[talk-au] Port Phillip Steer Clear Areas Proposed Import

[Andrew Harvey]

The Victorian Ports Corporation (Melbourne) contacted me about adding their
Steer Clear Areas into OpenStreetMap/OpenSeaMap.

I worked through with them to get this dataset as open data
https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/steer-clear-areas-in-port-phillip and
to get the waiver in place
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:VPCM_OpenStreetMap_Approval.pdf.

I've prepared this data for import at
https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/12e5753086585279d398f48035368876.

These are areas where it is illegal to anchor and identified by VicPorts as
Steer Clear areas
https://www.vicports.vic.gov.au/community-and-bay-users/recreational-boating/Pages/boating-on-the-bay.aspx
.

I'm proposing we apply the
seamark:precautionary_area:restriction=no_anchoring tag per
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects. This is also
what VicPorts have requested to use for tags.

Are there any objections, questions, concerns, suggestions about importing
this into OpenStreetMap?

If I don't hear back I'll go ahead in a week.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] SPAM notes in Brazil again

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

To me https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1230095#map=19/-22.97415/-43.33452
looks like a request to add unmapped restaurant (not spam) - why you closed it?

"2401429 is a mere copy of note 1230095"

In such notes note should and can be closed, I did this.

"Please block this IP" - note that IP blocks are not effective, it works only 
against dumb
spammers and affects also innocent people :(

Oct 28, 2020, 00:50 by erickdeoliveiral...@gmail.com:

> Some time ago I reported that several anonymous SPAM notes were being created 
> in Brazil, through the "Report" option available in the note. Someone told me 
> it was not SPAM, so I showed the amount of notes in sequence, so they blocked 
> the IP of this account. But now they started creating several SPAM notes 
> again, I reported again and the user @mavl told me that I should close the 
> notes and not report them anymore, but the "report SPAM" tool exists for 
> that, if not to report SPAM cases , then it should be removed from the 
> selectable options. For example, note 2401429 is a mere copy of note 1230095, 
> another example: note 2401510 merely copies the name of an existing element 
> under it. All notes are sent in sequence, anonymously, copying from 
> non-anonymous notes or existing elements. Please block this IP, it is getting 
> in the way.
>

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

[OSM-talk] SPAM notes in Brazil again

[Erick de Oliveira Leal]

Some time ago I reported that several anonymous SPAM notes were being
created in Brazil, through the "Report" option available in the note.
Someone told me it was not SPAM, so I showed the amount of notes in
sequence, so they blocked the IP of this account. But now they started
creating several SPAM notes again, I reported again and the user @mavl told
me that I should close the notes and not report them anymore, but the
"report SPAM" tool exists for that, if not to report SPAM cases , then it
should be removed from the selectable options. For example, note 2401429 is
a mere copy of note 1230095, another example: note 2401510 merely copies
the name of an existing element under it. All notes are sent in sequence,
anonymously, copying from non-anonymous notes or existing elements. Please
block this IP, it is getting in the way.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 532

[Jan Macura]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Tom Ka  wrote:

> Ano, jazyk se da sice prepnout i primo na webu, ale primy odkaz na CZ
> verzi je jak pise <0174.
>

Resp. web to přenaviguje podle jazykového nastavení uživatele, takže
minimálně těm, kteří ještě nezanevřeli na hacky a carky by se měla zobrazit
česká verze i z původního odkazu ;-)

Nicméně díky za dobrou připomínku, pochybuji totiž, že například fallback
sk->cz tam bude fungovat...

