Re: [Talk-cz] Bylo: WeeklyOSM CZ 437 - bazény

[Majka]

Dobře, mazat se nebude.

Ale je Vám všem jasné, že to označení jako soukromé patří na všechny ty 
zahradní bazény?

Ne že by přes nějakých 95% nezmapoval fell3... 

12. prosince 2018 6:48:39 SEČ, "Karel Volný"  napsal:
>čest práci,
>

>
>maje nějakou nenulovou zkušenost s "paneláky naležato" a se
>zahrádkářskými 
>koloniemi, řekl bych, že 3 m průměru jsou dosti - takové bazény si lidi
>
>obvykle nepřemísťují, naopak spíše časem zčásti zakopou do země
>
>sezonní brouzdaliště pro úplnou drobotinu má průměr tak max 1,5 m
>
>každopádně souhlasím s Pavlem, omezme to navíc dle autora, neničme
>práci 
>někomu, kdo se o svoji zahrádku stará i virtuálně a modeluje si jí v
>mapě :-)
>
>K.

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

Re: [Talk-de] Rein unterirdische Gebäude?

[sepp1974]

Hallo Roland,

m.M.n. wird building immer wieder und gern in diesem Zusammenhang falsch 
übersetzt. building steht für Bauwerk und für Gebäude. Im deutschen gibt 
es für beide zwei unterschiedliche Begriffe und von der Qualifikation 
ist ein Gebäude immer erstmal auch ein Bauwerk, wobei ein Bauwerk aber 
nicht zwingend ein Gebäude sein muss. Auch im Wiki liegt zu beiden 
Begriffen die Bedeudung viel zu sehr auf dem Gebäude im Sinne von Haus 
als auf dem "übergeordneten" Bauwerk. (Ich hab's erst letztes Wochenende 
versucht, durch ne kleine Änderung deutlicher zu machen) Selbst ein 
Fahrsilo, der ja nur aus aufgestellten seitlichen Betonelementen 
besteht, i.d.R. kein Dach hat und in seiner Gesamtheit befahrbar ist, 
verdient richtigerweise den Tag building=yes. M.M.n. ein 
Übersetzungsproblem aufgrund Anzahl der verwendeten Begriffe - es gibt 
sprachlich wesentlich mehr "Gebäude" als "Bauwerke" obwohl es anders 
herum korrekt wäre. (Deepl kann das halt nicht und die wenigsten machen 
sich darüber tatsächlich auch mal Gedanken)


Selbstverständlich sehe ich ein Parkhaus (unabhängig vom Begriff des 
Parkhauses) als Bauwerk und als Gebäude per Definition. Niemand schreibt 
vor, dass ein Gebäude sichtbar ab Ebene 0 erkennbar sein muss. Ich 
vermute, dass für den Renderer gataggt wurde, weil dieser mit Ebene <0 
nicht klar kommt?


Also building=yes, building=parking, layer=-1 oder tiefer sind definitiv 
gerechtfertigt.


Gruß Sepp

Am 12.12.2018 05:12 schrieb Roland Olbricht:

Hallo zusammen,

aus der Changeset-Diskussion
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64670512
ist die Frage aufgekommen, ob eine Tiefgarage schon ein Gebäude
darstellt, wenn die Zufahrt an einer Seite ebenerdig ist.

Erschwerend kommt hinzu, dass der Betreiber die Tiefgarage "Parkhaus" 
nennt.


Von der Lage her gibt es rund um das historische Bahnhofsgebäude die
Bahngleise auf der einen Seite und einen neu angelegten
Bahnhofsvorplatz mit Busbahnhof auf der anderen Seite. Diese sind
zueinander ebenerdig. Das Gelände südlich des Bahnhofs liegt viel
höher, das Gelände nördlich des Bahnhofs viel tiefer. Dementsprechend
ist die Nordfront des Verteilgeschosses unter dem Bahnhofsvorplatz und
der Tiefgarage sichtbar.

Da der Fußgängerdurchgang zwischen Bahnhofstunnel und Innenstadt somit
ebenerdig ist, bildet dies auch die dominante Verkehrsachse.

Allerdings haben wir vergleichbare Situationen auch bei Bahndämmen in
Köln Hbf, Essen Hbf, Frankfurt Ostbahnhof und Berlin-Friedrichstraße.
Dort sind die Bahndämme mit Stützmauern ja ebenfalls kein Gebäude.

Ich wäre daher an Rückmeldung interessiert, wie andere die Situation
einschätzen. Insbesondere: Gibt es eine sinnvolle Lösung, 3D-Mapping
an solchen Hanglagen durchzuführen?

Viele Grüße,

Roland


___
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-cz] Bylo: WeeklyOSM CZ 437 - bazény

[Karel Volný]

čest práci,

> Vzhledem k tomu, že lze hledat podle délky cesty, dají se ty soukromé
> bazény docela dobře vyfiltrovat . Proto
> znovu dávám k debatě, co s tím. Vzít ty hodně malé a vymazat (našlo mi do
> obvodu 10m, tj. průměr zhruba do 3m asi polovinu z celkového počtu), a vše
> větší označit jako soukromé?  To vyhledávání je do délky čáry 20 m, což
> odpovídá průměru cca 6m, nebo obdélník 4x6m.
> 
> Máme toho v téhle velikosti po ČR asi 3400 kousků celkem. Ten návrh na
> vymazání vychází z toho, že ty malé bazény bych považovala za dočasné.
> Pokud tedy nechceme trávit věky ověřováním toho, že ten bazén je pořád
> ještě na místě, na kterém ho nasnímaly mapy.cz nebo CUZK, podle kterých to
> fell3 podle mě mapoval.

maje nějakou nenulovou zkušenost s "paneláky naležato" a se zahrádkářskými 
koloniemi, řekl bych, že 3 m průměru jsou dosti - takové bazény si lidi 
obvykle nepřemísťují, naopak spíše časem zčásti zakopou do země

sezonní brouzdaliště pro úplnou drobotinu má průměr tak max 1,5 m

každopádně souhlasím s Pavlem, omezme to navíc dle autora, neničme práci 
někomu, kdo se o svoji zahrádku stará i virtuálně a modeluje si jí v mapě :-)

K.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

[Talk-de] Rein unterirdische Gebäude?

[Roland Olbricht]

Hallo zusammen,

aus der Changeset-Diskussion
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64670512
ist die Frage aufgekommen, ob eine Tiefgarage schon ein Gebäude 
darstellt, wenn die Zufahrt an einer Seite ebenerdig ist.


Erschwerend kommt hinzu, dass der Betreiber die Tiefgarage "Parkhaus" nennt.

Von der Lage her gibt es rund um das historische Bahnhofsgebäude die 
Bahngleise auf der einen Seite und einen neu angelegten Bahnhofsvorplatz 
mit Busbahnhof auf der anderen Seite. Diese sind zueinander ebenerdig. 
Das Gelände südlich des Bahnhofs liegt viel höher, das Gelände nördlich 
des Bahnhofs viel tiefer. Dementsprechend ist die Nordfront des 
Verteilgeschosses unter dem Bahnhofsvorplatz und der Tiefgarage sichtbar.


Da der Fußgängerdurchgang zwischen Bahnhofstunnel und Innenstadt somit 
ebenerdig ist, bildet dies auch die dominante Verkehrsachse.


Allerdings haben wir vergleichbare Situationen auch bei Bahndämmen in 
Köln Hbf, Essen Hbf, Frankfurt Ostbahnhof und Berlin-Friedrichstraße. 
Dort sind die Bahndämme mit Stützmauern ja ebenfalls kein Gebäude.


Ich wäre daher an Rückmeldung interessiert, wie andere die Situation 
einschätzen. Insbesondere: Gibt es eine sinnvolle Lösung, 3D-Mapping an 
solchen Hanglagen durchzuführen?


Viele Grüße,

Roland


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Local groups? Digest, Vol 130, Issue 4

[keith hartley]

I think Canada has some great invested mappers, and resources but we're
pretty far apart! We don't quite have the level of org like the US or
europe has.
As long as we can get the municipality on board with the proper license (IE
OGL 2.0) we can take them on - IE one person did Regina in a matter of days
once it was cleared.



On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:21 PM john whelan  wrote:

> Sounds like we have perhaps four or five groups covering 3,700
> municpalities so the best approach will be to list the areas available and
> to request basic tagging say building type and the number of levels from
> where ever we can get them.  You never know mapillary may have some
> coverage.
>
> I'm thinking along the lines of Stat Can crowd sourcing efforts for
> building outlines and possibly some sort of a hook involvement although
> that would require some sort of validation as per the organised mapping
> guidelines.
>
> Thanks John
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 3:38 PM keith hartley  wrote:
>
>> As far as I can tell there's a few of us in Manitoba. I have a small
>> group that gets together every month to map out something! I know a few
>> mappers in sask too, but nothing organized.
>> Keith
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:01 AM 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
>>> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>1. hebdoOSM Nº 437 2018-11-27-2018-12-03 (theweekly@gmail.com)
>>>2. Local groups? (john whelan)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 05:54:13 -0800 (PST)
>>> From: theweekly@gmail.com
>>> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> Subject: [Talk-ca] hebdoOSM Nº 437 2018-11-27-2018-12-03
>>> Message-ID: <5c0e7005.1c69fb81.9fbe6.1...@mx.google.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> Bonjour,
>>>
>>> Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 437 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de
>>> paraître *en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :
>>>
>>> http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/11081/
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:19 -0500
>>> From: john whelan 
>>> To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
>>> Subject: [Talk-ca] Local groups?
>>> Message-ID:
>>> >> it9...@mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> Microsoft have released building outline data for the US.  I have heard
>>> rumours that they will be releasing a few for Canada.
>>>
>>> I'm not proposing to import them at this point but these days importing
>>> is
>>> its own speciality and it needs a mixture of technical skills and boots
>>> on
>>> the ground or at least coverage by Mapillary.
>>>
>>> It would make sense to import them for areas that have local mappers
>>> first
>>> so they could be enriched with building type etc.
>>>
>>> I know there are local mappers in Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal
>>> but is there a list somewhere of the local groups in Canada?
>>>
>>> Just looking at the number of edits in an area isn't as helpful as I
>>> thought it might be.  Andrew seems to be mapping Canada single handedly.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>> -- next part --
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL: <
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20181210/7b6fbb37/attachment-0001.html
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 130, Issue 4
>>> ***
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[talk-latam] OSMF elecciones 2018

[Miriam Mapanauta]

Hola/Oi mappers de OSM Latam

Además de saludares les hago una invitación para que lean el manifiesto y
las preguntas de los candidatos que estamos contendiendo a las elecciones
de 2018 para ser parte del Board de la Fundación de OSM. Podrán votar
aquellas personas que sean miembrxs dentro de las fechas autorizadas, es
decir, estar inscritos un mes antes de las votaciones. Les comparto el link
para que decidan por lxs candidatxs que crean serán su voz y comparten sus
ideas para el futuro del proyecto OSM.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM18/Election_to_Board/Answers_and_manifestos#

Saludos,

Miriam
@mapanauta
___
talk-latam mailing list
talk-latam@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-latam

Re: [Talk-cz] Bylo: WeeklyOSM CZ 437 - bazény

[Pavel Machek]

On Tue 2018-12-11 23:57:08, majka wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 22:56, xkomc...@centrum.cz 
> wrote:
> 
> > Jojo, tak jsem se během mapping párty v Tišnově mrkl do své mobilní mapy
> > (Locus) a říkal jsem si: "Kde je Majka, když ji člověk potřebuje?!". V
> > tom... ehm ... nepořádku to jediné skutečné koupaliště není možné najít.
> >
> Tady jsem ;)
> 
> Vracím se k tomu, co jsme před časem nechali vyšumět do ztracena. Od té
> doby došlo k posunu u toho, jak to udělat:
> Vzhledem k tomu, že lze hledat podle délky cesty, dají se ty soukromé
> bazény docela dobře vyfiltrovat . Proto
> znovu dávám k debatě, co s tím. Vzít ty hodně malé a vymazat (našlo mi do
> obvodu 10m, tj. průměr zhruba do 3m asi polovinu z celkového počtu), a vše
> větší označit jako soukromé?  To vyhledávání je do délky čáry 20 m, což
> odpovídá průměru cca 6m, nebo obdélník 4x6m.
> 
> Máme toho v téhle velikosti po ČR asi 3400 kousků celkem. Ten návrh na
> vymazání vychází z toho, že ty malé bazény bych považovala za dočasné.
> Pokud tedy nechceme trávit věky ověřováním toho, že ten bazén je pořád
> ještě na místě, na kterém ho nasnímaly mapy.cz nebo CUZK, podle kterých to
> fell3 podle mě mapoval.
> 
> Pokud se tady na něčem dohodneme, byla by to vcelku jednoduchá hromadná
> editace. Klidně to potom proženu přes import list...

