de
Canarias a Girona. ¿Alguien se anima a impartirla?

Saludos, Javier


El sáb., 24 nov. 2018 12:12, Lanxana .  escribió:

> Buenos días,
>
> Esta semana se ha abierto la convocatoria a comunicaciones, talleres y
> tutoriales para las Jornadas SIG Libre, que se celebrarán en Girona los
> días 29 y 30 de mayo de 2019 [1].
>
> Creo que sería interesante participar este año con el proyecto de
> importación de edificios desde catastro, tanto como reconocimiento al
> esfuerzo que ha supuesto su desarrollo y puesta en funcionamiento como para
> darlo a conocer y animar a que se incorporen más colaboradores.
>
> En esta línea estaba pensando que podríamos hacer tres propuestas
> distintas:
>
> -  Una comunicación sobre el proyecto en sí, desde la creación
> del código hasta el inicio de la importación propiamente dicha. Incluiría
> referencias al proceso de aprobación en imports, los pasos previos (como la
> revisión del callejero), el período de pruebas, problemas que hemos
> detectado (piscinas, balcones, usos o ciclo de vida incorrectos, portales
> en medianeras, etc) y muestras de las poblaciones que ya se han importado o
> están en ello, con el antes y el después.
>
> -  Un taller genérico de introducción a JOSM, pensado tanto para
> gente que ya edita con ID y no se atreven a dar el paso como a quien no ha
> editado nunca. A grosso modo pienso que debería incluir: creación de cuenta
> y vinculación a JOSM para control remoto, instalación de complementos,
> añadir algún servidor WMS, estilos de visualización, y procesos más comunes
> con sus atajos (añadir, seleccionar, unir, cortar…)
>
> -  Taller o tutorial específico de la importación de catastro, a
> partir de alguno de los proyectos que tengamos abiertos. Como paso previo,
> tomando la idea que me dio @ccmara, podríamos clasificar antes algunas
> tareas según su nivel de dificultad, desde la más fácil donde no hay nada
> mapeado hasta la más difícil donde ya existían todos los edificios, o hay
> relaciones por en medio.
>
> ¿Qué os parece la idea y quién se anima? Cuantos más seamos, menos trabajo
> para cada uno ;-) Para la ponencia creo que lo correcto sería que alguno de
> los desarrolladores se encargara, mientras que para los talleres, me consta
> que hay quien ya tiene experiencia organizando mapatones y talleres…
>
> Como siempre, cualquier opinión será bienvenida.
>
> Saludos!
>
> [1] http://www.sigte.udg.edu/jornadassiglibre/
> 
> ___
> 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

Wochennotiz Nr. 435 13.11.2018–19.11.2018

[Wochennotizteam]

Hallo,

die Wochennotiz Nr. 435 mit vielen wichtigen Neuigkeiten aus der 
OpenStreetMap-Welt ist da:

http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2018/11/wochennotiz-nr-435/

Viel Spaß beim Lesen!
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.17.0

[Markus]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 01:40, Daniel Koć  wrote:
>
> BTW: what do you consider to be a progress here? What do you like the
> most in recent changes and maybe what problems are the most visible?

It's nice to see that nature gets more importance!

My wish were that land cover be rendered from the lowest zoom level
(like on OpenMapSurfer [1]) and that land cover were less simplified
at lower zoom levels (like on Humanitarian, e.g. compare rendering of
lakes at [2]).

[1]: http://korona.geog.uni-heidelberg.de
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/70.267/147.612=H

Anyway, many thanks to all OSM Carto developers, to all mappers and to
all the others who make this great project possible and improve it!

Markus

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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map houses

[Ed Loach]

BD asked:

> can some one tell me, what is the best way to map houses in residential area. 
> 
> Which one should we consider the most appropriate way to map longer building 
> comprised of few properties?

I'm not sure either of your two examples are the best way, and I suspect the 
answer is likely to be "opinions vary".

Your example of individual houses would, in my opinion, be the better of the 
two if it had house numbers. The long buildings with nodes to mark house 
numbers are better than nothing. Buildings with no other information than just 
an outline are nothing but visual clutter which makes it harder to see where 
still needs address surveying without zooming in close (I'm sure my opinion 
will upset a lot of people who spend ages sitting there tracing them, but when 
I've come to add house numbers in the past it is often easier to delete the 
building outlines and start again).

Here are some other examples you might like to look at.

Maldon, Essex
https://osm.org/go/0EFrpAyFq?m=
Being picky, I think the individual property boundaries are perhaps a bit over 
the top, but if they are going to be added then there probably needs to be 
access to the house from the street rather than a solid barrier.

Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham
https://osm.org/go/euzN_rS4l--?m=

Nottingham
https://osm.org/go/eu8bMaoJB--

East Dulwich
https://osm.org/go/euuuXeO_c--

Clacton-on-Sea
https://osm.org/go/0EHmQd7ib

Apart from the last I just picked places at random and zoomed in. The level of 
detail varies, but what seems to be common is the individual outlines with an 
address on each.

I hope this helps,

Ed



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

[Talk-GB] How to map houses

[BD]

Hi,   can some one tell me, what is the best way to map houses in residential 
area. I was thinking of this on a much smaller scale (four or five terraced 
homes) but here is a good example of even longer properties.   
www.openstreetmap.org www.openstreetmap.org  West of the Westbury Ave., each 
house is a separate object; east from there someone mapped the long buildings 
as single long rectangles and only added points for house numbers.   Which one 
should we consider the most appropriate way to map longer building comprised of 
few properties?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-it] tag per terreno scoperto

[Volker Schmidt]

C'è anche natural=desert (vedi
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Ddesert).Utilizzato circa
2000 volte secondo taginfo