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Tom,
I think the description is rather unclear as to what the polygons are made
of. Lars-Daniel's original description made it down like they were OSM
polygons combined with each other, or otherwise simplified of details. A
quick glance at the website seemed to confirm this.
OTOH, his second email says "the edges of many polygons go across areas,
where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference." That does make
me wonder whether the polygons were actually created from OSM data, with
3rd party data added or not. Looking at the website again, I see a few
examples where a polygon does not match the road network, but do appear to
match other polygons OSM (assuming that some OSM polygons have been
combined or simplified).
(Another possibility is that the polygons do not originate from OSM data,
but were snapped to the OSM road network for visualization purposes only. I
don't think there's enough information to know.)
Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the
polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative
database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.
Best,
Kathleen


On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 2:02 AM Tom Hummel via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Lars-Daniel, Kathleen,
>
> > The process doesn't seem to be trivial, since the edges of many polygons
> go across areas, where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference.
> So OSM dataset has either been changed or augmented using 3rd party
> reference (knowledge, imagery, data etc.) to create the product. Those
> changes are share-alike by ODbL.
>
> The Trivial-Transf.-Guideline asks a trivial transformation to be
> judged from a non-technical point of view. The quality of the
> transformation itself should be non-trivial.
>
> You explained, how the edges of some polygons go along edges that may
> be very difficult to obtain, as they can’t be found within OSM. While
> Kathleen seems to assume that they are directly and easily derived from
> OSM data. Is that right?
>
> OTOH that doesn’t seem important under the TTG. The TTG asks us to
> estimate the modification or addition itself. You seem to be certain,
> the modifications are only possible by combination of 3rd party data
> and OSM data. From that perspective, they don’t seem very trivial to me.
> Kathleen?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] building:levels=*

[Heikki Vesanto]

Definitely interesting stats.

I would interprate -2 for example as a hole (which also functions as a
building) that is 2 levels deep. But levels probably isn't the tag to store
that info. 0 makes sense for buildings that are underground.

A .5 makes seems logical to me. Some offices will have a mezzanine and
depending on the height and layout could be considered a half floor. Some
buildings also have stories in between stories. So a full two story house
in the front, with a story at the back which is vertically between the two.

But I don't think the other decimals make much sense, to me it would seem
like a mistake.

-Heikki

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, 13:37 Colm Moore,  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There's a discussion at
> https://twitter.com/CiaranStaunton/status/1320505496105820163 on
> building:levels=* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels
> which is used for marking the number of above-ground levels of a building.
>
> There are about 3,000 entries on Ireland where the number isn't a whole
> number. Sometimes this may represent the likes of dormer buildings, which
> are sometimes described colloquially as and one-and-a-half-storey or
> two-and-a-half-storey houses. in other cases, it may have been used instead
> of height=*.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone has any insights as to how people were
> interpreting the tag.
>
> Colm
>
> PS And yes, I mapped a bunch of zero-storey buildings. :)
>
>
> ---
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
> change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [Talk-it] Import civici Milano - preview

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Il 27/10/20, Alessandro Oggioni ha scritto:
> C’è un modo per indicare accuratezza e/o precisione? Come faccio a dare
> feedback?

Qui [1] trovi Milano 5 e Milano 9. Il feedback lo puoi dare durante la
validazione, nel campo fixme.

[1] http://audit.osmz.ru/

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

Re: [Talk-it] utente nuovo nuovo

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Se devi far dei rilievi, suppongo girerai con uno smartphone. In tal
caso, vista la specificità del raccolto, ti consiglio la app smash

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.hydrologis.smash

Il 27/10/20, Stefano ha scritto:
> Buongiorno a tutti, sono un "rookie" che sta cercando di imparare a
> utilizzare questa fantastica piattaforma, ma nonostante abbia aperto (e
> letto) decine di pagine non riesco a trovare come creare dei lookup per
> un mio tag personalizzato.

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

Re: [Talk-it] utente nuovo nuovo

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2020, at 17:36, Stefano  wrote:
> 
> Mi spiego meglio, devo fare il rilievo dei numeri civici della mia zona 
> inserendo oltre ai dati standard (numero civico, strada, ecc.) anche il tipo 
> di ingresso (principale/secondario), lo stato di manutenzione del civico 
> (assente/regolare/danneggiato) e il tipo di accesso 
> (abitazione/cancello/altro).


come ti ha detto Ivo, con Josm puoi crearti dei presets. Il tipo di accesso è 
in parte un tag standard: 
barrier=gate per un cancello e entrance=* per un ingresso ad un fabbricato. 
Insieme ad entrance puoi anche mettere level=1 per ingressi al primo piano. Con 
entrance=no puoi indicare che il civico è assegnato dove attualmente non si può 
entrare (porta permanentemente chiusa, tamponature, finestre, ecc.)