Jestli se bude neco takoveho delat, bylo by mozne menit jenom ty
bazeny co vyrobil fell3?

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


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

[Talk-cz] Bylo: WeeklyOSM CZ 437 - bazény

[majka]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 22:56, xkomc...@centrum.cz 
wrote:

> Jojo, tak jsem se během mapping párty v Tišnově mrkl do své mobilní mapy
> (Locus) a říkal jsem si: "Kde je Majka, když ji člověk potřebuje?!". V
> tom... ehm ... nepořádku to jediné skutečné koupaliště není možné najít.
>
Tady jsem ;)

Vracím se k tomu, co jsme před časem nechali vyšumět do ztracena. Od té
doby došlo k posunu u toho, jak to udělat:
Vzhledem k tomu, že lze hledat podle délky cesty, dají se ty soukromé
bazény docela dobře vyfiltrovat . Proto
znovu dávám k debatě, co s tím. Vzít ty hodně malé a vymazat (našlo mi do
obvodu 10m, tj. průměr zhruba do 3m asi polovinu z celkového počtu), a vše
větší označit jako soukromé?  To vyhledávání je do délky čáry 20 m, což
odpovídá průměru cca 6m, nebo obdélník 4x6m.

Máme toho v téhle velikosti po ČR asi 3400 kousků celkem. Ten návrh na
vymazání vychází z toho, že ty malé bazény bych považovala za dočasné.
Pokud tedy nechceme trávit věky ověřováním toho, že ten bazén je pořád
ještě na místě, na kterém ho nasnímaly mapy.cz nebo CUZK, podle kterých to
fell3 podle mě mapoval.

Pokud se tady na něčem dohodneme, byla by to vcelku jednoduchá hromadná
editace. Klidně to potom proženu přes import list...

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] To Vote or not to Vote

[deuzeffe]

Et comme les archives de la liste sont publiques, même pas besoin de 
trop creuser pour pouvoir accuser les Français et les Françaises de 
bourrer les urnes ^^

--
deuzeffe

Le 11/12/2018 à 22:36, Martin Noblecourt a écrit :
Mon Dieu, un complot des Français qui après avoir adhéré en masse 
s'organisent pour diriger les votes :-D (je me moque gentiment de 
l'ambiance parfois un peu anxiogène de la liste OSMF ^^ )


Sinon l'information la plus "objective" possible est le questionnaire 
officiel et les manifestes des candidats publiés sur le Wiki, mais c'est 
vrai que ça n'est pas forcément évident de ce coltiner tout ce texte, en 
anglais en plus ! 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM18/Election_to_Board/Answers_and_manifestos


Bon vote à tous !

Martin


On 11/12/2018 22:20, talk-fr-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

Subject:
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] To Vote or not to Vote
From:
Vincent Privat 
Date:
11/12/2018 22:04

To:
Discussions sur OSM en français 


En français, Christian a fait un très bon boulot pour expliquer les 
enjeux, puis son vote:

https://medium.com/@cq94/48h-pour-r%C3%A9-%C3%A9quilibrer-la-gouvernance-de-la-fondation-openstreetmap-906f3f648d27
https://medium.com/@cq94/election-osmf-2018-lheure-du-choix-bc4780315745

En anglais, Christoph Hormann (imagico) a aussi beaucoup écrit à ce sujet:
http://blog.imagico.de/elections-for-the-board-of-the-openstreetmap-foundation-2018/

Avis perso:  totalement partagé avec Christian et Marc. A noter que 
Tobias est également un contributeur allemand de longue date, très 
attaché aux valeurs fondatrices du projet OpenStreetMap et qui mérite 
aussi notre soutien.




___
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-ca] Local groups? Digest, Vol 130, Issue 4

[john whelan]

Sounds like we have perhaps four or five groups covering 3,700
municpalities so the best approach will be to list the areas available and
to request basic tagging say building type and the number of levels from
where ever we can get them.  You never know mapillary may have some
coverage.

I'm thinking along the lines of Stat Can crowd sourcing efforts for
building outlines and possibly some sort of a hook involvement although
that would require some sort of validation as per the organised mapping
guidelines.

Thanks John


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 3:38 PM keith hartley  As far as I can tell there's a few of us in Manitoba. I have a small group
> that gets together every month to map out something! I know a few mappers
> in sask too, but nothing organized.
> Keith
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:01 AM  wrote:
>
>> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
>> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. hebdoOSM Nº 437 2018-11-27-2018-12-03 (theweekly@gmail.com)
>>2. Local groups? (john whelan)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 05:54:13 -0800 (PST)
>> From: theweekly@gmail.com
>> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: [Talk-ca] hebdoOSM Nº 437 2018-11-27-2018-12-03
>> Message-ID: <5c0e7005.1c69fb81.9fbe6.1...@mx.google.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Bonjour,
>>
>> Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 437 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de
>> paraître *en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :
>>
>> http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/11081/
>>
>> 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
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:19 -0500
>> From: john whelan 
>> To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
>> Subject: [Talk-ca] Local groups?
>> Message-ID:
>> > it9...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Microsoft have released building outline data for the US.  I have heard
>> rumours that they will be releasing a few for Canada.
>>
>> I'm not proposing to import them at this point but these days importing is
>> its own speciality and it needs a mixture of technical skills and boots on
>> the ground or at least coverage by Mapillary.
>>
>> It would make sense to import them for areas that have local mappers first
>> so they could be enriched with building type etc.
>>
>> I know there are local mappers in Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal
>> but is there a list somewhere of the local groups in Canada?
>>
>> Just looking at the number of edits in an area isn't as helpful as I
>> thought it might be.  Andrew seems to be mapping Canada single handedly.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Cheerio John
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20181210/7b6fbb37/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 130, Issue 4
>> ***
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 437

[Marián Kyral]

On 11. 12. 18 22:50, Jan Macura wrote:


On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 19:26, Marián Kyral > wrote:


Opraveno. Díky za report.

On 11. 12. 18 18:47, Jakub Jelen wrote:

Narazil jsem na preklep v kategorii Nadace OSM, je slovo "volny"
misto "volby".



btw, svahilština, svahilsky, atp. v češtině vše s jednoduchým V. Pokud 
o takové připomínky stojíte. Díky za překlady!




Á díky. To mi taky uteklo :-(
Opraveno, příště se snad polepším :-D

Marián

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

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 437

[Jan Macura]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 19:26, Marián Kyral  wrote:

> Opraveno. Díky za report.
>
> On 11. 12. 18 18:47, Jakub Jelen wrote:
>
> Narazil jsem na preklep v kategorii Nadace OSM, je slovo "volny" misto
> "volby".
>
>
btw, svahilština, svahilsky, atp. v češtině vše s jednoduchým V. Pokud o
takové připomínky stojíte. Díky za překlady!

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] To Vote or not to Vote

[Jacques Lavignotte]

Le 11/12/2018 à 22:36, Martin Noblecourt a écrit :

Sinon l'information la plus "objective" possible est le questionnaire 
officiel et les manifestes des candidats publiés sur le Wiki,


Je le ferai pour les Europé^H^H^H prochaines élections.

J.


--
GnuPg : C8F5B1E3 Because privacy matters.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] To Vote or not to Vote

[Martin Noblecourt]

Mon Dieu, un complot des Français qui après avoir adhéré en masse 
s'organisent pour diriger les votes :-D (je me moque gentiment de 
l'ambiance parfois un peu anxiogène de la liste OSMF ^^ )


Sinon l'information la plus "objective" possible est le questionnaire 
officiel et les manifestes des candidats publiés sur le Wiki, mais c'est 
vrai que ça n'est pas forcément évident de ce coltiner tout ce texte, en 
anglais en plus ! 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM18/Election_to_Board/Answers_and_manifestos


Bon vote à tous !

Martin


On 11/12/2018 22:20, talk-fr-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

Subject:
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] To Vote or not to Vote
From:
Vincent Privat 
Date:
11/12/2018 22:04

To:
Discussions sur OSM en français 


En français, Christian a fait un très bon boulot pour expliquer les 
enjeux, puis son vote:

https://medium.com/@cq94/48h-pour-r%C3%A9-%C3%A9quilibrer-la-gouvernance-de-la-fondation-openstreetmap-906f3f648d27
https://medium.com/@cq94/election-osmf-2018-lheure-du-choix-bc4780315745

En anglais, Christoph Hormann (imagico) a aussi beaucoup écrit à ce sujet:
http://blog.imagico.de/elections-for-the-board-of-the-openstreetmap-foundation-2018/

Avis perso:  totalement partagé avec Christian et Marc. A noter que 
Tobias est également un contributeur allemand de longue date, très 
attaché aux valeurs fondatrices du projet OpenStreetMap et qui mérite 
aussi notre soutien.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [A VOTé] To Vote or not to Vote

[Jacques Lavignotte]

Merci à tous,

Jacques


Le 11/12/2018 à 22:04, Vincent Privat a écrit :
En français, Christian a fait un très bon boulot pour expliquer les 
enjeux, puis son vote:

https://medium.com/@cq94/48h-pour-r%C3%A9-%C3%A9quilibrer-la-gouvernance-de-la-fondation-openstreetmap-906f3f648d27
https://medium.com/@cq94/election-osmf-2018-lheure-du-choix-bc4780315745

En anglais, Christoph Hormann (imagico) a aussi beaucoup écrit à ce sujet:
http://blog.imagico.de/elections-for-the-board-of-the-openstreetmap-foundation-2018/

Avis perso:  totalement partagé avec Christian et Marc. A noter que 
Tobias est également un contributeur allemand de longue date, très 
attaché aux valeurs fondatrices du projet OpenStreetMap et qui mérite 
aussi notre soutien.


Le mar. 11 déc. 2018 à 21:55, marc marc > a écrit :


Le 11.12.18 à 21:49, Jacques Lavignotte a écrit :
 > inquiétudes sur certaines tendances.

avis perso :
- le représentant d'HOT n'est pas indépendant même s'il croit l'être
(je vois mal comment il pourrait voter contre une demande de HOT)
- Guillaune et Joost ont un implication communautaire de longue date
et n'ont pas de conflit connu (quoi que pour Guillaume, il est
dépendant
au vélo, mais cela ne compte pas) :-) ;-)
c'est 2 candidats qui méritent du soutient.
je m'abstiens de donner una avis sur les autres par manque d'info.
___
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



--
GnuPg : C8F5B1E3 Because privacy matters.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] To Vote or not to Vote

[Vincent Privat]

En français, Christian a fait un très bon boulot pour expliquer les enjeux,
puis son vote:
https://medium.com/@cq94/48h-pour-r%C3%A9-%C3%A9quilibrer-la-gouvernance-de-la-fondation-openstreetmap-906f3f648d27
https://medium.com/@cq94/election-osmf-2018-lheure-du-choix-bc4780315745

En anglais, Christoph Hormann (imagico) a aussi beaucoup écrit à ce sujet:
http://blog.imagico.de/elections-for-the-board-of-the-openstreetmap-foundation-2018/

Avis perso:  totalement partagé avec Christian et Marc. A noter que Tobias
est également un contributeur allemand de longue date, très attaché aux
valeurs fondatrices du projet OpenStreetMap et qui mérite aussi notre
soutien.

Le mar. 11 déc. 2018 à 21:55, marc marc  a
écrit :

> Le 11.12.18 à 21:49, Jacques Lavignotte a écrit :
> > inquiétudes sur certaines tendances.
>
> avis perso :
> - le représentant d'HOT n'est pas indépendant même s'il croit l'être
> (je vois mal comment il pourrait voter contre une demande de HOT)
> - Guillaune et Joost ont un implication communautaire de longue date
> et n'ont pas de conflit connu (quoi que pour Guillaume, il est dépendant
> au vélo, mais cela ne compte pas) :-) ;-)
> c'est 2 candidats qui méritent du soutient.
> je m'abstiens de donner una avis sur les autres par manque d'info.
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] To Vote or not to Vote

[marc marc]

Le 11.12.18 à 21:49, Jacques Lavignotte a écrit :
> inquiétudes sur certaines tendances.

avis perso :
- le représentant d'HOT n'est pas indépendant même s'il croit l'être
(je vois mal comment il pourrait voter contre une demande de HOT)
- Guillaune et Joost ont un implication communautaire de longue date
et n'ont pas de conflit connu (quoi que pour Guillaume, il est dépendant 
au vélo, mais cela ne compte pas) :-) ;-)
c'est 2 candidats qui méritent du soutient.
je m'abstiens de donner una avis sur les autres par manque d'info.
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[OSM-talk-fr] To Vote or not to Vote

[Jacques Lavignotte]

[REMINDER] OpenStreetMap Foundation Election 2018 [kWrVt]

Tout à fait nouveau ici je suis totalement ignorant des enjeux de ce 
vote. J'ai lu ici il ya quelque temps des inquiétudes sur certaines 
tendances.