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 16:03, Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> Ma sì... alla fine "*mi schiero*"!
>
> La proposta di Martin [1
> ] mi
> sembra ottima, ma andrebbe estesa nei valori previsti. Come base potrebbero
> andare bene quelli indicati in [2
> ], ma andrebbero estesi
> con altri non previsti (*probabilmente perché non adatti al territorio
> degli USA*), quali per esempio, "taiga", "tundra" e "savanna".
>
> Mi sta bene che "surface" sia utilizzato solo per strade e/o piccole aree
> all'interno di contesti più ampi e comunque come superficie "*applicata
> dall'uomo*", non naturale.
>
> "natural" dovrebbe essere riservato a particolari "oggetti" (es.:
> natural=stone, natural=coastline, natural=geyser, ecc..), ma non a
> descrivere la qualità delle superfici.
>
> Landuse, come già sottolineato da Marco, dovrebbe essere utilizzato per
> definire l'uso di un'area da parte dell'uomo, e non le caratteristiche
> della sua superficie.
>
> Nel tuo caso quindi, Ale, potrebbe essere landcover=bare_soil  (*preso
> dalla classificazione LCCS, B16.A2.A5 in [**2
> **]*)
>
> Ciao,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover
>
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover
> On 2018-11-26 15:15, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Vero, oltre landuse e surface esistono anche le key "landcover=*" (*come
> proposta del "nostro" Martin, ma già molto utilizzata*) e "natural=*".
>
> Non mi schiero, ma constato sempre di più che OSM è una vera Babele... :-/
>
> Ciao!
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2018-11-26 14:59, mbranco2 wrote:
>
> Se il terreno è così di sua natura, non a causa dell'uomo, devi usare
> landcover e non landuse : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover
> 
> *Land use is the human use of land. Land use involves the management and
> modification of natural environment or wilderness into built environment
> such as fields, pastures, and settlements, also military, leisure and
> transportation. This concept is distinct from 'Landcover
> ' which describes the actual
> surface covering of the land; the landuse might be 'military', but the
> landcover might be heathland.*
> ...
>
> Ciao,
> Marco
>
> Il giorno lun 26 nov 2018 alle ore 14:08 Alessandro P. 
> ha scritto:
>
>> Salve,
>> mi trovo a dover mappare una grossa area il cui landuse è terra nuda. E'
>> un luogo in Africa, in Italia difficilmente esistono. Su mappe non OSM è
>> indicato come ground.
>> Ho cercato sia sul forum che su map feature, ma non ricade nè in scrub
>> che in heat, grassland, fell o altre possibilità mostrate dalla wiki.
>> Anche taginfo non dice niente. Avete idee a riguardo?
>>
>> Alessandro
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-it mailing list
>> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing 
> listTalk-it@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Les voies vertes

[Antoine Riche]

Pour moi cet exemple illustre parfaitement le fait qu'on ne peut pas se 
baser sur la seule réglementation pour cartographier précisément les 
aménagements. Nous en avons déjà discuté l'été dernier sur cette liste : 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Re-Cartographier-les-voies-vertes-td5918353i20.html#a5919452


Nous ne sommes que d'humbles cartographes, décrivons ce que nous 
observons sur le terrain :


1/ le bel enrobé et les vélos dessinés sur la chaussée indiquent qu'il 
s'agit d'un aménagement réalisé pour les cyclistes : highway=cycleway
2/ le panneau "interdit à tous véhicules à moteur" sauf riverains 
définit la réglementation : motor_vehicle=destination
3/ le piéton sur le panneau "Voie verte" montre que cette piste est 
aussi ouverte aux piétons : foot=designated
4/ l'aménageur explicite qu'il s'agit pour lui d'une voie verte avec le 
panneau C115 : traffic_sign=FR:C115
5/ on peut éventuellement décrire le revêtement (surface=asphalt) et la 
largeur (width=* ou est_width=*)


Ceci dit, utiliser highway=unclassified ou highway=track ne me 
choquerait pas ici.


L'ajout de traffic_sign=FR:C115 peut sembler fastidieux, mais c'est le 
seul moyen d'identifier les "Voies vertes selon l'aménageur" malgré la 
diversité des aménagements. L'intérêt est de pouvoir identifier, par une 
simple requête Overpass, des voies voies vertes autorisées aux véhicules 
à moteur comme celles-ci.


Antoine.

Le 26/11/2018 à 13:32, Axelos a écrit :

Bonjour,

Le 26/11/2018 à 12:53, marc marc a écrit :

je pense que la meilleur façon d'agir face à ce genre de situation
c'est un email au responsable concerné parce que c'est un *** sans nom.
Je laisse les pro du domaine confirmer mais une voie verte permis aux
voitures des riverains me semble incompatible légalement.

En pratique effectivement on peut considérer qu'une voie verte ne
devrait pas autoriser les pécheurs, riverains et autres engins agricoles
à y circuler. Cela parait contradictoire avec la définition d'une voie
verte.

Cependant "l'autorité de police compétente" est autorisé à ajouter
certaines exceptions en les précisant sur un panonceau.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT19152839

Cordialement.

___
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-ie] Broken townland boundary

[Tadeusz Cantwell]

So first of all, the error wasn't me! With advice from Brian I used the
Ireland British war office gsgs3906 in the imagery dropdown so they follow
the townland boundary line. This fixes the error. Also found where
Ballywaltrim ended in a n not an m. There are still warnings that the
admin_level is not set. So I'll need some more help to fix that.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 15:23, Tadeusz Cantwell  wrote:

> Ok it seems when I unglue the Ballywaltrim cottages it exposes the errors
> that have lay hidden. I'll need to reference a boundary map to see how it
> should be.
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 14:51, Tadeusz Cantwell  wrote:
>
>> I presume this was me.  Every time I try and edit in the area lots of
>> validation errors come up. Didn't realise I uploaded one. Will have a look
>> at it again.
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 14:44, Colm Moore  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475830816#map=17/53.18872/-6.12930
>>>
>>>
>>> There are several things happening here, so it's beyond my skills to
>>> fix. I would be grateful if someone could look at it. :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>>
>>> Colm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
>>> change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ie mailing list
>>> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>>>
>>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Broken townland boundary

[Tadeusz Cantwell]

Ok it seems when I unglue the Ballywaltrim cottages it exposes the errors
that have lay hidden. I'll need to reference a boundary map to see how it
should be.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 14:51, Tadeusz Cantwell  wrote:

> I presume this was me.  Every time I try and edit in the area lots of
> validation errors come up. Didn't realise I uploaded one. Will have a look
> at it again.
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 14:44, Colm Moore  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475830816#map=17/53.18872/-6.12930
>>
>>
>> There are several things happening here, so it's beyond my skills to fix.
>> I would be grateful if someone could look at it. :)
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>> Colm
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
>> change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
>> ___
>> Talk-ie mailing list
>> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>>
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.17.0

[Marc Gemis]

> My intention was rather to hear about some general trends,

As far as I understand,

One general trend is to be "cleaner, have less information". (e.g. the
building removal)
Another one is paler colours (e.g. parking from yellow to grey)
other landuse colour changes towards paler colours

I regularly see comments about that, (people not liking it, I haven't
read a comment about people liking it).

The one trend I really like more icons for more items, maybe even a
zoom level where you can see lanes and turn:lanes.

m.

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

Re: [Talk-it] tag per terreno scoperto

[Sergio Manzi]

Ma sì... alla fine "/mi schiero/"!

La proposta di Martin [1 
] mi sembra 
ottima, ma andrebbe estesa nei valori previsti. Come base potrebbero andare 
bene quelli indicati in [2 ], ma 
andrebbero estesi con altri non previsti (/probabilmente perché non adatti al 
territorio degli USA/), quali per esempio, "taiga", "tundra" e "savanna".

Mi sta bene che "surface" sia utilizzato solo per strade e/o piccole aree 
all'interno di contesti più ampi e comunque come superficie "/applicata 
dall'uomo/", non naturale.

"natural" dovrebbe essere riservato a particolari "oggetti" (es.: 
natural=stone, natural=coastline, natural=geyser, ecc..), ma non a descrivere 
la qualità delle superfici.