 C’è anche barrier=entrance per un’apertura in una recinzione (senza cancello).

Lo stato di manutenzione del cartello del civico non è ancora una proprietà 
standard ma potrebbe forse diventarlo.


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

Re: [Talk-it] Import civici Milano - preview

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2020, at 17:42, Alessandro Oggioni  wrote:
> 
> Ottimo inizio così.
> C’è un modo per indicare accuratezza e/o precisione? Come faccio a dare 
> feedback?


sicuramente ci starebbero anche metodi scientifici per farlo, ma qui non è 
richiesto, puoi farlo in qualsiasi forma, io guarderei:

1. se i civici segnati nel dataset sono ben posizionati

2. se ci sono civici nella realtà che mancano nel dataset

il punto 1 lo vedi presto, mentre il punto 2 non dovrebbe proprio accadere ;-)

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

Re: [talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 532

[Tom Ka]

Ano, jazyk se da sice prepnout i primo na webu, ale primy odkaz na CZ
verzi je jak pise <0174.

Diky tom.k

út 27. 10. 2020 v 19:40 odesílatel <0174  napsal:
>
> Ahoj,
>
> v odkazu zřejmě někde vypadlo "cz", správný odkaz měl asi být:
> https://weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/13803
>
> Nicméně díky!
>
> <0174
>
> Dne 27. 10. 2020 v 16:27 Tom Ka napsal(a):
> > Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 532 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:
> >
> > https://weeklyosm.eu/archives/13803
> >
> > * Dětské herny.
> > * Letiště v Žilině.
> > * Návody pro JOSM.
> > * Report o StreetComplete.
> > * Soukromé informace.
> > * Nová zastoupení Nadace OSM.
> > * Mapy evropské půdy.
> > * Marble naviguje.
> > * Aktualizace v Mexiku.
> > * Web osm2pgsql.org.
> > * Novinky OpenRouteService.
> > * Mapy od Garminu.
> > * Vícekanálový Garmin.
> > * COVID na mapách Google.
> > * Mapy v 16. století.
> >
> > Pěkné počtení ...
> >
> > ___
> > 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-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 532

[<0174]

Ahoj,

v odkazu zřejmě někde vypadlo "cz", správný odkaz měl asi být:
https://weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/13803

Nicméně díky!

<0174

Dne 27. 10. 2020 v 16:27 Tom Ka napsal(a):

Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 532 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:

https://weeklyosm.eu/archives/13803

* Dětské herny.
* Letiště v Žilině.
* Návody pro JOSM.
* Report o StreetComplete.
* Soukromé informace.
* Nová zastoupení Nadace OSM.
* Mapy evropské půdy.
* Marble naviguje.
* Aktualizace v Mexiku.
* Web osm2pgsql.org.
* Novinky OpenRouteService.
* Mapy od Garminu.
* Vícekanálový Garmin.
* COVID na mapách Google.
* Mapy v 16. století.

Pěkné počtení ...

___
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-fr] Projet du mois Décembre : lieux de test COVID (était "Carte des lieux de test COVID")

[Yves P.]

>
> Une question reste en suspend pour moi : ou trouver les données ?
> Je ne vois pas de lien sur le site de L'ARS :
> https://sante.fr/recherche/trouver/DepistageCovid#
>

Une recherche rapide en mode gros doigts sur un smartphone donne ce :
https://www.atlasante.fr/geonetwork/srv/fre/catalog.search#/metadata/e63f704c-9244-4fad-b94e-935574d414a0

Pour ceux qui ont un vrai clavier et une souris, pouvez-vous regarder si on
trouve des données  pour les autres régions ?

Merci.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Projet du mois Décembre : lieux de test COVID (était "Carte des lieux de test COVID")

[Yves P.]