Sans demander des consignes de vote, peut-on me « guider » ?

Réponse perso acceptées.

Thx

Jacques
--
GnuPg : C8F5B1E3 Because privacy matters.


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapy.cz - spoluprace

[Jan Macura]

Ahoj,

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 16:00, Petr Vozdecký  wrote:

> asi by slo o pilotni projekt synchronizace dat "treti stranou" v CR, ktery
> by byl postaveny tak, ze vznikla spolecna data by mela referencni zakladnu
> v OSM databazi (alespon pokud je mi znamo).
>

super nápad, udělat z toho (pro nás) pilotní projekt v koordinaci mezi NGO,
GOV a Biz, tj. v tomto případě OSM ČR (+ WM ČR) + ŘSD + Seznam.
Zásadní by ale bylo mít toho "project leadera", někoho, kdo si takový
projekt vezme na starost.



> (...) myslim, ze do stejne kategorie pak patri i SOS body (Body zachrany)
> v lesich a turistickych lokalitach. A to uz by chtelo pokus o hromadne
> ziskani techto dat od provozovatelu (zpravidla kraje).
>

Body záchrany patří do stejné kategorie z pohledu OSM, ale z hlediska
poskytovatele dat jsme jinde. Teď bych to nemíchal.

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 130, Issue 4

[keith hartley]

As far as I can tell there's a few of us in Manitoba. I have a small group
that gets together every month to map out something! I know a few mappers
in sask too, but nothing organized.
Keith

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:01 AM  wrote:

> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. hebdoOSM Nº 437 2018-11-27-2018-12-03 (theweekly@gmail.com)
>2. Local groups? (john whelan)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 05:54:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: theweekly@gmail.com
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-ca] hebdoOSM Nº 437 2018-11-27-2018-12-03
> Message-ID: <5c0e7005.1c69fb81.9fbe6.1...@mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Bonjour,
>
> Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 437 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de
> paraître *en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :
>
> http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/11081/
>
> 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
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:19 -0500
> From: john whelan 
> To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
> Subject: [Talk-ca] Local groups?
> Message-ID:
>  it9...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Microsoft have released building outline data for the US.  I have heard
> rumours that they will be releasing a few for Canada.
>
> I'm not proposing to import them at this point but these days importing is
> its own speciality and it needs a mixture of technical skills and boots on
> the ground or at least coverage by Mapillary.
>
> It would make sense to import them for areas that have local mappers first
> so they could be enriched with building type etc.
>
> I know there are local mappers in Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal
> but is there a list somewhere of the local groups in Canada?
>
> Just looking at the number of edits in an area isn't as helpful as I
> thought it might be.  Andrew seems to be mapping Canada single handedly.
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheerio John
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20181210/7b6fbb37/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 130, Issue 4
> ***
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Liste pour la Polynésie

[Violaine_Do]

Merci Christian pour l'ouverture :) J'attendais qu'on soit au moins 2 :p AHA

Bonne soirée à tous :)

A +

Le 06/12/2018 à 10:04, g...@laposte.net a écrit :

Bonjour Violaine

Merci pour l'info, et content d'avoir des nouvelles de là-bas. PS: 
J'ai consulté, la place du 1er post est encore à prendre !


A propos des chemins sur pilotis le long du littoral, il existe bien 
un tag, voir :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:bridge=boardwalk 



Christian
A+


*De: *"Violaine_Do" 
*À: *talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
*Envoyé: *Jeudi 6 Décembre 2018 02:20:29
*Objet: * [OSM-talk-fr] Liste pour la Polynésie

Bonjour à tous,
Je voulais juste vous faire savoir qu'une liste locale pour la 
Polynésie vient d'être créée : 
https://listes.openstreetmap.fr/wws/info/local-polynesie
Souhaitons lui une longue, belle, riche vie (au sens collaboration et 
rencontres),

A bientôt sur cette liste je l'espère,
--
Violaine_Do

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


--
Violaine_Do

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

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 437

[Marián Kyral]

Opraveno. Díky za report.

Marián

On 11. 12. 18 18:47, Jakub Jelen wrote:
Narazil jsem na preklep v kategorii Nadace OSM, je slovo "volny" misto 
"volby".


Jakub

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:37 PM Marián Kyral > wrote:


On 11. 12. 18 16:17, majka wrote:

Díky za Weekly.

Mimochodem je zmíněn Openstreetbrowser a nová kategorie plavání.
Protože zásahy kamaráda fell3 nakonec nikdo neopravil, lezou z
toho zajímavé věci

.
Netuším, jestli by z nás měli v Benešově nad Ploučnicí radost...




V Tišnově jsem na něj taky narazil…
­…a (zatím?) to nechal tak.

Marián

___
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


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

Re: [Talk-TW] AED問題

[Dennis Raylin Chen]

Hi all

拖了有點久
如同先前的信件討論談的條件
移除未變動的AED
https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65383977

data.gov.tw 有份 AED 資料集
https://data.gov.tw/dataset/12063
有興趣的人可以動手處理匯入
至少知道AED放的地方是那裡
如有錯位還能更動放到對的位置

Dennis

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:34 PM Dennis Raylin Chen 
wrote:

> 該筆Trello鎖定這次編輯：https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27036685
>
> 刪除verison 1 的AED表示該點位沒變動，沒被刪除或是移動位置
>
> 未經過現場勘查過
>
> 根據Trello記錄，已經有位置奇怪的AED已經被移除了
>
> Dennis
>
> 2018-03-22 10:00 GMT+08:00 Dongpo Deng :
>
>> 要刪除有問題AED資料我贊同呀!
>> 但我不太懂為什麼是針對「編輯歷史只有一次的點位」。
>> 若其它tag 也有「編輯歷史只有一次的點位」呢?
>>
>> 這種討論不需要「覆議」吧! XD
>> 既然是討論，若是附議，也可以說明一下原因。
>>
>> Dongpo
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:15 PM 陳文振信箱  wrote:
>>
>>> Egret 覆議刪除AED中編輯歷史只有一次的點位
>>>
>>> Dennis Raylin Chen  於 2018年3月21日 上午11:23 寫道：
>>>
 Hi 各位：

 該是來面對問題的時候了


 https://trello.com/c/2U8h1vw0/94-%E6%94%B9%E9%80%B2-aed-%E5%9C%96%E8%B3%87

 三月台北月聚時有討論到AED

 然後在這幾年編輯過程，有好幾次有奇怪位置的AED被移除了

 我提議刪除AED中編輯歷史只有一次的點位

 需要大家討論了

 Dennis

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


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 陳文振
>>> openeg...@gmail.com
>>> ___
>>> Talk-TW mailing list
>>> Talk-TW@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
>>>
>>
>
___
Talk-TW mailing list
Talk-TW@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw

Re: [talk-au] Adding lane tags to major roads

[Martijn van Exel]

Thanks. Because you cannot edit the Overpass query for an existing challenge, I 
created a new one that has the LPI imagery as default backdrop.
The challenge lives here: https://maproulette.org/mr3/browse/challenges/3387 
 
It has 9800+ tasks. 
I deleted the old one.
Thanks for the suggestions!
Martijn

> On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:31 AM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> I just checked again, it looks like you haven't corrected this yet, so a 
> friendly reminder it would be nice to have this fixed.
> 
> I think it's also a good idea to include the NSW LPI Imagery as the default 
> background layer for this task. I just filed 
> https://github.com/osmlab/maproulette3/issues/572 
>  in relation to this.
> 
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, at 4:53 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> Andrew  H-- correct and I wasn't suggesting that you amend it yourself :) I 
>> will make the update when I find a moment.
>> Andrew H/D -- thanks for pointing me to the import plan. 
>> --
>>   Martijn van Exel
>>   m...@rtijn.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, at 17:29, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>> On Sat., 8 Dec. 2018, 10:38 am Martijn van Exel >>  wrote:
>>> That is a good point. The query would probably be easy enough to modify.
>>> Something like this...
>>> 
>>> [timeout:190];
>>> area[name=“New South Wales"]->.a;
>>> way[highway~"motorway|trunk|primary"][!lanes][!"lanes:forward"][!"lanes:backward"](area.a);
>>> out body geom qt;
>>> 
>>> Yeah but I don't think I can modify your maproulette challenge, are you 
>>> able to?
>>> 
>>> I think it needs to be pre-processed a bit more to weed out the very short 
>>> segments. And perhaps work on areas where lanes actually matter (urban) 
>>> first.
>>> 
>>> I was looking at how to slice that and got interested in the status of 
>>> administrative boundary relations for Australia. It seems to be 
>>> inconsistent, for example in South Australia there is pretty good (but not 
>>> complete) coverage of admin_level=6 http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/EmZ 
>>>  and even one admin_level=8 
>>> (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/En0 ) but in 
>>> other states the admin_level=6 coverage is pretty sparse or absent 
>>> (https://imgur.com/a/gmUJs2r , query at 
>>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/En1  but watch 
>>> out, it’s a lot of data). If you all think this is useful to fix / complete 
>>> perhaps we can set up a page to coordinate. I’m happy to help. 
>>> 
>>> There's another thread ongoing on this list about importing suburb, 
>>> localities and LGA boundaries. 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>  Martijn van Exel
>>>  m...@rtijn.org 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, at 17:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 Overall I think it's a great idea.
 
 Could you filter out ways that have lanes:forward and lanes:backward?
 eg. https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3375/task/6686753 
  which
 shouldn't need a redundant lanes tag as you can just add them up.
 On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 10:49, Martijn van Exel >>> > wrote:
> 
> Hi folks.
> I created MapRoulette challenge asking mappers to look at aerial images 
> and add lane tags to major roads.
> https://maproulette.org/mr3/browse/challenges/3375 
> 
> This particular one is for NSW but can easily be ‘cloned’ for other 
> regions.
> I wanted to get your opinion on this — good / bad idea? Can it be 
> improved? Smaller regions? Any feedback welcome.
> Martijn
> 
> PS the Overpass Query this is based on is:
> 
> [timeout:190];
> area[name="New South Wales"]->.a;
> way[highway~"motorway|trunk|primary"][!lanes](area.a);
> out body geom qt;
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
>> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> 
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 437

[xkomc...@centrum.cz]

No jo, z bronzové pozice v roce 2016 o jednu příčku níže na bramborovou 
2017 a propad až sdílenou 10.-11. pozici prozatím letos. Měl by ses nad 
sebou zamyslet! ;-)



Ale Tomáš a Majka se letos vyšvihli do první dvacítky, gratulki!


On 11. 12. 18 18:38, Marián Kyral wrote:

On 11. 12. 18 15:44, Tom Ka wrote:

Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 437 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/11081


* Analýza všech OSM mail listů.


Koukám na to a letos se nějak moc flákám :-D

Marián

___
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] importare dati osm su database

[Daniele Forsi]

Il giorno mar 11 dic 2018 alle ore 15:49 Roberto Brazzelli ha scritto:

> quale delle 2 strade è più semplice?

problema x-y: stai elencando delle soluzioni invece di spiegare qual è
il tuo problema
("test con dati a livello comunale" non è una spiegazione sufficiente
perché test diversi richiedono strumenti diversi)
--
Daniele Forsi

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

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 437

[Jakub Jelen]

Narazil jsem na preklep v kategorii Nadace OSM, je slovo "volny" misto
"volby".

Jakub

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:37 PM Marián Kyral  wrote:

> On 11. 12. 18 16:17, majka wrote:
>
> Díky za Weekly.
>
> Mimochodem je zmíněn Openstreetbrowser a nová kategorie plavání. Protože
> zásahy kamaráda fell3 nakonec nikdo neopravil, lezou z toho zajímavé věci
> .
> Netuším, jestli by z nás měli v Benešově nad Ploučnicí radost...
>
>
>
> V Tišnově jsem na něj taky narazil…
> ­…a (zatím?) to nechal tak.
>
> Marián
>
> ___
> 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-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 437

[Marián Kyral]

On 11. 12. 18 15:44, Tom Ka wrote:

Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 437 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/11081


* Analýza všech OSM mail listů.


Koukám na to a letos se nějak moc flákám :-D

Marián

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

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 437

[Marián Kyral]

On 11. 12. 18 16:17, majka wrote:

Díky za Weekly.

Mimochodem je zmíněn Openstreetbrowser a nová kategorie plavání. 
Protože zásahy kamaráda fell3 nakonec nikdo neopravil, lezou z toho 
zajímavé věci 
. 
Netuším, jestli by z nás měli v Benešově nad Ploučnicí radost...





V Tišnově jsem na něj taky narazil…
­…a (zatím?) to nechal tak.