Landuse, come già sottolineato da Marco, dovrebbe essere utilizzato per 
definire l'uso di un'area da parte dell'uomo, e non le caratteristiche della 
sua superficie.

Nel tuo caso quindi, Ale, potrebbe essere landcover=bare_soil  (/preso dalla 
classificazione LCCS, B16.A2.A5 in [//2 
//]/)

Ciao,

Sergio


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover

On 2018-11-26 15:15, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Vero, oltre landuse e surface esistono anche le key "landcover=*" (/come 
> proposta del "nostro" Martin, ma già molto utilizzata/) e "natural=*".
>
> Non mi schiero, ma constato sempre di più che OSM è una vera Babele... :-/
>
> Ciao!
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2018-11-26 14:59, mbranco2 wrote:
>> Se il terreno è così di sua natura, non a causa dell'uomo, devi usare 
>> landcover e non landuse : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover
>> 
>> /*Land use* is the human use of land. Land use involves the management and 
>> modification of natural environment or wilderness into built environment 
>> such as fields, pastures, and settlements, also military, leisure and 
>> transportation. This concept is distinct from 'Landcover 
>> ' which describes the actual 
>> surface covering of the land; the landuse might be 'military', but the 
>> landcover might be heathland./
>> ... 
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Marco
>>
>> Il giorno lun 26 nov 2018 alle ore 14:08 Alessandro P. > > ha scritto:
>>
>> Salve,
>> mi trovo a dover mappare una grossa area il cui landuse è terra nuda. E'
>> un luogo in Africa, in Italia difficilmente esistono. Su mappe non OSM è
>> indicato come ground.
>> Ho cercato sia sul forum che su map feature, ma non ricade nè in scrub
>> che in heat, grassland, fell o altre possibilità mostrate dalla wiki.
>> Anche taginfo non dice niente. Avete idee a riguardo?
>>
>> Alessandro
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] tag per terreno scoperto

[Alessandro P.]

Il 26/11/18 14:59, mbranco2 ha scritto:
Se il terreno è così di sua natura, non a causa dell'uomo, devi usare 
landcover e non landuse : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover




Grazie,
in effetti più che a landuse pensavo a natural, ma landcover (che non 
conoscevo) è più appropriato.
Nella pagina wiki ci sarebbe anche "bare earth" che farebbe proprio al 
mio caso, ma al momento non vi è un tag o una combinazione di tag suggeriti.


Alessandro

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Broken townland boundary

[Tadeusz Cantwell]

I presume this was me.  Every time I try and edit in the area lots of
validation errors come up. Didn't realise I uploaded one. Will have a look
at it again.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 14:44, Colm Moore  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475830816#map=17/53.18872/-6.12930
>
>
> There are several things happening here, so it's beyond my skills to fix.
> I would be grateful if someone could look at it. :)
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
> Colm
>
>
>
> ---
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
> change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

[OSM-talk-ie] Broken townland boundary

[Colm Moore]

Hi,


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475830816#map=17/53.18872/-6.12930


There are several things happening here, so it's beyond my skills to fix. I 
would be grateful if someone could look at it. :)


Thank you


Colm


---
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the 
world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [Talk-it] tag per terreno scoperto

[Sergio Manzi]

Vero, oltre landuse e surface esistono anche le key "landcover=*" (/come 
proposta del "nostro" Martin, ma già molto utilizzata/) e "natural=*".

Non mi schiero, ma constato sempre di più che OSM è una vera Babele... :-/

Ciao!

Sergio


On 2018-11-26 14:59, mbranco2 wrote:
> Se il terreno è così di sua natura, non a causa dell'uomo, devi usare 
> landcover e non landuse : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover
> 
> /*Land use* is the human use of land. Land use involves the management and 
> modification of natural environment or wilderness into built environment such 
> as fields, pastures, and settlements, also military, leisure and 
> transportation. This concept is distinct from 'Landcover 
> ' which describes the actual 
> surface covering of the land; the landuse might be 'military', but the 
> landcover might be heathland./
> ... 
>
> Ciao,
> Marco
>
> Il giorno lun 26 nov 2018 alle ore 14:08 Alessandro P.  > ha scritto:
>
> Salve,
> mi trovo a dover mappare una grossa area il cui landuse è terra nuda. E'
> un luogo in Africa, in Italia difficilmente esistono. Su mappe non OSM è
> indicato come ground.
> Ho cercato sia sul forum che su map feature, ma non ricade nè in scrub
> che in heat, grassland, fell o altre possibilità mostrate dalla wiki.
> Anche taginfo non dice niente. Avete idee a riguardo?
>
> Alessandro
>
>
> ___
> 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


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] tag per terreno scoperto

[mbranco2]

Se il terreno è così di sua natura, non a causa dell'uomo, devi usare
landcover e non landuse : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover

*Land use is the human use of land. Land use involves the management and
modification of natural environment or wilderness into built environment
such as fields, pastures, and settlements, also military, leisure and
transportation. This concept is distinct from 'Landcover
' which describes the actual
surface covering of the land; the landuse might be 'military', but the
landcover might be heathland.*
...

Ciao,
Marco

Il giorno lun 26 nov 2018 alle ore 14:08 Alessandro P. 
ha scritto:

> Salve,
> mi trovo a dover mappare una grossa area il cui landuse è terra nuda. E'
> un luogo in Africa, in Italia difficilmente esistono. Su mappe non OSM è
> indicato come ground.
> Ho cercato sia sul forum che su map feature, ma non ricade nè in scrub
> che in heat, grassland, fell o altre possibilità mostrate dalla wiki.
> Anche taginfo non dice niente. Avete idee a riguardo?
>
> Alessandro
>
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] OSM IRL meeting in Dublin

[Brian Hollinshead]

Yes, if you would like to. I was hoping to make someone sorry they had not
come this time and that they might try harder next time.