>
> c'est dans le langage courant ce n'est pas le test qui est introduit dans
> le nez,
>


>  - est-ce qu'on indique les différents types de test ?
>
A priori je ne vois pas l'intérêt de saisir ça dans OSM.
J'imagine qu'on va au centre le plus proche... le reste concerne les
médecins.

De plus les critères de l'ARS sont les suivants :

   - Prélèvement Covid-19 (3388)
   - Prélèvement Covid-19 Créneaux pour personnes prioritaires (236)
   - Prélèvement Covid-19 - Temporaire (72)
   - Prélèvement Covid-19 - Personnes prioritaires uniquement (53)

ce sont les mêmes dans tous les pays ?
>
Je pense que non

> Le labo prés de chez moi ne propose ces tests qu'à certaines heures, qui
> ne sont pas les mêmes que celles d'ouverture du labo (opening_hours)
>
Bonne remarque : En théorie on peut noter tout ça dans opening_hours...

Concernant le nombre, 3749 ça fait beaucoup.
Mais on doit en avoir aussi pas mal dans OSM 
Après conflation, je pense qu'il faut se concentrer sur les autres.

Une question reste en suspend pour moi : ou trouver les données ?
Je ne vois pas de lien sur le site de L'ARS :
https://sante.fr/recherche/trouver/DepistageCovid#
Je pense qu'un coup de fil à l'ARS s'impose.
__
Yves
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-it] utente nuovo nuovo

[Ivo Reano]

Non sono sicuro di avere capito la domanda...

Hai bisogno di crearti dei tag per tuo uso e consumo?
Allora è meglio se lavori con un tuo server. Non è così difficile si tratta
in pratica di salvare i dati sul tuo computer invece di caricarli.

Oppure vuoi crearti un preset? Cioè una raccolta di tag preimpostati da
usare al volo o con meno fronzoli del default?
In questo caso devi guardare su github dove trovi molti preset impostati da
usare come guida
Magari puoi anche cominciare leggendo:
https://learnosm.org/it/josm/josm-presets/
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Import civici Milano - preview

[Alessandro Oggioni]

Grazie

> On 27 Oct 2020, at 00:23, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Mo., 26. Okt. 2020 um 19:18 Uhr schrieb Alessandro Oggioni 
> mailto:oggioni...@gmail.com>>:
> Carissimi,
> per quanto vale (abitando a Milano) mi posso impegnare in questo senso.
> Sicuramente è necessario essere in più di 2.
> 
> 
> come ha detto anche Andrea, nessuno si aspetta che si controllano tutti i 
> civici, ma cosa potresti per esempio fare, è dare un'occhiata sui civici 
> intorno a te (o altri civici che conosci) per vedere (a campione) quanto 
> siano precisi e accurati.

Ottimo inizio così.
C’è un modo per indicare accuratezza e/o precisione? Come faccio a dare 
feedback?

Ale

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

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

[Talk-it] utente nuovo nuovo

[Stefano]

Buongiorno a tutti, sono un "rookie" che sta cercando di imparare a
utilizzare questa fantastica piattaforma, ma nonostante abbia aperto (e
letto) decine di pagine non riesco a trovare come creare dei lookup per
un mio tag personalizzato. 


Mi spiego meglio, devo fare il rilievo dei numeri civici della mia zona
inserendo oltre ai dati standard (numero civico, strada, ecc.) anche il
tipo di ingresso (principale/secondario), lo stato di manutenzione del
civico (assente/regolare/danneggiato) e il tipo di accesso
(abitazione/cancello/altro). 


Volevo quindi creare un elenco tra cui scegliere, per evitare di dover
scrivere ogni volta il testo, come succede per il tag "door". 

Esiste una guida che spieghi come procedere? 


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

[talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 532

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 532 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:

https://weeklyosm.eu/archives/13803

* Dětské herny.
* Letiště v Žilině.
* Návody pro JOSM.
* Report o StreetComplete.
* Soukromé informace.
* Nová zastoupení Nadace OSM.
* Mapy evropské půdy.
* Marble naviguje.
* Aktualizace v Mexiku.
* Web osm2pgsql.org.
* Novinky OpenRouteService.
* Mapy od Garminu.
* Vícekanálový Garmin.
* COVID na mapách Google.
* Mapy v 16. století.