Marián

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Soyons carto, contribuons au renouvellement des serveurs OSM-France

[Donat ROBAUX]

Bonsoir à tous,

Nous venons aujourd'hui de passer le 1er palier de 4 000 € de dons à
OpenStreetmap France nous permettant la mise à jour de 3 gros serveurs,
dont un hébergeant des tuiles.
En route pour le 2e palier à 5 000 € pour héberger encore plus
d'orthophotos!

Pour plus de détails et participer à la campagne, c'est par ici:
https://openstreetmap.assoconnect.com/billetterie/offre/90295-e-renouvellement-de-nos-serveurs

Merci à toutes et tous.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Znaceni uzavirek vs offline navigace

[majka]

Ne, tahle je to špatně. V iD je třeba "sjet" až do části "Všechny
vlastnosti" a upravit to tam, tedy ručně vepsat. Pro jistotu jsem to
zkontrolovala v JOSM, ale naprosto stejně jsem to zadala do iD.

Mimochodem, je tam blbě o kousek dál ten průjezd Benzinou. Ta cesta skrz
namá být indoor, opravím to také.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 17:18, marek  wrote:

> Tak jsem to upravil, je to správně?  conditional = yes @  forward  ( nov -
> mar )
>
>
>
> Marek Polák
>
>
>
> __
> > Od: "mahdi1234" 
> > Komu: "OpenStreetMap Czech Republic" 
> > Datum: 10.12.2018 16:24
> > Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Znaceni uzavirek vs offline navigace
> >
> mahdi1234 wrote on 12/09/2018 10:21 PM:
>
> marek wrote on 12/09/2018 07:37 PM:
>
> Já to píšu proto, že asi před rokem jsem sem dával omezení a magic Earth s
> ním zatím nepracuje, pokud to mám dobře.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/653782922
>
>
>
> Marek Polák
>
>
>
> Jeste k te jednosmerce, vypada, ze nemas tag podle spec viz
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions kde je
> pouzit oneway :conditional
> =yes @ Su
>
> Podle tag info je pouzit jen 4x jak mas ty -
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=oneway#values ... podle te
> wiki stranky to je pouzito 975x
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=oneway:conditional
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> 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
>
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Rory McCann]

On 11/12/2018 16:49, Jmapb wrote:

On 12/11/2018 9:41 AM, Rory McCann wrote:

On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote:

   If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
map it as an actual military academy?


No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military academy".


Sidebar, according to my reading of the address tagging standards, one 
should only tag addr:housename=* when it's an official (or at least de 
facto) part of the postal address. It's not for people who just decide 
their house has a name and write that name on a sign -- though you can 
use name=* for that. J


If you put a sign on your house and use that to direct people, and the 
postal worker delivers you post, then it is de facto the name. In 
Ireland house names, as opposed to numbers, are very common in rural 
areas. There is no official registry.


On 11/12/2018 16:03, Tomas Straupis wrote:> 2018-12-11, an, 16:41 Rory 
McCann rašė:

>> No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military academy".
>
>Well IF you know it is not actually a Military academy. But if
> you're not allowed to enter it would be difficult to say.

Use your head. Does it look like a military academy? Or someone's house. 
Do you see military students coming in and out.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Imre Samu]

> Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough.
> So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders
and territories within the OSM database itself

agree,   (  sorry,  I am not good at communication. :))

as I wrote:

Imho: an important part of the solution:
-  openstreetmap.org vector maps.  ( so we can customize the borders,
languages for  the end users, communities )
-  improved admin border tagging
-  more communication,  adapting the rules for the current political
situations.

And I trust in DWG.





Eugene Alvin Villar  ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec. 11.,
K, 16:41):

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02 PM Imre Samu  wrote:
>
>> TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
>> year!(  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )
>>
>
> Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. AFAIK, we never use
> 3rd-party data (except for the public domain Natural Earth data for the
> lower zoom levels, IIRC) when rendering the default tile layer on the OSM.
> So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders
> and territories within the OSM database itself if you want that level of
> flexibility on the default tile layer(s). There are already a couple or so
> threads on the Tagging mailing list discussing various tagging solutions
> for representing these viewpoints and disputes.
>
> ~Eugene
> ___
> 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-cz] Znaceni uzavirek vs offline navigace

[marek]

Tak jsem to upravil, je to správně?  conditional = yes @  forward  ( nov - mar )
 
Marek Polák
 
__

Od: "mahdi1234" 
Komu: "OpenStreetMap Czech Republic" 
Datum: 10.12.2018 16:24
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Znaceni uzavirek vs offline navigace


mahdi1234 wrote on 12/09/2018 10:21 PM:marek wrote on 12/09/2018 07:37 PM:Já to píšu 
proto, že asi před rokem jsem sem dával omezení a magic Earth s ním zatím nepracuje, 
pokud to mám dobře. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/653782922 

 
Marek Polák
 
Jeste k te jednosmerce, vypada, ze nemas tag podle spec viz 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions 
 kde je pouzit oneway 
:conditional 
=yes @ Su

Podle tag info je pouzit jen 4x jak mas ty - 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=oneway#values 
 ... podle te wiki stranky 
to je pouzito 975x https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=oneway:conditional 

 


--

___
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: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Jmapb]

On 12/11/2018 9:41 AM, Rory McCann wrote:

On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote:

   If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
map it as an actual military academy?


No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military academy".


Sidebar, according to my reading of the address tagging standards, one 
should only tag addr:housename=* when it's an official (or at least de 
facto) part of the postal address. It's not for people who just decide 
their house has a name and write that name on a sign -- though you can 
use name=* for that. J



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Guillaume Rischard]

> On 11 Dec 2018, at 14:41, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> no, you could ask a diplomat of a country (or other parts of their 
> government) whom they recognize, or look up their public statements, these 
> are not secondary sources like wikipedia seems to prefer (I think), but it 
> would be verifiable (repeatable) in the real world. 
> 

A frequent game in Kosovo-Serbia relations is played around claims related to 
this issue. Does Papua New Guinea recognise Kosovo? Did Sao Tome and Principe 
ever? A massive amount of work goes into creating something like 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Withdrawn_recognition
 

 , and if you ask diplomats how many countries recognise Kosovo, the most 
prudent will not give you a number but an approximation.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02 PM Imre Samu  wrote:

> TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
> year!(  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )
>

Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. AFAIK, we never use
3rd-party data (except for the public domain Natural Earth data for the
lower zoom levels, IIRC) when rendering the default tile layer on the OSM.
So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders
and territories within the OSM database itself if you want that level of
flexibility on the default tile layer(s). There are already a couple or so
threads on the Tagging mailing list discussing various tagging solutions
for representing these viewpoints and disputes.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 437

[majka]

Díky za Weekly.

Mimochodem je zmíněn Openstreetbrowser a nová kategorie plavání. Protože
zásahy kamaráda fell3 nakonec nikdo neopravil, lezou z toho zajímavé věci
.
Netuším, jestli by z nás měli v Benešově nad Ploučnicí radost...
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani cest se zarostlou casti

[Miroslav Suchy]

Dne 11. 12. 18 v 15:12 mahdi1234 napsal(a):
> #1 - Odbocka z hlavni lesni cesty je zarostla naletem, jsou tam tenky
> kminky, pesky normalne pruchozi; po cca 20 metrech pokracuje normalni
> track (tzn 2m siroka) cesta ~1km

Lesni cestu zarostlou naletem znacim jako highway=track a 
smoosthness=very_horible - protoze traktor nebo tank to projede.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Key:smoothness
Mozno zkombinovat s mtb:scale=6

Mirek

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 11.12.2018 o 14:59, Imre Samu pisze:
> Imho:  there are other core values
 
> So we need to find a global optimum - and it is not easy.


I agree. Thanks for checking our foundations. In day to day operations
it's not possible to know every rule in OSM and it's not even needed,
since some common rules of thumb are enough, but it's important to
really check it when discussing rules.


> TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
> year!    (  Less community fighting - more working on the real
> problems!  )


I hope there will be something for a start in the coming weeks:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/214#issuecomment-432002876


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-12-11, an, 16:41 Rory McCann rašė:
> On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>>If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
>> map it as an actual military academy?
>
> No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military academy".

  Well IF you know it is not actually a Military academy. But if
you're not allowed to enter it would be difficult to say.

  Take any different example, say banner says "Ministry of silly
walks", how would it be possible to decide if it is a real ministry or
not (if you're not allowed to enter) and decide if it is housename or
office=government without looking into official documents?

  Also following the same logic, number "3A" in my example could go to
addr:housename, but not addr:housenumber

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapy.cz - spoluprace

[Petr Vozdecký]

ad SOS telefony

asi by slo o pilotni projekt synchronizace dat "treti stranou" v CR, ktery
by byl postaveny tak, ze vznikla spolecna data by mela referencni zakladnu v
OSM databazi (alespon pokud je mi znamo).

To vidim jako velmi zajimave vc. uplatneni zkusenosti z projektu postavnich
schranek. Tim je prave uplatneni ref jako povinneho prvku a nasledne
vytvoreni kontrolnich mechanizmu pri zmenach ze strany mapperu (eliminace 
omylu) a provozovatele (zkusit vejit do kontaktu s RSD stran oboustranne 
synchronizace? Treba to nejsou takove gumy jako Ceska Posta...).

Za OSM by to chtelo leadera projektu (byt nejde o nijak velky "projekt"), 
protoze myslim, ze do stejne kategorie pak patri i SOS body (Body zachrany)
v lesich a turistickych lokalitach. A to uz by chtelo pokus o hromadne
ziskani techto dat od provozovatelu (zpravidla kraje).

vop

-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Tom Ka
Datum: 11. 12. 2018 v 10:39:30
Předmět: [Talk-cz] Mapy.cz - spoluprace

Ahoj, ozvali se z mapy.cz, ze na nas nezapomeli. Krome chystanych
rozcestniku pro interni potrebu a porovnani (viz. SotM CZ 2018) nabizeji i
kilometrovniky pro dalnice: > Ladili jsme teď u nás i dálniční
kilometrovníky (po 1 km), pokud máte zájem, mohu také dodat. V OSM jsem
našel jako "milník dálnice". > https://mapy.cz/dopravni?x=14.4292732=
50.0530222=12=D%C3%A1lni%C4%8Dn%C3%AD%20kilometr=1 > Bylo by to
stejnou formou - dodáme to vám pro interní zpracování a porovnání. Nás jako
zdroj uvádět nemusíte, za data nijak neručíme a jsou jistě s chybami. >
(Někde jsou čísla vyčtené z Panoramy, někde jen doměřené = jde o náš
"odhad"). ma s tim nekdo zajem neco blizsiho delat? krome toho seznam
zajimaji i SOS telefony: > Na druhou stranu plánujeme importovat SOS 
telefony z OSM, v Česku by se jednalo o dálniční hlásky. > Když narazíme na
chybějící, tak je rovnou do OSM sami doplňujeme, protože zde bude import a
následná aktualizace jen via OSM. > (na SOS telefonu lze na Panoramě přečíst
i jejich označení, tak doplňujeme i ref). Konec hlaseni. tom.k _
__ 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

[Talk-it] importare dati osm su database

[Roberto Brazzelli]

Ciao,
qualche consiglio per importare i dati di osm
su database postgres su server cloud debian (test
con dati a livello comunale):
- osm2pgsql o imposm?
- con entrambe le soluzioni riesco a sincronizzare i dati osm
in automatico?
- considerando che son neofita con linguaggio unix,
quale delle 2 strade è più semplice?

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

[Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 437

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 437 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/11081

* Postup zakládání OSM ČR z.s.
* Kategorizace budov dle RUIAN.
* Wikikonference v Olomouci.
* Přejmenování potoků na Slovensku.
* Pravidla organizovaných editací.
* Analýza všech OSM mail listů.
* Manifesty kandidátů do rady Nadace OSM.
* Mikrogranty HOT za 2018.
* Hlasové ovládání pro JOSM.
* Mapa mlhy.
* Řád pro zakladatele OSM FR.

Pěkné počtení ...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Rory McCann]

On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote:

   If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
map it as an actual military academy?


No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military academy".

Sometimes governments won't put actual military installations on 
"official maps", but you're free to map it as such if it's there 
on-the-ground.


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Spolek OSM ČR z.s.

[Petr Vozdecký]

+1

-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Jan Macura
Datum: 11. 12. 2018 v 11:16:27
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Spolek OSM ČR z.s.



 díky.




H.




___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-
c...@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: [OSM-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

On 12/11/2018 2:39 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:

On 11/12/2018 13:22, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:

I would like to point out that in Ukraine displaying a map without 
Crimea is illegal, article 110, part 1, of the Penal code. It 
involves from 3 to 5 years of imprisonment [1]. So the OSM map 
without Crimea is becoming potentially unusable for the community in 
Ukraine.