On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 12:46, Dave Corley  wrote:

> Fantastic write up Brian. Can this be added as a post on the site?
>
> On Sat 24 Nov 2018, 16:16 Brian Hollinshead 
> > Just back from the meeting, some interesting and useful discussion as
> > usual.
> > Ciaran did a presentation on the simplicity of Mapmillary. This was
> > followed later on by a quick walk around the locality by four teams on
> > foot. Then uploading the resulting images on our return. Ciaran talked
> > about adding natural and man-made details to the map as well as roads
> using
> > the Mapillary plugin on JOSM to indicate the valuable source these images
> > are for adding
> >
> > There was a demonstration of using overass_turbo.eu to extract various
> > data
> > sets, save it and then import it into a multilayered u.map. Like using
> > leaflet but with no knowledge of code or grammar needed, it suits me very
> > well. Our thanks to OSM France who host the site.
> > Two example shown include u.osmfr.org/m/161139 which shows 6 of the
> > boundaries named Rathvilly which enclose Rathvilly Village and
> > u.osmfr.org/m/180392 with numerous layers showing Superintendent
> > Registrars
> > Districts and Registrars District on the east coast. These are
> particularly
> > useful to historians and those interested in genealogy. The relations can
> > be easily built as all the pieces of townland boundary are already there.
> >
> > Arising from talk about out of copyright maps we viewed
> > dublinhistoricmaps.ie which has various georeferenced images from 1700s,
> > 1800s and 1900s. Where the features coincide with modern OSM maps is best
> > seen by using the slider at the bottom right.
> >
> > Looking forward to the next meeting to get some answers about the
> > desirability or otherwise of adding dates to the names of historical
> > boundaries. There just wasn't time today.
> >
> > Hope to see some of you there.
> > ___
> > Talk-ie mailing list
> > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
> >
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Multipolygones, zone de rencontre et rendu

[deuzeffe]

Le 26/11/2018 à 10:50, Rpnpif a écrit :

Bonjour,

C'est vrai que le rendu osm-fr est souvent meilleur. Merci Christian.
Comment inciter les gens qui s'occupent de celui d'osm.org à le
modifier ?


En demandant ici : 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues après avoir 
vérifié qu'il n'y avait pas d'autre demande du même style ?


--
deuzeffe, si j'ai tout bien compris. Ou pas.

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

Re: [Talk-it] tag per terreno scoperto

[Sergio Manzi]

Immagino che la terra alla quale ti riferisci non sia molto "/usata/": lascerei 
perdere il landuse e mi focalizzerei su surface=*, che potrebbe essere ground, 
earth o dirt (vedi [1 ])

Ciao!

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface


On 2018-11-26 14:06, Alessandro P. wrote:
> Salve,
> mi trovo a dover mappare una grossa area il cui landuse è terra nuda. E' un 
> luogo in Africa, in Italia difficilmente esistono. Su mappe non OSM è 
> indicato come ground.
> Ho cercato sia sul forum che su map feature, ma non ricade nè in scrub che in 
> heat, grassland, fell o altre possibilità mostrate dalla wiki. Anche taginfo 
> non dice niente. Avete idee a riguardo?
>
> Alessandro
>
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-it] tag per terreno scoperto

[Alessandro P.]

Salve,
mi trovo a dover mappare una grossa area il cui landuse è terra nuda. E' 
un luogo in Africa, in Italia difficilmente esistono. Su mappe non OSM è 
indicato come ground.
Ho cercato sia sul forum che su map feature, ma non ricade nè in scrub 
che in heat, grassland, fell o altre possibilità mostrate dalla wiki. 
Anche taginfo non dice niente. Avete idee a riguardo?


Alessandro


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Govt should pressure Google to release data

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/11/2018 12:07, Gregory Marler wrote:


The ODI have called on the government to pressure Google, Uber, Apple 
into releaseing "mapping data"

https://theodi.org/article/we-call-on-the-government-to-work-with-google-apple-and-uber-to-publish-more-map-data-and-support-the-uks-emerging-technologies/

This got a fair amount of media attention last week in the Financial 
Times and other places.


My reaction was a bit confused...

Mapping data = location of things? Don't need it, as Sir Tim Bernes-Lee 
(ODI co-founder) already sings the praises of OpenStreetMap. Open data 
at Ordnance Survey is also getting better (I thought we/ODI we focusing 
on improving that, we all know govt could do better).


I think it's badly headlined, and badly reported. If you read the ODI's 
actual submission to the consultation, what they are actually calling 
for is for government  agencies and contractors to release more data 
under OGL or compatible licences. In particular, things like USRNs, 
UPRNs, TOIDs, INSPIRE IDs, etc.


The ODI's argument is that the lack of open data makes it difficult, if 
not impossible, for start-ups and other SMEs to compete with the giants 
(such as Google and Apple), as they do not have the resources to 
generate their own geospatial data and both the costs and conditions of 
licensing non-free data makes it impractical for them to use.


I entirely agree with that, and I would hope that the OSM community 
does, too.


Mark

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] OSM IRL meeting in Dublin

[Dave Corley]

Fantastic write up Brian. Can this be added as a post on the site?

On Sat 24 Nov 2018, 16:16 Brian Hollinshead  Just back from the meeting, some interesting and useful discussion as
> usual.
> Ciaran did a presentation on the simplicity of Mapmillary. This was
> followed later on by a quick walk around the locality by four teams on
> foot. Then uploading the resulting images on our return. Ciaran talked
> about adding natural and man-made details to the map as well as roads using
> the Mapillary plugin on JOSM to indicate the valuable source these images
> are for adding
>
> There was a demonstration of using overass_turbo.eu to extract various
> data
> sets, save it and then import it into a multilayered u.map. Like using
> leaflet but with no knowledge of code or grammar needed, it suits me very
> well. Our thanks to OSM France who host the site.
> Two example shown include u.osmfr.org/m/161139 which shows 6 of the
> boundaries named Rathvilly which enclose Rathvilly Village and
> u.osmfr.org/m/180392 with numerous layers showing Superintendent
> Registrars
> Districts and Registrars District on the east coast. These are particularly
> useful to historians and those interested in genealogy. The relations can
> be easily built as all the pieces of townland boundary are already there.
>
> Arising from talk about out of copyright maps we viewed
> dublinhistoricmaps.ie which has various georeferenced images from 1700s,
> 1800s and 1900s. Where the features coincide with modern OSM maps is best
> seen by using the slider at the bottom right.
>
> Looking forward to the next meeting to get some answers about the
> desirability or otherwise of adding dates to the names of historical
> boundaries. There just wasn't time today.
>
> Hope to see some of you there.
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Les voies vertes

[Axelos]

Bonjour,

Le 26/11/2018 à 12:53, marc marc a écrit :
> je pense que la meilleur façon d'agir face à ce genre de situation
> c'est un email au responsable concerné parce que c'est un *** sans nom.
> Je laisse les pro du domaine confirmer mais une voie verte permis aux 
> voitures des riverains me semble incompatible légalement.

En pratique effectivement on peut considérer qu'une voie verte ne
devrait pas autoriser les pécheurs, riverains et autres engins agricoles
à y circuler. Cela parait contradictoire avec la définition d'une voie
verte.

Cependant "l'autorité de police compétente" est autorisé à ajouter
certaines exceptions en les précisant sur un panonceau.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT19152839

Cordialement.

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

Re: [Talk-it] foss4g-it2019 a PAdova

[stefano campus]

grazie Ale, mi hai anticipato.
:-)

s.



--
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: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.17.0

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 26.11.2018 o 09:50, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:
> Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 01:40 Uhr schrieb Daniel Koć  >:
>
>
> BTW: what do you consider to be a progress here? What do you like the
> most in recent changes and maybe what problems are the most visible?
>
>
>
> dropping buildings from z13 is really a pity, I would have liked to
> see them back on z12.