Pěkné počtení ...

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

Re: [talk-cz] cykoztezky s state=proposed nebo complete=proposed

[Martin Ždila]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:44 PM Lukáš Karas  wrote:

> Jiné pražské cyklotrasy v reálu existují, ale mají "na sobě" tag
> complete=proposed


Ak je proposed, tak treba preznačiť pomocou lifecycle prefixov. Teda v
relácii dať namiesto type=route značku proposed:type=route.

BTW na SK sme z turistických relácii odstránili compledte=yes a namiesto
complete=no sme dali fixme=continue.

-- 
Ing. Martin Ždila 
OZ Freemap Slovakia
tel:+421-908-363-848
mailto:martin.zd...@freemap.sk
http://www.freemap.sk/
___
talk-cz mailing list
talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie]

Disclaimer: I never visited Ireland

27 paź 2020, 14:41 od colmmoor...@hotmail.com:

> 3.  Holy wells, mass rocks and the like. These are predominantly Roman 
> Catholic, but possibly with pagan origins. 
>
Are they still used by pagans/new age people? For OSM purposes current usage 
matters, not origins.

> 4.  Some objects have dual tagging, e.g. religion=christian;pagan or 
> denomination=protestant;roman_catholic Are people happy to have such tagging?
>
If say church is shared by Roman Catholic parish and Protestant congregation 
and not
used by other denominations then denomination=protestant;roman_catholic is 100% 
fine.

>  5.  Many religious-run schools do not have the religion or denomination 
> tagged.
>
It is a bit tricky as at least some religious-run schools have absolutely no 
trace of religion
in running of school, there is simply a religious owner/operator.

In such cases operator:type=religious would fit better than religion tag

>  8.  There are religion=no, religion=none and denomination=none tags. Should 
> these tags be rationalised or otherwise tidied up?
>
How this tags are used?

denomination=none seems fine for say ecumenical chapel used by all kinds of 
denomination
of a given religion... 

> multifaith 47 <
>
This may be actually valid.

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

[talk-cz] cykoztezky s state=proposed nebo complete=proposed

[Lukáš Karas]

Ahoj, do libosmscout jsem dopsal podporu pro "route" relace a začal importovat 
turistické a cyklo trasy. Což je sice fajn, ale teď ve svém okolí vidím 
několik tras které nikdy neexistovaly (nejsou značeny standardní žlutou 
značkou s číslem). Třeba tato: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1769951 
Tato relace byla vytvořena před devíti lety. 

Co s takovými relacemi? Když tu cyklotrasa nevznikla za devět let, 
pochybuji že se tak někdy stane. Smazat?

Jiné pražské cyklotrasy v reálu existují, ale mají "na sobě" tag 
complete=proposed : http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Zrh . Klíč "complete" sice na 
wiki neexistuje, ale v datech se hojně používá. Většinou s hodnotou yes/no. 
Hodnota "proposed" mi přijde dost podezřelá. Kontrolou tras které znám, jsem 
našel několik tras jsou v OSM datech jinudy, případně mají jiné číslo (ref). 

Co s tím? Asi nezbývá nic jiného než je příští sezónu project, opravit 
a přeznačit na complete=yes...?

Lukáš


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

[OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*

[Colm Moore]

Hi,

brianh and I have done a fair bit of rationalisation of the tagging of these 
over the last few months. It has now reached a stability point where I am up 
against the limit of my knowledge of the mid-sized and smalles religious groups.