The same is true in India for the various borders, including
that with China.

It's also true in China for the border with India.

Unsurprisingly there is no one rendering that is legal on both
sides of the border.

None of which has stopped us using our current rule for that
border.

Tom

I see your point. However, there is a difference. This is an issue in 
Europe, which potentially could trigger a new Cold War, which already 
brings a lot of losses and suffering all over the continent via 
sanctions, lost opportunities, etc.


Tremendous forces are involved in this conflict, powerful armies are in 
poise. In my opinion, an elegant technical solution, which satisfies 
both sides, is to be found, what could set an example for political elites.


As for transparency for the board and candidates in this particular 
issue, I would not recommend it. They are civilians and volunteers. In 
my opinion, the board and DWG should listen to the opinions and develop 
a compromise collective solution.


Best regards,

Oleksiy


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapovani cest se zarostlou casti

[Jan Macura]

Ahoj,

řešil bych to jako Jirka.
Navíc

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 15:11, mahdi1234  wrote:

> Tady bych asi jen dal omezeni pouze pro pesi a resil pres visibility
> horrible?
>

trail_visibility=horrible podle mě vůbec nikdo v ČR nemapuje jako cestu.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility

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

Re: [Talk-it] dati grezzi overpass turbo in qgis

[Stefano]

Il giorno mar 11 dic 2018 alle ore 10:12 Roberto Brazzelli <
geom.brazze...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Ciao,
> l'url generato con overppass turbo
> esportando "dati grezzi direttamente da Overpass API
> 
> ",
> cosi come si riesce a fare con umap, è possibile inserirlo
> in qgis per visualizzare "dinamicamente" i dati?
>
> Puoi usare il plugin quickosm che ti fa fare direttamente le query
overpass...



> grazie
> Roberto
>
> Ciao,
Stefano

>
> ___
> 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-cz] Mapovani cest se zarostlou casti

[xkomc...@centrum.cz]

Ahoj,


já mapuji:

1) 20 metrů jako highway=path (pokud je uprostřed prošlapaná pěšina), 
dále highway=track


2) 200 metrů jako highway=path, na poslední node noexit=yes, zbytek 
nemapovat (i když - záleží: pokud je to hornatý terén a toto je sice s 
obtížemi, ale jediná "schůdná" cesta široko daleko, tak bych zaznačil i 
těch posledních 100 metrů s příslušnými tagy, případně zaznačil pokud se 
jedná o nějakou značenou cestu/...)



Jirka Komárek

On 11. 12. 18 15:12, mahdi1234 wrote:

cau,

Narazil jsem v posledni dobe na dve lesni cesty, kde si nejsu jistej
presne jak zmapovat.

#1 - Odbocka z hlavni lesni cesty je zarostla naletem, jsou tam tenky
kminky, pesky normalne pruchozi; po cca 20 metrech pokracuje normalni
track (tzn 2m siroka) cesta ~1km

Tady bych asi jen dal omezeni pouze pro pesi a resil pres visibility
horrible?

#2 - Asi 300m cesta pomerne prudka, prvnich 200m bez problemu pesky v
dobre obuvi, poslednich 100m nicmene zarostlych krovim, mezi kterym se
da velice velice opatrne projit (ale znovu bych tama urcite nesel)

- mam ukoncit po tech schudnych 200m a nakou poznamku/tag?

- nebo zmapovat i tech poslednich 100m s nakyma tagama jakoze to neni
temer schudny?

Jak byste toto resili?

dik,
mahdi

___
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

[Talk-cz] Mapovani cest se zarostlou casti

[mahdi1234]

cau,

Narazil jsem v posledni dobe na dve lesni cesty, kde si nejsu jistej
presne jak zmapovat.

#1 - Odbocka z hlavni lesni cesty je zarostla naletem, jsou tam tenky
kminky, pesky normalne pruchozi; po cca 20 metrech pokracuje normalni
track (tzn 2m siroka) cesta ~1km

Tady bych asi jen dal omezeni pouze pro pesi a resil pres visibility
horrible?

#2 - Asi 300m cesta pomerne prudka, prvnich 200m bez problemu pesky v
dobre obuvi, poslednich 100m nicmene zarostlych krovim, mezi kterym se
da velice velice opatrne projit (ale znovu bych tama urcite nesel)

- mam ukoncit po tech schudnych 200m a nakou poznamku/tag?

- nebo zmapovat i tech poslednich 100m s nakyma tagama jakoze to neni
temer schudny?

Jak byste toto resili?

dik,
mahdi

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Vladimir Agafonkin]

>
> And here you are disqualifying yourself from the discussion because you
> essentially reject the possibility that OSM can function as a cross
> cultural, cross ideology project to document the verifiable geography of
> the world.  If you don't think that is possible and think that OSM when
> mapping the world has to take a political side maybe OSM is not the right
> project for you.  Because that is the most fundamental idea behind our
> project.


I pointed out such a possibility in the same message (which I hoped you'd
read fully before replying), assuming OSM wants to map "verifiable
geography" and not "the world according to Christoph Hormann". As soon as
you extend the physical ground truth principle to non-physical political
entities, doing so *selectively* to form a single view that aligns with
your personal feelings, the issue becomes political. It doesn't have to be.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:40 PM Vladimir Agafonkin 
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Guillaume Rischard <
> openstreet...@stereo.lu> wrote:
>
>> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is
>> no other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in
>> Crimea, without any justification, opens Pandora’s box.
>
>
> All of these statements are misleading. If Crimea is an exception, how is
> the ground-truth rule applied in South Osetia and Abkhazia, both of which
> are included in the Georgia boundary which has absolutely no control over
> those territories (de-facto controlled by Russia)? Why is Transnistria
> included in the boundaries of Moldova? Why does the Cyprus boundary include
> a large area fully controlled by Turkey? What police and tax authority is
> there in large areas of Iran and Iraq controlled by ISIS, and why are these
> areas still included in the respective countries?
>
> The only major difference in those cases compared to Crimea is that
> applying the ground-truth rule there would require mapping respective areas
> as independent countries. But — big surprise! — OSM community by convention
> limits the list of countries to those recognized by the UN, because, as it
> turns out, a country is a political entity after all. How ironic is that?
>
> In practice, OSM never fully adhered to the ground truth rule when it
> comes to country boundaries, but at least the policy was vague enough to
> make arbitrary decisions, with either "ground truth" or "widely
> internationally recognized" bit taking precedence depending on how the DWG
> members feel about the world on a particular day. Pretending OSM is out of
> politics when solving an inherently political issue does not help, because
> then you take a political side implicitly (becoming a welcome tool of
> Russian regime propaganda in this case).
>
> There are reasonable and possible alternatives, such as this in-progress
> disputed boundaries proposal
> ,
> but due to the complexity and emotional charge of the issue, fleshing them
> out to a practical consensus will take a considerable time. Until such a
> common ground is found, the most practical thing you can do is to revert to
> a balance point that prevents never-ending edit wars and worked well in
> practice for the last 5 years. It's unfortunate that this issue wasn't
> taken seriously in that period, but hopefully this crisis, however
> damaging, will facilitate coming to a universal solution soon.
>
> --
> Vladimir Agafonkin
> https://agafonkin.com
> +380 (93) 745 44 61
>


-- 
Vladimir Agafonkin
https://agafonkin.com
+380 (93) 745 44 61
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Imre Samu]

>https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM
favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources.

:)

Imho:  there are other core values
core1. *"We want to make the best map data set of the world"* ( With
Ukraine!  - I don't want an OSMUkraine-Exit forking OSM , like Brexit
example in the today politics )
core3. *"OSM is powered by its Community. Engage positively with the
Community, be a good and respectful neighbour and assume good intent.""*
( I prefer collaborating with Ukraine community not fighting )
core5. *"Ground Truth: OSM favours objective “Ground Truth” over all other
sources""*

So we need to find a global optimum - and it is not easy.

Imho: an important part of the solution:
-  openstreetmap.org vector maps.  ( so we can customize the borders,
languages for  the end users, communities )
-  improved admin border tagging
-  more communication,  adapting the rules for the current political
situations.

I would like if we can create an OpenStreetMap Manifesto ( like
https://agilemanifesto.org/ )
- important point:We prefer community (nationality) collaboration over
the following rules

Disclaimer:
-  I am a native Hungarian,  and a lot of ethnic Hungarians live in the
neighboring countries  - so in Ukraine also (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Ukraine )
   A minority language is a hot issue in this area, but we need to
collaborate for every neighboring osm community.
   in this issue - no rationality only emotions.  So mentioning rational
"ground truth" is not enough.

so in my reading - We have a little time to focus on the root cause of the
problem   ->  * We don't have a customizable vector map yet.*

>I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should
use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values,
>review with the community’s support where we have taken decisions on
disputed territories, and make sure that we apply the same rules in the
same way everywhere.

imho:  this is also important.
core values: *"OSM wants you to map the things you care about and will
ensure that you have the freedom to do so. This safeguards the
accessibility of our map to diverse users with differing needs."*

We need customizable vector tiles for Ukrainian map users!

Question:  What is the priority of the core values?

TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
year!(  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )

this is my personal opinion.  ( but my opinion sometimes change )
( Sorry for my draft English, I respect every people on the DWG !   and
this is not so easy issue!  and a lot of unintended consequences,  +
complexity;  IMHO: we need an iterative solution! )

best,
 Imre




Guillaume Rischard  ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec.
11., K, 11:52):

> Hi Rory and fellow members,
>
> I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my
> manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken
> transparently. The detailed reasoning behind this decision must be
> published without delay.
>
> The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However,
> the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built
> OSM and the OSMF on.
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM
> favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the
> OSMF’ section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.
>
> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no
> other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea,
> without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. Would the OSMF react
> similarly to an appeal concerning other disputed borders? There should
> never be an arbitrary decision on these issues but only well-defined and
> established policies.
>
> You could claim that we haven’t followed the on-the-ground rule in Crimea
> for the last four years. I know that the Data Working Group, which I am a
> member of, has treated Crimea with kid gloves after the Russian invasion. I
> haven’t been on the DWG that long; this was decided way before my time. We
> act more as firefighters than as gardeners, work more reactively than
> proactively, and always have enough new issues to prevent us from
> reexamining old ones.
>
> I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should
> use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, review with the
> community’s support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories,
> and make sure that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.
>
> Guillaume Rischard (personally, not on behalf of the Data Working Group)
>
> > On 11 Dec 2018, at 11:18, Rory McCann  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi fellow members,
> >
> > I am curious what candidates to the board think about this decision. I
> > know there was the existing questions, but this is a new topic which
> > came up recently. But if you're a 

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective
> > verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of
> > Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'.
>
> no, you could ask a diplomat of a country (or other parts of their
> government) whom they recognize, or look up their public statements,
> these are not secondary sources like wikipedia seems to prefer (I
> think), but it would be verifiable (repeatable) in the real world.

No, OSM verifiability means *independent* verifiability.  If verifying a 
statement depends on a singular authority that is not compatible with 
the concept of OpenStreetMap's independent, intersubjective 
verifiability.  Same as restaurant star ratings etc.

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

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

Re: [Talk-it] FOSS4G It 2019

[stefano campus]

Mancano due giorni al termine della presentazione di interventi e workshop
per FOSS4G Italia 2019.
Affrettatevi...

http://foss4g-it2019.gfoss.it/
https://easychair.org/cfp/foss4g_it_2019

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] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Simon Poole]

The involved parties typically want us to disseminate their truth and
only that*. It is not a "why not", the proposals are simply trying to
solve a different problem (that IMHO doesn't actually need to be solved,
and will simply lead to us never having any working boundaries at all,
but as said it has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

* ever wondered why there is that bit about airports in the policy? Yes,
because one government wanted us to remove airports that where located
in a part of the country they, still, don't control and they had long
winded arguments about these not being airports because they hadn't
designated them as such.

Am 11.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Colin Smale:
>
> On 2018-12-11 13:53, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
>> the road.
>>
>> We will still have to make choices
>>  
> Why? It would be better if OSM did not make choices, but represented
> differing points of view equally, without expressing any kind of
> preference. Keep out of politics, or it will not end well! Let the
> renderer/user choose their preferred world view.
>  
> Why not simply allow multiple manifestations of admin_level=2 with an
> additional tag like "according_to". Job done.
>  
>  
>
> ___
> 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] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 13:28 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :

> On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a
> > country/border, as it seems the most objective representation.
>
> Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective
> verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of
> Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'.



no, you could ask a diplomat of a country (or other parts of their
government) whom they recognize, or look up their public statements, these
are not secondary sources like wikipedia seems to prefer (I think), but it
would be verifiable (repeatable) in the real world.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Tom Hughes]

On 11/12/2018 13:22, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:

I would like to point out that in Ukraine displaying a map without 
Crimea is illegal, article 110, part 1, of the Penal code. It involves 
from 3 to 5 years of imprisonment [1]. So the OSM map without Crimea is 
becoming potentially unusable for the community in Ukraine.