My intention was rather to hear about some general trends, since there's
no place that we can hear about. It usually ends up discussing single
cases, especially problems. We deal with it all the time and of course
this is the core of our work, but it does not help to think what could
be done in the future and what are general impressions, especially what
things are good already or worth more efforts.

Such detailed issues are best discussed simply using tickets and we have
plenty of them, for example:

- dropping buildings from z13

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3467

- street workout icon design

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1870


-- 

"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]

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

[Talk-GB] Govt should pressure Google to release data

[Gregory Marler]

The ODI have called on the government to pressure Google, Uber, Apple into
releaseing "mapping data"
https://theodi.org/article/we-call-on-the-government-to-work-with-google-apple-and-uber-to-publish-more-map-data-and-support-the-uks-emerging-technologies/

This got a fair amount of media attention last week in the Financial Times
and other places.

My reaction was a bit confused...

Mapping data = location of things? Don't need it, as Sir Tim Bernes-Lee
(ODI co-founder) already sings the praises of OpenStreetMap. Open data at
Ordnance Survey is also getting better (I thought we/ODI we focusing on
improving that, we all know govt could do better).

Mapping data = user data, like current traffic locations or insights into
journeys people take? This would be amazing to get. But the companies won't
give it away if you ask nicely, it's potentially their most valuable asset
besides giving away the actual users. The govt can't control that, unless
it was part of an existing agreement (i.e. bike share schemes, or taxis).


The article/press release disappoints me, it feels like a waste of media
attention. It possibly even dilutes the other messages of the ODI and it's
founders.

What do the rest of you think?


-- 
Gregory Marler
i...@nomoregrapes.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
http://www.nomoregrapes.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Les voies vertes

[marc marc]

Bonjour,

Le 26. 11. 18 à 12:21, Pierre L. a écrit :
> Cette histoire de "highway=path" ne me parle pas. Où dois-je me diriger
> pour insérer cette info ?

c'est un problème de qualité de traduction :-(
tu dessines le tracé comme pour n'importe quel autre voie.
path dans iD se nome actuellement erronément "chemin non carrossable"

> En voyant ainsi le "highway=track/unclassified" désignant une voie
> verte, mais avec véhicules autorisés à titre exceptionnels

la caractère exceptionnel est mal formulé.
path est un sentier qui "physiquement" ne permet pas le passage
d'un véhicule de type 4x4, peu importe l'autorisation
track est un chemin qui physiquement le permet.
les autorisations genre "sauf riverain" se décrivent par le tag
d'accès comme par exemple access=destination.

> À utiliser donc dans ce cas par exemple :
> https://goo.gl/maps/SCnTFPQLj692

Il y a un problème de licence interdisant d'utiliser les images 
propriétaires de Google Maps et de Google Street View.
Si tu avais une photo sans ce problème, je répondrais :
je pense que la meilleur façon d'agir face à ce genre de situation
c'est un email au responsable concerné parce que c'est un *** sans nom.
Je laisse les pro du domaine confirmer mais une voie verte permis aux 
voitures des riverains me semble incompatible légalement.
ceci dit pour osm, c'est assez facile :
type de voie : track (assez large pour un véhicule)
faite pour les vélos et piéton : bicycle=designated foot=designated
les riverains : access=destination
les véhicules de service : à ma connaissance on n'a pas de tag
surface=asphalt
pour le voie sans issue : rien sur le chemin, c'est plus loin
sur le nœud "sans issue" qu'il y a parfois un attribut à ajouter
comme par exemple une bloc de béton bloquant physiquement les véhicules
il y a plus qu'à aller voir sur place pour avoir une source=survey :)

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

[Talk-ca] hebdoOSM Nº 435 2018-11-13-2018-11-19

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 435 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/11010/

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

[OSM-talk-fr] hebdoOSM Nº 435 2018-11-13-2018-11-19

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 435 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/11010/

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

[Talk-ht] hebdoOSM Nº 435 2018-11-13-2018-11-19

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 435 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/11010/

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.

[OSM-talk-fr] Les voies vertes

[Pierre L.]

Bonjour,

Suite à la lecture de cette page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bicycle#Voies_vertes à propos des
"voies vertes", je souhaiterais avoir quelques précisions en plus si
possible.

Lors de la modification/création de voie via l'éditeur en ligne OSM, je
ne vois pas trop comment attribuer sans probable erreur de ma part,
l'assignation de "voie verte". Lors que je tape "voie verte" dans la
recherche, rien ne ressort...
Cette histoire de "highway=path" ne me parle pas. Où dois-je me diriger
pour insérer cette info ?

En voyant ainsi le "highway=track/unclassified" désignant une voie
verte, mais avec véhicules autorisés à titre exceptionnels, j'ai
l'impression que recenser ce type de voies parait moins simple... mais
c'est un autre point...!
À utiliser donc dans ce cas par exemple :
https://goo.gl/maps/SCnTFPQLj692
où il s'agit effectivement d'une voie verte, mais avec cette
autorisation spéciale pour véhicules motorisés... Suis-je ok ?

En vous remerciant par avance pour le tuyau !

Pierre


ps: toutes mes excuses si la question a déjà été posée, mais la
recherche dans les archives d'une mailing liste parait très fastidieuse :s



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

Re: [Talk-it] tracciamo il futuro di OpenStreetMap in Italia?

[Laurentius]

Sempre su questo tema, in lista osmf-talk riportano che c'è stato
recentemente un blocco di 100 nuove richieste d'iscrizione che sembrano
provenire da una stessa azienda in India:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-November/005456.html

Il direttivo di OpenStreetMap Foundation ha valutato la situazione e
concluso che non ci siano indicazione che le registrazioni siano
illegittime; in ogni caso non avranno diritto di voto quest'anno.

Lorenzo

Il giorno mer, 07/11/2018 alle 19.00 +0100, Laurentius ha scritto:
> Il giorno lun, 05/11/2018 alle 11.36 +0100, Cascafico Giovanni ha
> scritto:
> > Come sta avvenendo la scalata? Che scenari prospetti? 
> 
> C'è una discussione in questi giorni sulla mailing list
> dell'OpenStreetMap Foundation:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-November/005
> 335.html
> 
> In pratica, pare che alcune aziende stiano invitando i loro
> dipendenti
> a iscriversi alla Foundation, offrendosi anche di rimborsargli la
> quota, con l'obiettivo di indirizzare i voti.
> 
> Invitare i dipendenti a iscriversi di per sé non è un male: anzi, con
> Wikimedia Italia stavamo facendo una riflessione sulla possibilità di
> chiedere alle aziende (non necessariamente legate al nostro mondo) di
> invitare i loro dipendenti a fare una donazione o associarsi - a
> proposito, se pensate che il posto dove lavorate potrebbe essere
> interessato scrivetemi!
> Il problema è se viene utilizzato per manovrare le elezioni e quindi
> le
> posizioni della OSMF. Non so dire se sia questo il caso e nel caso le
> dimensioni del fenomeno, ma è un rischio a cui fare attenzione.
> 
> Preoccupazioni di questo tipo non sono nuove. In passato è stata
> molto
> discussa anche la quantità di persone legate all'Humanitarian
> OpenStreetMap Team frai candidati al board, con la preoccupazione da
> parte di qualcuno che HOT "prendesse il controllo".
> 
> Cose di questo tipo possono avere un effetto perché i soci non sono
> tantissimi, qualche centinaia: anche per questo è importante
> iscriversi
> sia all'associazione italiana che alla OSMF. Avere più iscritti rende
> meno suscettibili a manipolazioni. Sono 25 € per WMI [1] e 15 £ per
> OSMF [2], si può fare!
> 
> Lorenzo
> 
> [1] https://wiki.wikimedia.it/wiki/Iscrizioni
> [2] https://join.osmfoundation.org/
> 
> ___
> 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] foss4g-it2019 a PAdova

[Alessandro P.]