  1.  All known Church of Ireland objects are now tagged denomination=anglican 
and anglican=Church of Ireland.
  2.  All known Roman Catholic objects are now tagged 
denomination=roman_catholic - I've been able to retire denomination=catholic 
***Note that many denominations see themselves as catholic, without being Roman 
Catholic***. There are still a few hundred Roman Catholic churches tagged as 
builidng=yes.
  3.  Holy wells, mass rocks and the like. These are predominantly Roman 
Catholic, but possibly with pagan origins. How should they be tagged? 
amenity=place_of_worship doesn't sit well.
  4.  Some objects have dual tagging, e.g. religion=christian;pagan or 
denomination=protestant;roman_catholic Are people happy to have such tagging?
  5.  Many religious-run schools do not have the religion or denomination 
tagged.
  6.  There are a variety of community centres mapped, ranging for parish 
halls, church halls to Orange Halls, Legion of Mary, etc. Are 
amenity=community_centre and religion=* the right tags to use? Some community 
centres are not religious, e.g. council operated, and some religious buildings 
should / shouldn't be amenity=community_centre.
  7.  There are multifaith and interdenominational tags available. Use of 
denomination=protestant is probably to be discouraged, but there are a few hard 
cases, e.g. cemetery chapels.
  8.  There are religion=no, religion=none and denomination=none tags. Should 
these tags be rationalised or otherwise tidied up?
  9.  There are some religion=unknown and denomination=unknown objects where I 
haven't been able to determine things, despite desktop investigations.
  10. Subject specific question. There are several methodist=* and 
presbyterian=* sub-groups. Could someone help me define these?
  11. Subject specific question. Are denomination=pentecostal and 
denomination=elim_pentecostal the same thing?
  12. Subject specific question. Are denomination=plymouth_brethren and 
denomination=brethren the same thing?
  13. Subject specific question. Are denomination=independent and 
denomination=independent_evangelical the same thing?
  14. There are quite a few 'Fellowship' and similar churches around. What 
might suitable tagging for denomination=* be?
  15. Graveyards are cemeteries that are attached to a religious building. I 
have generally tagged graveyards with the same religion=* and denomination=* 
details, but **only if they are integrated**. Is this acceptable? In some 
areas, disused religious graveyards have been taken over by councils.
  16. Many cemeteries are run by councils. Individual sections may be allocated 
to specific groups. I am not tagging religion=* and denomination=* unless I 
have specific knowledge.

Lists of tags below with quantities. Anything with an arrow < 
could do with being looked at.

Thank you

Colm


-

amenity=place_of_worship 4384
amenity=place_of_worship and religion=* 4375
amenity=school and religion=* 509
amenity=community_centre and religion=* 87
amenity=grave_yard 2967
landuse=religious 1166
landuse=cemetery 1590

-

religion=* 8231

bahai 2
buddhist 8
christian 8125
christian;pagan 1 <
gos 1
hindu 4
jewish 9
multifaith 47 <
muslim 17
pagan 1
pastafarian 1 <
scientologist 2
sikh 2
spiritualist 2 <
no 1 <
none 7 <
unknown 1 <

-

denomination=* 8051

pentecostal 21 <
elim_pentecostal 29 <

plymouth_brethren 3 <
brethren 19 <

methodist 171 <
methodist;presbyterian 3 <
presbyterian 597 <

protestant 35 <
protestant;roman_catholic 3 <

independent 8 <
independent_evangelical 4 <

nondenominational 10 <
none 2 <
unknown 5 <

Assemblies_of_God 1 <
Christian Fellowship 1 <
adventist 1
ahmadiyya 1
amish_mennonite 1
anglican 3303
anglican;methodist 4 <
anglican;roman_catholic 1 <
apostolic 3 <
baptist 85
christ_scientist 2
church_of_god 3 <
congregational 16 <
coptic_orthodox 4
evangelical 23 <
gospel 42 <
greek_orthodox 1
hare_krishna 2
huguenot 1
indian_orthodox 1
jehovahs_witness 30
lutheran 1
moravian 6
mormon 15
nazarene 10 <
new_testament 1 <
orthodox 1
progressive 2
quaker 25
roman_catholic 3521
romanian_orthodox 1
russian_orthodox 3
salvation_army 12

[OSM-talk-ie] building:levels=*

[Colm Moore]

Hi,

There's a discussion at 
https://twitter.com/CiaranStaunton/status/1320505496105820163 on 
building:levels=* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels which 
is used for marking the number of above-ground levels of a building.