The same is true in India for the various borders, including
that with China.

It's also true in China for the border with India.

Unsurprisingly there is no one rendering that is legal on both
sides of the border.

None of which has stopped us using our current rule for that
border.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 13:57 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :

>
> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
> the road.
>
> We will still have to make choices and even if that is just to declare
> that a boundary is disputed (which for example is definitely not
> something RU agrees with in the case of Crimea) and those choices will
> be continued to be questioned and attacked.



We would not have to declare that a boundary is "disputed", but we could
map who accepts or refuses recognition of a border (the mere fact that some
country does not recognize a border would be an indication that something
is "disputed" here). We would have to decide though whose acceptions and
refusals we consider worth adding (i.e. who we recognize as a country /
significant entity).
Yes, we would continue to make choices, but IMHO on a much more fine
grained level, on a different level in qualitative terms.



> If somebody wanted to use a
> different set of borders, they could have easily done so now, that is
> not the problem



they could have taken borders from a different source, with OSM data alone
you typically do not have sufficient information to understand who supports
which border, sometimes not even that there is a border dispute at all.



>
> The really nice property of the now defunct policy was that you could
> defend it with simple practical arguments, aka if you drive from A to B
> and we don't show de facto boundaries of control, you are dead. But 99%
> of the way the policy worked was through the appearance that it was cast
> in stone.
>


+1, once you open that can of worms, you'll see that it is not just _one_
case ;-)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 11.12.2018 o 13:26, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a
>> country/border, as it seems the most objective representation.
> Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective 
> verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of 
> Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'.


I have no clear answer how to solve borders problem, but that sounds
like FUD for me (using emotionally loaded claims not backed by evidence
to push or block something) and I'm against this kind of arguing. OSM is
not "all or nothing" game.

For example I don't believe "name:en=Crimean Peninsula" is observable in
this place, but I don't think anybody would complain against it, because
we already do rely on some sources other than real world (meant as a
ground truth). And that did not end other ways of verification yet.


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-12-11 13:53, Simon Poole wrote:

> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
> the road.
> 
> We will still have to make choices

Why? It would be better if OSM did not make choices, but represented
differing points of view equally, without expressing any kind of
preference. Keep out of politics, or it will not end well! Let the
renderer/user choose their preferred world view. 

Why not simply allow multiple manifestations of admin_level=2 with an
additional tag like "according_to". Job done.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Harry Wood]

 Yeah it will be interesting to see what the board has to say about this in 
more detail. I think on the whole I'm glad the decision has gone this way. In 
my mind the case of Crimea has hung in the balance with very strong arguments 
in favour of both approaches.
I have great respect for the way DWG have handled things. Basically it seems 
they treated Crimea "with kid gloves" (as Stereo puts it) for a few years, and 
more recently tried to transition towards better alignment with our policies. 
So (as with other crap they have to deal with) it's a shame they've born the 
brunt of various attacks about this.
I would hope the board's decision is not, and should not be interpreted as, a 
rebuking of DWG, but rather it desire to work with DWG to reanalyse this and 
make adjustments to our policy to better match this kind of scenario. No need 
to be up-in-arms about anything here.
...but I'm putting words in other people's mouths. Let's wait and see what the 
board has to say (and yeah give them some time. We're all volunteers)
Harry Wood


On Monday, 10 December 2018, 18:12:44 GMT, Manfred A. Reiter 
 wrote:  
 
 "When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it 
can be observed by someone physically there."

source: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map

- no further comment - 

## Manfred Reiter - mobile -
## please excuse typos and brevity


Am Mo., 10. Dez. 2018, 11:58 hat Martijn van Exel  geschrieben:

Hi all,

On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the 
Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.

The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous 
situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to 
further remain in effect.

The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the 
difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing 
basis.

A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.

Best regards,
Martijn van Exel
Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
___
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

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

Re: [Talk-it] Estrarre percorso

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 13:48 Uhr schrieb antonyb :

> Nulla?
>
>


hai provato a contattare loro? Non hanno aggiornato la parte del sito dove
i dati sono pubblicati, ma quella ad uso per le loro mappe sì? La versione
in OSM non è giusta?

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapy.cz - spoluprace

[Jiří Sedláček]

Ahoj,
Wikidata resp. Wikimedia ČR resp. hlavně Vojta Dostál (náš předseda) s
Mapy.cz taky cosi probíral, i Wikidata to zajímá.

V jakém to je teď stavu, to si nevybavuju, Vojtu přidávám do diskuze, třeba
ho to zaujme.

J.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:38 AM Tom Ka  wrote:

> Ahoj,
>
> ozvali se z mapy.cz, ze na nas nezapomeli. Krome chystanych
> rozcestniku pro interni potrebu a porovnani (viz. SotM CZ 2018)
> nabizeji i kilometrovniky pro dalnice:
>
> > Ladili jsme teď u nás i dálniční kilometrovníky (po 1 km), pokud máte
> zájem, mohu také dodat. V OSM jsem našel jako "milník dálnice".
> >
> https://mapy.cz/dopravni?x=14.4292732=50.0530222=12=D%C3%A1lni%C4%8Dn%C3%AD%20kilometr=1
> > Bylo by to stejnou formou - dodáme to vám pro interní zpracování a
> porovnání. Nás jako zdroj uvádět nemusíte, za data nijak neručíme a jsou
> jistě s chybami.
> > (Někde jsou čísla vyčtené z Panoramy, někde jen doměřené = jde o náš
> "odhad").
>
> ma s tim nekdo zajem neco blizsiho delat?
>
> krome toho seznam zajimaji i SOS telefony:
>
> > Na druhou stranu plánujeme importovat SOS telefony z OSM, v Česku by se
> jednalo o dálniční hlásky.
> > Když narazíme na chybějící, tak je rovnou do OSM sami doplňujeme,
> protože zde bude import a následná aktualizace jen via OSM.
> > (na SOS telefonu lze na Panoramě přečíst i jejich označení, tak
> doplňujeme i ref).
>
> Konec hlaseni. tom.k
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>


-- 
S pozdravem,
Jirka Sedláček
---
jirisedla...@gmail.com
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Simon Poole]

As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
the road.

We will still have to make choices and even if that is just to declare
that a boundary is disputed (which for example is definitely not
something RU agrees with in the case of Crimea) and those choices will
be continued to be questioned and attacked. If somebody wanted to use a
different set of borders, they could have easily done so now, that is
not the problem and thinking that this can be solved by simply mapping
more variants is ignoring the actual motivation behind the complaints.

The really nice property of the now defunct policy was that you could
defend it with simple practical arguments, aka if you drive from A to B
and we don't show de facto boundaries of control, you are dead. But 99%
of the way the policy worked was through the appearance that it was cast
in stone.

Opening up the matter to political influence is opening up our decisions
to a never ending deluge of arguments by professionals paid by their
respective governments (which was BTW the reason we put the policy in
place back in 2012/13, essentially I had enough of wasting my time for
months on ends arguing with people that were being paid for what they
were doing), and it will not go away by adding more tags.

Simon

Am 11.12.2018 um 10:03 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 11. Dec 2018, at 02:18, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>>
>> Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk if you haven't already 
>> seen it for some of the gory detail.
>
> Makes a good statement at the end: „Ultimately, what makes a country a 
> country, is if other countries think that country is a country“
>
> That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a 
> country/border, as it seems the most objective representation. 
>
>
> Cheers, Martin 
> ___
> 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: [Talk-it] Estrarre percorso

[antonyb]

Nulla?



--
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] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Vladimir Agafonkin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Guillaume Rischard 
wrote:

> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no
> other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea,
> without any justification, opens Pandora’s box.


All of these statements are misleading. If Crimea is an exception, how is
the ground-truth rule applied in South Osetia and Abkhazia, both of which
are included in the Georgia boundary which has absolutely no control over
those territories (de-facto controlled by Russia)? Why is Transnistria
included in the boundaries of Moldova? Why does the Cyprus boundary include
a large area fully controlled by Turkey? What police and tax authority is
there in large areas of Iran and Iraq controlled by ISIS, and why are these
areas still included in the respective countries?

The only major difference in those cases compared to Crimea is that
applying the ground-truth rule there would require mapping respective areas
as independent countries. But — big surprise! — OSM community by convention
limits the list of countries to those recognized by the UN, because, as it
turns out, a country is a political entity after all. How ironic is that?

In practice, OSM never fully adhered to the ground truth rule when it comes
to country boundaries, but at least the policy was vague enough to make
arbitrary decisions, with either "ground truth" or "widely internationally
recognized" bit taking precedence depending on how the DWG members feel
about the world on a particular day. Pretending OSM is out of politics when
solving an inherently political issue does not help, because then you take
a political side implicitly (becoming a welcome tool of Russian regime
propaganda in this case).

There are reasonable and possible alternatives, such as this in-progress
disputed boundaries proposal
,
but due to the complexity and emotional charge of the issue, fleshing them
out to a practical consensus will take a considerable time. Until such a
common ground is found, the most practical thing you can do is to revert to
a balance point that prevents never-ending edit wars and worked well in
practice for the last 5 years. It's unfortunate that this issue wasn't
taken seriously in that period, but hopefully this crisis, however
damaging, will facilitate coming to a universal solution soon.

-- 
Vladimir Agafonkin
https://agafonkin.com
+380 (93) 745 44 61
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Adding lane tags to major roads

[Andrew Harvey]

I just checked again, it looks like you haven't corrected this yet, so a
friendly reminder it would be nice to have this fixed.
I think it's also a good idea to include the NSW LPI Imagery as the
default background layer for this task. I just filed
https://github.com/osmlab/maproulette3/issues/572 in relation to this.
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, at 4:53 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Andrew  H-- correct and I wasn't suggesting that you amend it yourself
> :) I will make the update when I find a moment.> Andrew H/D -- thanks for 
> pointing me to the import plan. 
> --
>   Martijn van Exel
>   m...@rtijn.org
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, at 17:29, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> On Sat., 8 Dec. 2018, 10:38 am Martijn van Exel >> That is a good point. The query would probably be easy enough to
>>> modify.>>> Something like this...
>>> 
>>> [timeout:190];
>>> area[name=“New South Wales"]->.a;
>>> way[highway~"motorway|trunk|primary"][!lanes][!"lanes:forward"][!"l-
>>> anes:backward"](area.a);>>> out body geom qt;
>> 
>> Yeah but I don't think I can modify your maproulette challenge, are
>> you able to?>>> 
>>> I think it needs to be pre-processed a bit more to weed out the very
>>> short segments. And perhaps work on areas where lanes actually
>>> matter (urban) first.>>> 
>>> I was looking at how to slice that and got interested in the status
>>> of administrative boundary relations for Australia. It seems to be
>>> inconsistent, for example in South Australia there is pretty good
>>> (but not complete) coverage of admin_level=6
>>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/EmZ and even one admin_level=8
>>> (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/En0) but in other states the
>>> admin_level=6 coverage is pretty sparse or absent
>>> (https://imgur.com/a/gmUJs2r, query at
>>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/En1 but watch out, it’s a lot of data).
>>> If you all think this is useful to fix / complete perhaps we can set
>>> up a page to coordinate. I’m happy to help.>> 
>> There's another thread ongoing on this list about importing suburb,
>> localities and LGA boundaries.>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>  Martijn van Exel
>>>  m...@rtijn.org
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, at 17:23, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 Overall I think it's a great idea.
 
 Could you filter out ways that have lanes:forward and
 lanes:backward? eg. 
 https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3375/task/6686753 which
 shouldn't need a redundant lanes tag as you can just add them up.
 On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 10:49, Martijn van Exel  wrote:> 
> Hi folks.
> I created MapRoulette challenge asking mappers to look at aerial
> images and add lane tags to major roads.> 
> https://maproulette.org/mr3/browse/challenges/3375
> This particular one is for NSW but can easily be ‘cloned’ for
> other regions.> I wanted to get your opinion on this — good / bad 
> idea? Can it be
> improved? Smaller regions? Any feedback welcome.> Martijn
> 
> PS the Overpass Query this is based on is:
> 
> [timeout:190];
> area[name="New South Wales"]->.a;
> way[highway~"motorway|trunk|primary"][!lanes](area.a);
> out body geom qt;
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> _
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a
> country/border, as it seems the most objective representation.

Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective 
verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of 
Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Milo van der Linden]

I agree with what Guillaume says:

"...how important it is that decisions are taken transparently. The
detailed reasoning behind any decision must be published without delay."

That in my opinion is key. There is no wrong or right in decision making as
long as it can be explained (and reverted when enough good arguments
arise). After all, we are all people.