  
  
Buongiorno lista,
vorrei ricordare che per proporre interventi OSM al prossimo
FOSS4G-IT 2019 che si svolgerà a Padova dal 20 al 22 febbraio c'è
tempo sino al 30 novembre.

http://foss4g-it2019.gfoss.it/callforpaper

La sessione vuole raccogliere contributi relativi allo studio e/o
all’utilizzo di OSM, con riferimento particolare, ma non
  esclusivo, ai seguenti aspetti:

  qualità dei dati OpenStreetMap
  applicazioni basate su software geografico libero per
visualizzare o processare dati OpenStreetMap, integrarli con
altri dataset e/o generare nuovi dataset di rilevanza
scientifica 
  applicazioni tematiche e/o scientifiche di OpenStreetMap
  nuovi approcci per facilitare o migliorare la raccolta dei
dati in OpenStreetMap
  rassegne di letteratura su specifici aspetti di OpenStreetMap
  esperienze, iniziative, buone pratiche per migliorare le
connessioni dentro la comunità OpenStreetMap e tra essa e la
comunità scientifica e sociale (es. CAI, Protezione Civile, …) 
  problemi scientifici aperti su OpenStreetMap e sfide per la
comunità scientifica
  iniziative/progetti della comunità italiana di OpenStreetMap


Parallelamente è aperta la call per workshop, anch'essa con scadenza
30 novembre. I workshop riscuotono un buon successo anche tra il
mondo delle aziende e della P.A. 
Questo il link per proporre workshop  
http://foss4g-it2019.gfoss.it/callforworkshop

Vi aspettiamo numerosi a Padova

  Alessandro Ale_Zena_IT
  


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Multipolygones, zone de rencontre et rendu

[Rpnpif]

Bonjour,

C'est vrai que le rendu osm-fr est souvent meilleur. Merci Christian.
Comment inciter les gens qui s'occupent de celui d'osm.org à le
modifier ?
Je pense aussi aux "place" sous forme d'aire dont le nom n'est visible
qu'à partir d'un niveau élevé de zoom ou... jamais !

-- 
Alain Rpnpif

Le 25 novembre 2018, Christian Quest a écrit :

> Et oui, je n'applique pas le même ordre que le rendu OSM car ces zones qui
> recouvrent tout ne m'allaient pas (et pour cause).
> 
> Je pense par contre que la modélisation est incorrecte.
> 
> Les piétons peuvent aller partout sur l'aire concernée, je la mettrait donc
> en pedestrian sur le multipolygone.
> Les véhicules, ne peuvent pas aller partout, j'imagine qu'il y des voies...
> et là le living_street me semble adapté sur les way filaires.
> 
> Autre sujet... les "parking". Le stationnement sur le bord des voies n'est
> pas vraiment ce qu'on peut appeler un parking qui est un espace dédié
> stationnement et pas en même temps une voie de circulation + des trottoirs,
> bref une "rue".
> 
> Il me semble qu'il serait préférable:
> - de supprimer ces polygones parking
> - d'ajouter les règles de stationnement sur le filaire de voie
> (parking:condition / parking:lane)
> - de conserver les parking_space si tu veux détailler en surfacique chaque
> place de stationnement et des règles spécifiques (durée max, PMR,
> livraison, etc)
> 
> 
> Le dim. 25 nov. 2018 à 10:05, David Crochet  a
> écrit :
> 
> > Bonjour
> >
> > Le 24/11/2018 à 23:28, Gwenaël Jouvin a écrit :  
> > > Problème : malgré le multipolygone, le stationnement et les rues  
> > laissées pour le routage n’apparaîssent pas.
> >
> >
> > Le rendu, ce n'est que ce que ton cerveau interprète ce que t'envoie les
> > signaux provoqué par les yeux.
> >
> > Si c'est codifier correctement, je ne voie pas le soucis. et le routeur
> > n'a pas d’œil.
> >
> >
> > L'un des rendu fait peut-être ceci : "je dessine les zones pédestres au
> > dessus des zones de stationnement" alors que l'autre fait peut-être cela
> > : "je dessine une zone pédestre et par dessus je rajoute les rues, les
> > places de stationnement".
> >
> > Voila pourquoi 2 rendues peuvent être différentes avec les mêmes données.
> >
> >
> > Cordialement
> >
> > --
> > David Crochet
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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-au] Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

[Warin]

Other routes use relations, and don't display on 'the map'. Bus routes, 
train routes, hiking, cycling all use relations and don't normally 
display on 'the map'.
All of these do break up some of the ways into sections that are 
annoying for us to edit but it is needed for these routes (and other 
things like changes in speed limits).


However ferries have to deviate from the 'way' for other vessels, 
hazards etc so the existence of the way is only an indication not an 
absolute.


---
Not certain what you mean by 'custom tagging'.
If you mean to have ways with tags different from those existing there 
is nothing stopping you from doing so, but your going to be the only 
person using them.


I think you might mean that 'your' ferry ways will be custom tagged and 
then 'your' route relation would use them for the routing engines.

Could work.

However ... if the present ways are not what really happens .. then that 
is a problem.
While it may 'look good' OSM is more about truth on the ground/water 
than looking good.


Good luck .. it will not be easy!

 On 26/11/18 11:43, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson wrote:


Hi all,

I have had some recent feedback regarding my changes to the ferry 
route paths in Sydney Harbour in August this year.  I basically 
changed the mapping from single way approach to relation approach. The 
main reason for this change was so that the ferry route paths could be 
used for routing purposes, to reflect what is actually happening on 
the “ground” with these ferry route services.


The feedback I received from the OSM user is that these ferry routes 
should be mapped back to single way approach as having ways 
intersecting/branching between terminals/wharves should not be 
allowed. Rather, there should only be a single way between wharves.  
At the moment some routing engines take turns in the middle of the 
harbour (example 
 
– now fixed in database) which I agree is not ideal.  I have tried to 
map the ways to avoid this as much as possible.