There are about 3,000 entries on Ireland where the number isn't a whole number. 
Sometimes this may represent the likes of dormer buildings, which are sometimes 
described colloquially as and one-and-a-half-storey or two-and-a-half-storey 
houses. in other cases, it may have been used instead of height=*.

I'm wondering if anyone has any insights as to how people were interpreting the 
tag.

Colm

PS And yes, I mapped a bunch of zero-storey buildings. :)

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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by 2hu4u

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Glad to see you on the list, I tried to CC you on the list message in
case you weren't subscribed but didn't know your email.

I'm not sure if it's used by the network tag
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network I think could be used to
say which network it's part of and hence distinguish the Sydney supply from
other ones disconnected from this network. In addition to the operator tag
(though in theory you could still have Sydney Water operating some isolated
systems).

After doing some more digging looks like there is some discussion on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Dreservoir_covered where
it seems they are mostly used the same way. I had assumed reservoir_covered
was for large (wider than high) in ground reservoirs, with a lining of some
kind, that are covered, with storage_tank would not be sitting in the
ground but rather on the ground and usually not that wide compared to high,
but maybe this is not really backed up by how the tags are defined and used.

More photos of the various kinds would help.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 23:29, Peter leGras  wrote:

> Hello, 2hu4u here (this is my first message on the mailing list).
> Regarding water towers, not sure if there is local/state variation, but
> large public tanks connected to the mains utility (commonly with capacities
> of 1-25 megalitres) are referred to by Sydney Water as "covered
> reservoirs". This is a grey area I guess; I thought perhaps it would be
> useful to distinguish the slight nuance between designated reservoirs and
> "man_made=storage_tank + content=water" of the kind that collects or stores
> water on a smaller scale and is disconnected from the greater water
> network. I will be posting photos of example tanks on the wiki soon.
> Looking forward to working with you all.
> Cheers
> ___
> 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-fr] Projet du mois Décembre : lieux de test COVID (était "Carte des lieux de test COVID")

[leni]

Pour commencer, suite à la précédente discussion "[OSM-talk-fr] Carte 
des lieux de test COVID", je relance le débat du tagging des centres 
de test covid.
Voici ma proposition : 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Project_of_the_month/Centres_de_d%C3%A9pistage_Covid 



Bonjour

Je me pose quelques questions ?


   Types de lieu : il me semble qu'il ne faut pas systématiquement
   traduire les cliniques par amenity
   =clinic
   voir
   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:amenity%3Dclinic#En_France

Pour la forme, même si c'est dans le langage courant ce n'est pas le 
test qui est introduit dans le nez, mais le prélèvement qui est fait 
dans le nez :*Types de tests* ou*Types de prélèvements *?*

*

- prélèvement par le nez : tests virologiques /"RT-PCR/" ; mais aussi 
tests rapides dits tests "/antigéniques/" 
https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/p_3212125/fr/covid-19-la-has-positionne-les-tests-antigeniques-dans-trois-situations 
- est-ce qu'on indique les différents types de test ? ce sont les mêmes 
dans tous les pays ?


on pourrait aussi ajouter  :

- prélèvement salivaire : tests virologiques /"RT-PCR"/ 
https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/p_3202317/fr/covid-19-les-tests-salivaires-peuvent-completer-les-tests-nasopharynges-chez-les-personnes-symptomatiques


Le labo prés de chez moi ne propose ces tests qu'à certaines heures, qui 
ne sont pas les mêmes que celles d'ouverture du labo (opening_hours)


cordialement

leni

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

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by 2hu4u

[Peter leGras]

Hello, 2hu4u here (this is my first message on the mailing list).
Regarding water towers, not sure if there is local/state variation, but
large public tanks connected to the mains utility (commonly with capacities
of 1-25 megalitres) are referred to by Sydney Water as "covered
reservoirs". This is a grey area I guess; I thought perhaps it would be
useful to distinguish the slight nuance between designated reservoirs and
"man_made=storage_tank + content=water" of the kind that collects or stores
water on a smaller scale and is disconnected from the greater water
network. I will be posting photos of example tanks on the wiki soon.
Looking forward to working with you all.
Cheers
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK's first tile layer

[James Derrick]

Hi,

On 27/10/2020 06:18, Adrian via Talk-GB wrote:

I agree with Rob that the misalignment of 5m is obvious if you look at Hugh 
Town (Scilly). Both if you compare with the OSM data and if you compare with 
the tracklogs that have been uploaded to OSM. So this transformation won't do. 
I think we need to go for the look-up table.