Op di 11 dec. 2018 om 11:51 schreef Guillaume Rischard <
openstreet...@stereo.lu>:

> Hi Rory and fellow members,
>
> I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my
> manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken
> transparently. The detailed reasoning behind this decision must be
> published without delay.
>
> The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However,
> the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built
> OSM and the OSMF on.
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM
> favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the
> OSMF’ section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.
>
> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no
> other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea,
> without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. Would the OSMF react
> similarly to an appeal concerning other disputed borders? There should
> never be an arbitrary decision on these issues but only well-defined and
> established policies.
>
> You could claim that we haven’t followed the on-the-ground rule in Crimea
> for the last four years. I know that the Data Working Group, which I am a
> member of, has treated Crimea with kid gloves after the Russian invasion. I
> haven’t been on the DWG that long; this was decided way before my time. We
> act more as firefighters than as gardeners, work more reactively than
> proactively, and always have enough new issues to prevent us from
> reexamining old ones.
>
> I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should
> use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, review with the
> community’s support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories,
> and make sure that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.
>
> Guillaume Rischard (personally, not on behalf of the Data Working Group)
>
> > On 11 Dec 2018, at 11:18, Rory McCann  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi fellow members,
> >
> > I am curious what candidates to the board think about this decision. I
> > know there was the existing questions, but this is a new topic which
> > came up recently. But if you're a candidate for the board, and you have
> > an opinion on this, I'd like to hear, and I'm sure other members would
> > too. How would you vote if you were on the board now? What
> > do you think? Please don't be afraid to say something publicly (here,
> > the wiki, user diaries, etc).
> >
> > Rory
> >
> > On 10/12/2018 17:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:> Hi all,
> >>
> >> On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to
> review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
> >>
> >> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous
> situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to
> further remain in effect.
> >>
> >> The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates
> the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an
> ongoing basis.
> >>
> >> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Martijn van Exel
> >> Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > osmf-talk mailing list
> > osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>


-- 
[image: http://www.dogodigi.net] 
*Milo van der Linden*
web: dogodigi 
tel: +31-6-16598808
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Victor Shcherb]

I think, the problem that rule says "on-the-ground" and if it doesn't mean
on-the-ground and people *cannot find it, * for example there is no sign at
all like houses missing the number plate or abandonned houses or forest /
national park divisions.

Indeed, mail address is one of the possibility to check but they are not
consistent. Sending 2 emails to correct-like address could give
contradicting results easily because they are human processed.

There is no need to discredit the rule, especially where it couldn't
applied, there is a need to enhance the rule for a non-physical objects
which are mostly driven by documents. And OSM was always fine to accept
these imports driven by municipality documents.


On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:28, Jochen Topf  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:08:35PM +0200, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> >   I had an actual situation 5 or so years ago when an address was
> > mapped in Vilnius. Address does not exist in official records. The
> > user sent me a picture of this house number. I contacted municipality
> > ant they explained that the sign is not an official one, it means
> > nothing, there is no such address.
>
> It seems you haven't understood the on-the-ground rule 5 years ago and
> you still haven't. For all intents and purposes there is such an
> address. Mail will arrive there, people can find the house when looking
> for it. It doesn't matter what the official record says. It doesn't
> matter whether the address should be there or not according to some
> authority. The address is there and it should be mapped that way. That
> is what on-the-ground rule means. It works in practice. It works well.
> And, yes, there are always corner cases. But that's no reason to
> discredit the rule.
>
> Jochen
> --
> Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/
> +49-351-31778688
>
> ___
> 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: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-12-11, an, 13:27 Jochen Topf rašė:
> It seems you haven't understood the on-the-ground rule 5 years ago and
> you still haven't. For all intents and purposes there is such an
> address. Mail will arrive there, people can find the house when looking
> for it.

  Mail will not arrive there as mail will be stopped in post-office
because of incorrect (not existing) address.
  People will not find such address in any IT solution.
  Such "address" is the same as "the red house on the corner with
small pool in front of it".
  If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
map it as an actual military academy?

  This whole topic is to clear up what "ground rule" actually means
for non-physical objects. But so far I'm not successful in avoiding
getting drowned in questionable micro-examples with subjective
explanations.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Jochen Topf]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:08:35PM +0200, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>   I had an actual situation 5 or so years ago when an address was
> mapped in Vilnius. Address does not exist in official records. The
> user sent me a picture of this house number. I contacted municipality
> ant they explained that the sign is not an official one, it means
> nothing, there is no such address.

It seems you haven't understood the on-the-ground rule 5 years ago and
you still haven't. For all intents and purposes there is such an
address. Mail will arrive there, people can find the house when looking
for it. It doesn't matter what the official record says. It doesn't
matter whether the address should be there or not according to some
authority. The address is there and it should be mapped that way. That
is what on-the-ground rule means. It works in practice. It works well.
And, yes, there are always corner cases. But that's no reason to
discredit the rule.

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

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

[Talk-in] Koorachundu Grama Panchayat Mapping - reg.

[Jaisen Nedumpala]

 It has been decided to conduct an an OpenStreetMap mapping exercise in
Koorachundu Grama Panchayat from 22/12/2018 to 28/12/2018. Aim of this
programme is to map the remaining resources in Koorachundu Grama Panchayat.
The programme will be conducted with the coordinated technical support from
the GeoMinds, Swathanthra Malayalam Computing and the OpenStreetMap
community.
Approximately 180 NSS volunteers in total from the CKGM Govt. College,
Perambra and Govt. Engineering College, Kozhikode, will take part in this
exercise. The programme will be held with the minimum facilities, because
no special funds have been allotted yet. The accommodation for NSS
volunteers have been arranged at two schools in the Panchayat, but all
other major arrangements are yet to be done. We request everyone's help,
and involvement for this programme. Cheers..!

-- 
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 - ജയ്സെനോവ് നെടുമ്പാലോവിച്ച് പഹയനോവ്സ്കി -
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸^¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·* . Jaisenov. *..´¨`»
(¸.·'´(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)`'·.¸)
¸.·´^.`'·.¸ ¸.·'´
 ( `·.¸`·.¸
  `·.¸ )`·.¸
 ¸.·(´ `·.¸
¸.·(.·´)`·.¸
  ( `v´ )
`v´
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Tomas Straupis]

> Note i have explained to Tomas in length the meaning of the concept of
> verifiability for not directly physically manifested statements in
>
> http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/#comments
>
> Using the example of a bus stop without signs or shelter i wrote:
>
> > A bus stop, even one without a sign or shelter, can be verified by
> > observing that a bus regularly stops at the location. There is
> > nothing in the concept of independent verifiability that limits its
> > application to physical objects.

  This is a very good example of possibly misleading reflection.
  What if a driver is stopping in unofficial position somewhere
outside of large city to let local people he knows out/in even when
there is no official stop?
  What if a national park had a small sign in the forest track and the
sign was not moved when national park boundaries have moved?
  I had an actual situation 5 or so years ago when an address was
mapped in Vilnius. Address does not exist in official records. The
user sent me a picture of this house number. I contacted municipality
ant they explained that the sign is not an official one, it means
nothing, there is no such address.
  You can think of a gazillion of such examples and analysing them (in
my personal opinion) would lead to pointless endless discussions.
  The simpler the rules - the better?

  And in general. While it could be interesting to become some kind of
detectives and follow the leads, use deduction to calculate the
properties of non-physical object. Does it have to be
mandatory/primary way when there is a simpler and more correct way?
Isn't there enough of physical objects (or non-physical without
open/accessible/official documents) to observe, verify and map?

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapy.cz - spoluprace

[Jan Macura]

Ahoj,

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 11:47, majka  wrote:

> Ty letecké mapy dávám spíš jen pro úplnost. Pokud vím, tak to od nikoho
> jiného než od Prahy nemáme...
>

A Plzeň, viz: https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz/c1984,
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz/c2381, ale reálná využitelnost viz tamtéž...

Musím už to konečně napsat někam na OSM wiki...

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapy.cz - spoluprace

[Miroslav Suchy]

Dne 11. 12. 18 v 11:47 majka napsal(a):
> Nebylo by možné od nich dostat oficiální souhlas s využitím Panoramy nebo 
> leteckých map pro mapování?

Minimalne letecke mapy nejsou jejich. V tomto probiha - uz nekolik let - 
zakulisni jednani, ktere nikdo ze zucastenych
nechce zverjnovat, protoze by to to vyjednavani mohlo jedine zkazit. Stay tuned.

Mirek

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Maarten Deen]

On 2018-12-11 11:41, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 11.12.2018 11:16, Andrew Hain wrote:
A question both to the current board and the candidates: Do you 
support

normal levels of Board transparency on this issue?


Just as a "data point" in this discussion: There are people out there
who are happy to issue death threats to anyone who is seen to be
deciding something not in their favour.


Is transparancy meant as in personal accountability or transparancy as 
in clarity how the process works?
I hope it is the latter and that noone suggests that people be 
individually named and/or identified so they can "stand trial for their 
actions". IMHO that would not be a normal level of transparency.


Regards,
Maarten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-12-11, an, 12:06 Frederik Ramm rašė:
> Non-physical (non-observable) things should definitely be the exception
> in OSM, and it is my opinion that each class of non-physical things we
> add needs a very good reason for adding them.

  I agree, but that is a different question. My suggestion is to
discuss this later as a separate topic so that initial question of
"what ground truth means" would not be buried. We could later have
either (preferably) a criteria, or (if criteria is not possible)
simply a table listing acceptable or not acceptable non-physical
objects in the database.

> Also, I think you are too fast in discounting the verifiability of
> boundaries. Even in the absence of actual marked lines, fences, or
> walls, you will often find the "reflections" that you speak of if you
> look a bit closer: Which government do I pay my taxes to? Which police
> department is responsible for my area? Which local authority do I get my
> food stamps from, whatever.

  Well, the first thing is to decide if boundaries as non-physical
objects originate in documents, or physical observation and which one
we use. Mixing those is what is introducing subjectivity and thus
different interpretation and problems.

  Then we can decide on priorities (if required at all). For example
for all boundaries (except country boundaries) there is a clear
candidate - local authority (government for administration division to
states, counties, cities, suburbs etc.), same local authority or some
national park administration whoever is deciding on official
boundaries of national/regional parks, protected areas etc.
  I cannot think of an example, where some important object worth
being in OpenStreetMap database would not have a single authority
deciding on its geometry.
  And this could work with country border only if we accept the
possibility of overlapping borders (which sometimes do exist even
without conflicts between countries).

  Tax, police does not look like a firm criteria because:
  1. You would need some documents to verify that anyway?
  2. Tax/police regions do not necessarily correspond to
administrative divisions and they could differ/overlap.

  Note that while it is relatively easy to spot a missing non-physical
object and then add it, it is much harder to notice a change of it. If
we would agree on using official documents it would allow to do such
checking by local community regularly (which does not necessarily mean
updating the data automatically by import, this could simply raise a
flag "please check here"). This is what is done in "some" countries
currently with ALL sides getting benefit and thus being a very good
selling point for OSM and now it is very disturbing to find it is
"against the old standing rules" :-)

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Also, I think you are too fast in discounting the verifiability of
> boundaries. Even in the absence of actual marked lines, fences, or
> walls, you will often find the "reflections" that you speak of if you
> look a bit closer: Which government do I pay my taxes to? Which
> police department is responsible for my area? Which local authority
> do I get my food stamps from, whatever.

Indeed.

Note i have explained to Tomas in length the meaning of the concept of 
verifiability for not directly physically manifested statements in

http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/#comments

Using the example of a bus stop without signs or shelter i wrote:

> A bus stop, even one without a sign or shelter, can be verified by
> observing that a bus regularly stops at the location. There is
> nothing in the concept of independent verifiability that limits its
> application to physical objects.
>
> Ultimately most verifiable cultural geography features are related to
> human activities and can be verified by either observing these human
> activities themselves or physical effects of these activities.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Guillaume Rischard]

Hi Rory and fellow members,

I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my manifesto how 
important it is that decisions like this are taken transparently. The detailed 
reasoning behind this decision must be published without delay.

The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However, the 
on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built OSM and 
the OSMF on.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM favours 
objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the OSMF’ 
section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.

The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no 
other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea, 
without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. Would the OSMF react similarly 
to an appeal concerning other disputed borders? There should never be an 
arbitrary decision on these issues but only well-defined and established 
policies.

You could claim that we haven’t followed the on-the-ground rule in Crimea for 
the last four years. I know that the Data Working Group, which I am a member 
of, has treated Crimea with kid gloves after the Russian invasion. I haven’t 
been on the DWG that long; this was decided way before my time. We act more as 
firefighters than as gardeners, work more reactively than proactively, and 
always have enough new issues to prevent us from reexamining old ones.