I feel that I’m following the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=ferry with the relation 
approach.  At the time that I made the changes, I got only minimal 
(all positive) feedback regarding my approach to this.  But I can also 
understand the reasoning behind why the single way approach is 
preferred, as it looks better from a cartographic point of view on the 
standard OSM map tiles and gives a good overview of the ferry routes.


Unfortunately mapping with the single way approach does not give 
options for accurate routing based on the way the actual ferry 
services operate.


The idea was brought forward to apply custom tagging to the “new” ways 
that have been mapped based on the relation approach.  These custom 
tags (i.e. route=[custom tag]) could then be used in conjunction with 
single way approach ways for routing based on services.


I am not saying this is ideal, but I am willing to look at any 
compromise that could be perhaps suit everybody.


So my question is, is it possible to tag with custom tagging (i.e. 
route=ferry_services) or any of the existing tags 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags? That would mean that routing 
engines like graphHopper could keep using the route=ferry for it’s ‘A’ 
to ‘B’ foot routing.**


I think that moving forward, there will be the need for relation 
approach (routable) ferry route paths.  App devs and transport 
agencies will have need to use these ways for routing. Obviously, this 
is my opinion, so I would really appreciate your views on this.


Thank you


On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 23:42, Andrew Harvey > wrote:


I think so long as there's an active ferry route running between
two terminals then it should have a route=ferry[1] connecting
them, roughly following the actual geometry the route normally
takes. Where you have a ferry route that sometimes has a few
variants, eg. sometimes skips a terminal, or sometimes goes to a
different wharf, then that can be accounted for using the ferry
route relation.

As the wiki points out[1], this could be a simple way, or a route
relation[2]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dferry
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

On 6 August 2018 at 23:20, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson
mailto:sjonn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi,


I would like to amend the Ferry routes in NSW, particularly in
and around Sydney using a different approach.

At the moment the Ferry routes are mapped with a *single way
approach,* by tagging a single way drawn along the whole route
(i.e. Circular Quay to Manly).  The only benefit for the
single line approach, that I can see, is that it is simple and
represents well on the map tiles.  The problem with this

Re: [Talk-cz] Knihkupectví a kavárna v jednom

[xkomc...@centrum.cz]

Že by se místo modelu klíč=hodnota (současný stav, všichni známe) použil 
datový model Wikidat, kde je možné ke každému "klíči" přidat větší 
množství hodnot, tyto hodnoty je možné dále nezávisle na sobě zdrojovat, 
datovat (ve smyslu "přiřadit jim datum") a mezi sebou dále odkazovat.



V praxi by s tím šlo dělat to, co se tu řešilo: tento node je hospoda, 
která má otevírací dobu Pondělí - Neděle 12:00-22:00 a zároveň je to 
lezecká stěna, která má ale otevřeno pouze Pátek-Neděle 18:00-22:00. 
Node má (pro obě dvě hodnoty) webovou stránku stenavhospode.cz a je 
součástí velké nadnárodní společnosti "Chlastej a lez". (tohleto by šlo 
udělat i se současným modelem, ale musí se pro to používat tolik 
"berliček", že je žádný zpracovatel dat není schopen pojmout - v 
současnosti je v OSM přes 70 000 (!!!) různých tagů - 
https://youtu.be/q602O9VGy3A?t=7674 , o "jednoduchosti" práce se 
superrelacemi ani nemluvě).



Dále se to řešilo v rámci OpenHistoricalMaps, kde chceš mít jeden 
element (např. Římská říše), která však v průběhu doby mění své 
parametry (hranice, jednotlivé provincie do ní spadající, ...), dále 
různé státy vznikají, zanikají a na jejich základech vznikají 
nástupnické státy (ČSR -> ČR a Slovensko), ...



Hlavní výhodou datového modelu Wikidat je jeho pružnost, čitelnost boty 
i lidmi a OBOUSTRANNÁ propojitelnost s dalšími zdroji běžícími na tom 
samém software (viz třeba https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTstz6F5Qo 
mluvící o propejení Wikidat se "soukromou" instancí softwaru Wikibase, 
na kterém Wikidata běží).



Zkrátka datový model Wikidat má samé výhody, jedinou, avšak zcela 
zásadní věcí je: jak by překlopení něčeho tak velkého jako je OSM 
proběhlo? (konzumenti dat, nástroje na různé konverze a zpracování OSM 
dat, editory, wiki, kde je vše popsáno, a hlavně samotní mappeři).



On 25. 11. 18 21:44, Jan Macura wrote:

Ahoj,

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 17:31, xkomc...@centrum.cz 
 > wrote:


V rámci celosvětové SotM v Miláně. Omlouvám se za nejednoznačnost.

A ano, nejčastěji se o tom diskutovalo bez záznamu.


On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 at 11:09, xkomc...@centrum.cz
 mailto:xkomc...@centrum.cz>> wrote:

To je problém datového modelu OSM: letos na SotM se o tom
diskutovalo, probírali se možnosti (nejčastěji byla
zmiňována Wikidata jako model, který by šlo přebrat), ale co
vím, tak zatím v této oblasti neprobíhá žádný (ani
testovací) vývoj.



aha, díky za vyjasnění kontextu. Mohl bys mi tedy prosím osvětlit i tu 
samotnou myšlenku "přebírání datového modelu Wikidat"?


Díky
 H.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Armchair o survey mapping?

[EneaSuper]

Come credo di averti già detto in questi giorni, adoro Mapillary, e lo uso
varie volte per perlustrare le varie zone che mi interessano 
Non sono, però, ancora interessato a lavorare a questo progetto, non ho né
il tempo né gli strumenti per poterlo fare...



--
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-it] Armchair o survey mapping?

[EneaSuper]

Non so ancora utilizzare bene questo editor di testo, quindi cercherò di
risponderti nella maniera più ordinata e chiara possibile:

• Ovviamente anche io adopero ambo le tecniche, ma quando si tratta di
mappare qualcosa di nuovo e di molto importante desidererei adoperare e
migliorare la tecnica del survey mapping. Purtroppo però, per i motivi sopra
citati, tendo a dover tornare al armchair, e questa cosa è davvero
scoraggiante...
iD non lo uso oramai da molto tempo, quindi per ambo le tecniche adopero
sempre e solo JOSM 

• Dati i numerosi elementi già presenti nella cartografia OSM sì,
effettivamente il GPS potrebbe non essere poi così necessario 樂
Stavo pensando di dotarmi anche io di un'app che permetta di modificare e
caricare subito i contenuti, ma penso che portare i dati su PC e modificarli
successivamente sia una prassi migliore, almeno per me.

• Intendevo dire "famosi", lapsus freudiano 臘‍♂️

• Eh, come detto in apertura anche io ho la mia simbologia personale utile a
rappresentare determinati tipi di elementi sul foglio, che fortunatamente mi
da pochi problemi. Per quanto riguarda le categorie sì, penso che tu abbia
ragione 樂



--
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: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.17.0

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 01:40 Uhr schrieb Daniel Koć :

>
> BTW: what do you consider to be a progress here? What do you like the
> most in recent changes and maybe what problems are the most visible?




dropping buildings from z13 is really a pity, I would have liked to see
them back on z12.

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

Re: [Talk-de] Gehen OSM-Editoren unterschiedlich mit Multipolygonen um?

[Rolf Eike Beer]

Am 2018-11-26 09:32, schrieb Bernhard Kuisle:

Bei der momentan laufenden Diskussion über Multipolygone und ihre
Handhabbarkeit habe ich noch eine Frage bezüglich der OSM Editoren:
Ich verwende JOSM und lege ein MP eigentlich immer nur mit einem
äußeren Ring (in einer Linie) und mehr oder weniger vielen inneren
Ringen an. Dadurch ist es mir später leicht möglich, das MP mit dem
Werkzeug "splitten" in zwei kleine aufzuteilen. Ich muss dann nur noch
dafür sorgen, die ich die inneren Ringe richtig zuzuordne.
Nun ist mir aufgefallen, dass bei den mir angelegten MPs später der
einelne äußere Ring eben in viele Wege zerstückelt wurde (vermutlich
um die Wege nicht mehrfach in der Datenbank zu halten). Dadurch ist es
bei großen MPs eine "Sauarbeit", diese richtig
zu teilen. Wer (Mensch oder Maschine) teilt diese einzelne äußere
Linie eigentlich auf? Ich habe den Verdacht, dass dies durch
Potlatch geschieht, stimmt das?


Moin,

zumindest beim Deister (#66210) habe ich das mal irgendwann händisch 
gemacht. Der äußere Ring hat gerade nur so um die 1000 Punkte, aber das 
war irgendwann extrem nervig: jemand hat an irgendeiner Stelle "hinterm 
Deister" was verschoben und dann bekommt man vorne Kollisionen, weil es 
der selbe Weg ist. Ein großes Problem war auch, dass ein User 
versehentlich den outer komplett gelöscht hatte und dann anfing 
reparieren zu wollen. Ein anderer hat den Fehler auch gesehen und auch 
angefangen… Schmerzen. Siehe die edit-history. Ich habe den Kram 
seinerzeit erst reverted und hinterher den outer willkürlich aufgeteilt, 
so dass die Wege eine für mich handhabbare Größe hatten. All das manuell 
und mit JOSM.


Ich sehe gerade das irgendein Scherzkeks jetzt in der Mitte eine Insel 
gebaut hat, die selbst wieder ein outer ist. :/


Eike

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

Re: [Talk-it] Armchair o survey mapping?

[Marco Minghini]

Già citato in precedenza: Mapillary!
Fai le foto senza neanche "fare fatica" (ad esempio con il supporto per
auto mentre guidi o con il selfie stick mentre cammini) e ti ritrovi con un
potenziale immenso di informazioni da inserire; non solo, ma con le tue
foto anche altri potranno arricchire OSM (prova a visualizzare il layer
Mapillary in ID o JOSM e vedrai quante foto raccolte da altri ti consentono
di aggiungere dati a OSM...)

Comunque quoto Alessandro: non esiste un metodo migliore in assoluto
(altrimenti non ne esisterebbero così tanti).

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

[Talk-de] Gehen OSM-Editoren unterschiedlich mit Multipolygonen um?

[Bernhard Kuisle]

Bei der momentan laufenden Diskussion über Multipolygone und ihre 
Handhabbarkeit habe ich noch eine Frage bezüglich der OSM Editoren:
Ich verwende JOSM und lege ein MP eigentlich immer nur mit einem äußeren 
Ring (in einer Linie) und mehr oder weniger vielen inneren Ringen an. 
Dadurch ist es mir später leicht möglich, das MP mit dem Werkzeug 
"splitten" in zwei kleine aufzuteilen. Ich muss dann nur noch dafür 
sorgen, die ich die inneren Ringe richtig zuzuordne.
Nun ist mir aufgefallen, dass bei den mir angelegten MPs später der 
einelne äußere Ring eben in viele Wege zerstückelt wurde (vermutlich um 
die Wege nicht mehrfach in der Datenbank zu halten). Dadurch ist es bei 
großen MPs eine "Sauarbeit", diese richtig
zu teilen. Wer (Mensch oder Maschine) teilt diese einzelne äußere Linie 
eigentlich auf? Ich habe den Verdacht, dass dies durch

Potlatch geschieht, stimmt das?
Mit freundlichem Gruß
Bernhard


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

Re: [Talk-it] Armchair o survey mapping?

[Alessandro P.]

Il 25/11/18 12:06, EneaSuper ha scritto:

 dopo molto tempo passato a praticare *l'armchair
mapping con iD*, ho deciso di passare ad un "livello superiore", quindi
adoperare *JOSM ed il survey mapping*.


Non capisco la contrapposizione armchair vs survey: io continuo a far 
entrambe le cose e vivo benissimo.
E non vedo perchè iD debba essere usato solo per il primo e JOSM solo 
per il secondo.




per ottenere la geolocalizzazione migliore;


In ambienti già ben coperti dalla mappatura (e.g.: Genova) non c'è 
nemmeno bisogno di accendere il GPS visto che esistono già abbondanti 
riferimenti relativi (un palazzo, un POI, un incrocio, ..) e comunque, 
in ambiente urbano con le riflessioni dei palazzi, affidarsi alla 
precisione di un GPS di uno smartphone spesso non è sufficiente.


Esistono molte app che permettono di inserire dati *direttamente da app* 
e *senza bisogno di GPS*, sempre più spesso con queste riesco a mappare 
velocemente e precisamente e senza il doppio passaggio survey/editing.
Poi c'è sempre l'incrocio delle molte sorgenti tracce gps, foto aeree, 
mapillary, ecc.. Non esiste quindi un metodo standard o migliore ma 
quello più pratico e migliore rispetto a mezzi e fonti che si hanno a 
disposizione.





Una valida alternativa agli strumenti elettronici sono, ovviamente, quelli
analogici, come i famigerati *field papers*,


Famigerati? Penso che nessuno al mondo li trovi famigerati (a meno che 
tu non abbia fatto a pugni col vocabolario).




• *Appunti disordinati*: in determinate occasioni e zone geografiche si è
costretti a prendere numerosi appunti, che spesso possono risultare
disordinati e poco chiari;


Il primo consiglio è non mappare troppe categorie contemporaneamente. Io 
quando mi trovo a mappare un tot di categorie a lato del foglio o sul 
retro mi faccio una piccola legenda di simboli (puntini, crocette, 
triangolini, ...) che mi permettono comunque di inserire molti oggetti 
senza avere confusione sul foglio.


Alessandro Ale_Zena_IT

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