I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should use 
the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, review with the community’s 
support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories, and make sure 
that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.

Guillaume Rischard (personally, not on behalf of the Data Working Group)

> On 11 Dec 2018, at 11:18, Rory McCann  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi fellow members,
> 
> I am curious what candidates to the board think about this decision. I
> know there was the existing questions, but this is a new topic which
> came up recently. But if you're a candidate for the board, and you have
> an opinion on this, I'd like to hear, and I'm sure other members would
> too. How would you vote if you were on the board now? What
> do you think? Please don't be afraid to say something publicly (here,
> the wiki, user diaries, etc).
> 
> Rory
> 
> On 10/12/2018 17:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:> Hi all,
>> 
>> On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the 
>> Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
>> 
>> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous 
>> situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to 
>> further remain in effect.
>> 
>> The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the 
>> difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an 
>> ongoing basis.
>> 
>> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Martijn van Exel
>> Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
>> 
> 
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Komяpa]

Hi Frederik,

Can there be a transparency on death treats too?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:42 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 11.12.2018 11:16, Andrew Hain wrote:
> > A question both to the current board and the candidates: Do you support
> > normal levels of Board transparency on this issue?
>
> Just as a "data point" in this discussion: There are people out there
> who are happy to issue death threats to anyone who is seen to be
> deciding something not in their favour.
>
> I'm not saying that this should automatically top any transparency
> requirements, and there hasn't been a board decision to limit
> transparency about this, but when discussing transparency in matters
> like this you have to take into account that transparency *can*
> occasionally mean that bullying becomes easier, and that people who
> would otherwise have voted yes or no suddenly vote abstain just to keep
> out of trouble.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>


-- 
Darafei Praliaskouski
Support me: http://patreon.com/komzpa
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapy.cz - spoluprace

[majka]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 10:38, Tom Ka  wrote:

> > Když narazíme na chybějící, tak je rovnou do OSM sami doplňujeme,
> protože zde bude import a následná aktualizace jen via OSM.
> > (na SOS telefonu lze na Panoramě přečíst i jejich označení, tak
> doplňujeme i ref).
>
Nebylo by možné od nich dostat oficiální souhlas s využitím Panoramy nebo
leteckých map pro mapování?  Ty letecké mapy dávám spíš jen pro úplnost.
Pokud vím, tak to od nikoho jiného než od Prahy nemáme...
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11.12.2018 11:16, Andrew Hain wrote:
> A question both to the current board and the candidates: Do you support
> normal levels of Board transparency on this issue?

Just as a "data point" in this discussion: There are people out there
who are happy to issue death threats to anyone who is seen to be
deciding something not in their favour.

I'm not saying that this should automatically top any transparency
requirements, and there hasn't been a board decision to limit
transparency about this, but when discussing transparency in matters
like this you have to take into account that transparency *can*
occasionally mean that bullying becomes easier, and that people who
would otherwise have voted yes or no suddenly vote abstain just to keep
out of trouble.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Andrew Hain]

A question both to the current board and the candidates: Do you support normal 
levels of Board transparency on this issue?
--
Andrew

From: Martijn van Exel 
Sent: 10 December 2018 16:55:42
To: OSM Talk; OSMF Talk
Cc: OSMF Board
Subject: [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

Hi all,

On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the 
Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.

The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous 
situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to 
further remain in effect.

The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the 
difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing 
basis.

A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.

Best regards,
Martijn van Exel
Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
___
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-cz] Spolek OSM ČR z.s.

[Jan Macura]

 díky.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11.12.2018 10:37, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>   1. Non-physical objects are mapped by observing/verifying their
> REFLECTION in physical world.

...

>   Opinion 1 would mean that we should remove all(most?) non-physical
> objects: country, state, county, city, suburb, national/regional park
> boundaries (and a lot more) as most of that is unobservable on the
> ground and sometimes reflection of small part of them on the ground is
> misleading/outdated.

I think that we should not have a "fundamental" approach here but one of
pragmatism.

Non-physical (non-observable) things should definitely be the exception
in OSM, and it is my opinion that each class of non-physical things we
add needs a very good reason for adding them.

For example, certain historic facts are very well documented, sometimes
even by old maps or photographs, but we don't want them in OSM if they
are not visible on the ground any more. I think that this is the right
approach, and we normally don't want things that are not visible on the
ground.

We are making an exception, though, for some types of boundaries because
we think they are important enough to warrant this exception. Not only
important for map users, but also for the mapping process itself - for
example, boundaries could be important for our own statistics or for
knowing whether or not you are even allowed to go somewhere.

"Let's delete all boundaries" would certainly be an overreaction; "let's
require a very good reason for boundaries to have them in OSM" is
better. But "let's map things according to documents" is IMHO worse, and
you haven't even touched on the question of authority (whose documents
do you believe). You are right in saying that most current boundaries in
OSM are actually copied from documents, but we only do that where
everyone agrees that the documents actually depict the situation on the
ground. As soon as they are out of touch with the situation, we won't
consider documents a useful source any more.

Also, I think you are too fast in discounting the verifiability of
boundaries. Even in the absence of actual marked lines, fences, or
walls, you will often find the "reflections" that you speak of if you
look a bit closer: Which government do I pay my taxes to? Which police
department is responsible for my area? Which local authority do I get my
food stamps from, whatever.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [Talk-it] dati grezzi overpass turbo in qgis

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Umap legge eventuali dati da quesry overpass  al caricamento e, tra le
opzioni, lo può fare dinamicamente quando sfogli la mappa. Qgis non saprei
come impostarlo affinchè legga direttamente i dati che arrivano da
overpass... al limite puoi usare la stessa query caricata periodicamente
con crontab e wget, ma passasrla alla canvas Qgis AFAIK deve essere fatto a
mano.

Il giorno mar 11 dic 2018 alle ore 10:12 Roberto Brazzelli <
geom.brazze...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Ciao,
> l'url generato con overppass turbo
> esportando "dati grezzi direttamente da Overpass API
> 
> ",
> cosi come si riesce a fare con umap, è possibile inserirlo
> in qgis per visualizzare "dinamicamente" i dati?
>
> grazie
> Roberto
>
>
> ___
> 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

[OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Tomas Straupis]

Hello

  I think we should settle the question of how "ground truth" or
"verifiability" applies to NON-PHYSICAL objects (it is clear with
physical objects). Because currently I see at least two opinions:

  1. Non-physical objects are mapped by observing/verifying their
REFLECTION in physical world.

  2. Non-physical objects are mapped by observing/verifying them
DIRECTLY where they originate and live - in non-physical world -
~documents.

  It is very demotivating to hear the argument that "opinion X is your
personal opinion, but (my) opinion Y is how OpenStreetMap works"
without any evidence. Especially by people with not too much actual
mapping/usage experience (say < 10 objects done, no
application/map created etc.). And without thinking about the impact
of it.

  Opinion 1 would mean that we should remove all(most?) non-physical
objects: country, state, county, city, suburb, national/regional park
boundaries (and a lot more) as most of that is unobservable on the
ground and sometimes reflection of small part of them on the ground is
misleading/outdated.

  Opinion 2 would mean that objects are mapped according to
originating documents. De facto situation is that almost all
non-physical objects are currently mapped according to documents.

  Which opinion is chosen has a huge impact on both participation and
usage of OpenStreetMap. Decision would be able to remove this burden
from OSMF which by definition should not be deciding on such matters.

P.S. Wiki while not being authoritative talks about PHYSICAL objects.
P.P.S. Let's skip non-physical attributes for the beginning.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [Talk-de] Abschaltung "devserver" (gauss, humbolt und mercator)

[Volker Schmidt]

Was ist aus  osmrm.openstreetmap.de geworden?

Volker

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 19:46, Sven Geggus 
wrote:

> Hallo zusammen,
>
> die Abschaltung der Strato-Server wird konkret.
>
> Weil es doch noch einige aktive Projekte gibt hat uns der FOSSGIS e.V.
> Dankenswerterweise einen neuen Server gemietet.
>
> Alle Projekte sollten spätestens bis Anfang September auf den neuen Server
> umgezogen sein!
>
> Da ich im Zuge des Umzugs auch Altlasten entsorgen möchte bitte ich die
> Projektverantwortlichen um erneute Zusendung eines ssh-Schlüssels und
> gewünschten Loginnamen.
>
> Desweiteren wäre es gut wenn ihr mir gleich eine Liste mit benötigter
> Software mitschicken könntet. Im Idealfall eine Liste der zu
> installierenden
> Pakete. Es läuft ein Debian 9.4. Paketsuche ist unter
> https://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
>
> Bevorzugt würde ich wenn möglich nur Pakete aus der Distribution oder
> stretch-backports installieren wollen :)
>
> Projekte mit derzeit aktivem DNS-Eintrag sind:
> luftbilder.openstreetmap.de
> openingh.openstreetmap.de
> download.openstreetmap.de
> osmhv.openstreetmap.de
> osmrm.openstreetmap.de
> staticmap.openstreetmap.de
> usergroups.openstreetmap.de
> wms.openstreetmap.de
>
> Welche Daten vom WMS noch gebraucht werden wäre auch interessant zu wissen.
> denn das sind 500GB und so viel Platz ist auf dem neuen Server nicht.
>
> Am liebsten würde ich den WMS eigentlich ganz abschalten:
> http://wms.openstreetmap.de/
>
> Gruss
>
> Sven
>
> --
> "Software is like sex; it's better when it's free"
>   (Linus Torvalds)
>
> /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
>
> ___
> 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-cz] Mapy.cz - spoluprace

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj,

ozvali se z mapy.cz, ze na nas nezapomeli. Krome chystanych
rozcestniku pro interni potrebu a porovnani (viz. SotM CZ 2018)
nabizeji i kilometrovniky pro dalnice:

> Ladili jsme teď u nás i dálniční kilometrovníky (po 1 km), pokud máte zájem, 
> mohu také dodat. V OSM jsem našel jako "milník dálnice".
> https://mapy.cz/dopravni?x=14.4292732=50.0530222=12=D%C3%A1lni%C4%8Dn%C3%AD%20kilometr=1
> Bylo by to stejnou formou - dodáme to vám pro interní zpracování a porovnání. 
> Nás jako zdroj uvádět nemusíte, za data nijak neručíme a jsou jistě s chybami.
> (Někde jsou čísla vyčtené z Panoramy, někde jen doměřené = jde o náš "odhad").

ma s tim nekdo zajem neco blizsiho delat?

krome toho seznam zajimaji i SOS telefony:

> Na druhou stranu plánujeme importovat SOS telefony z OSM, v Česku by se 
> jednalo o dálniční hlásky.
> Když narazíme na chybějící, tak je rovnou do OSM sami doplňujeme, protože zde 
> bude import a následná aktualizace jen via OSM.
> (na SOS telefonu lze na Panoramě přečíst i jejich označení, tak doplňujeme i 
> ref).

Konec hlaseni. tom.k

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

[Talk-cz] Spolek OSM ČR z.s.

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj,

vcera jsem dostal posledni potrebne papiry, takze dneska jsem navrh na
zalozeni spolku odnesl na rejstrikovy soud. Do tydne by melo byt
vyjadreni - bud zapis nebo zadost o opravu/doplneni pokud se jim neco
nebude libit. Dalsi krok bude bankovni ucet a pak proces prijeti
dalsich clenu.

Konec hlaseni.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Dec 2018, at 01:23, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Is it serious or some joke/hoax?


it seems to be a significant shift at least, from following the on the ground 
rule as a general policy towards centralized top down decisions on a case by 
case basis by the board. 

This puts the stated role of the OSMF a as whole in question:

e.g. Core values:
„
Ground Truth: OSM favours objective “Ground Truth” over all other sources“


Mission statement: 
OSMF
„
Does not decide what to map or how to map“



The OSMF Board:
„
Does not drive mapping in a particular direction
Does not decide what to map or how to map
Has no role in setting tags
...
Does not undermine the Working Groups by taking on tasks that could be advanced 
by them“

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement


So likely the time the board has requested is because it is planning to consult 
with the community about changing the core values, which is also part of its 
responsibility: „
Sets core values for OSM (via consultation)“

Cheers,
Martin 




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

[Talk-it] dati grezzi overpass turbo in qgis

[Roberto Brazzelli]

Ciao,
l'url generato con overppass turbo
esportando "dati grezzi direttamente da Overpass API

",
cosi come si riesce a fare con umap, è possibile inserirlo
in qgis per visualizzare "dinamicamente" i dati?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Dec 2018, at 02:18, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk if you haven't already seen 
> it for some of the gory detail.


Makes a good statement at the end: „Ultimately, what makes a country a country, 
is if other countries think that country is a country“

That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a 
country/border, as it seems the most objective representation. 


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