Whilst the details of your geodesy is impressive but way beyond my 
expertise, over ten years of OSM survey traces suggests another factor 
to be wary of when comparing sub-10m position sources.


Using a Garmin Oregon 550 as a baseline, Oregon 650 and 750 consistently 
give location between 4-8m North North West in Northumberland - the tool 
may influence the measurement beyond your accuracy.


For resilience, I map with at least two GPSr on my bike handlebars and 
regularly upload both tracks to OSM and use both to better position 
mapping and any layers such as imagery. Over the years I've used five or 
six Garmin GPSr. None are even close to a 'proper' differential total 
station, however with datum/ spheroid set to WGS 84, the same tools and 
JOSM workflow show the offset. Changing GPS/ GLONASS or WAAS/ EGNOS 
seems to have less impact than the choice of Garmin unit (same settings 
across devices). Firmware updates have changed motion compensation when 
changing direction fast, but the offset remains.


The trouble will be is without device data in tracklogs there's no way 
to separate random from systematic offsets (even if you had them...) - 
you can only average all data.



Thanks for your interesting work - I remember tales from Registers of 
Scotland of an OS baseline survey error that 'moved' the East coast by 
many meters proving 'You Are Here' is hard to quantify!



James
--
James Derrick
li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England
I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick

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

Re: [Talk-it] Incontro in Jitsi sabato 31/10 : UN Mappers, import dati e Josm avanzato

[Anisa Kuci]

Ciao Marco,

grazie per l'annuncio e grazie alla comunità di Piemonte che sta 
continuando con gli incontri!


Ho aggiunto l'incontro anche nel diario di bordo 
 di Wikimedia Italia, 
calendario nella wiki 
 OSM e nel OSM 
calendar .


Buona giornata,

Anisa


On 10/24/20 8:02 PM, mbranco2 wrote:

Buonasera Lista,
sperando che stiate tutti bene, volevo segnalarvi che sabato 31 
ottobre, pomeriggio, faremo un incontro da remoto per parlare di UN 
Mappers, di import di dati in OSM, e di uso avanzato di Josm.
L'evento è nell'ambito degli incontri mensili OSM che da due anni 
facciamo regolarmente in Piemonte, ma vista la necessità di farli ora 
virtualmente, ci sembra giusto pubblicizzare la cosa anche sulla 
mailing list nazionale (della serie: cerchiamo di cogliere i risvolti 
positivi della situazione...)


I dettagli dell'incontro li trovate qui:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it-piemonte/2020-October/001077.html 



Se quindi può interessarvi conoscere gli UN Mappers ed approfondire la 
conoscenza di Josm, ci sentiamo sabato prossimo su jitsi.


Un saluto!
Marco

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


--
Anisa Kuci
Responsabile OpenStreetMap
Wikimedia Italia - Associazione per la diffusione della conoscenza libera
Via Bergognone 34 - 20144 Milano
Tel. (+39) 02 97677170 | anisa.k...@wikimedia.it | www.wikimedia.it

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

Re: [talk-cz] mazani nepohodlnych dat

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2020-10-26 13:51:09, Tonda wrote:
> Ale není legální jezdit na kole mimo cesty a není legální cesty, v tomto
> případě MTB traily, budovat bez sohlasu vlatníka.
> Zákon 289/1995 Sb. (Lesní zákon) § 20

Ptal jsem se co presne znamena "ilegalni".

Kazdopadne scela zjevne je legalni po takovehle ceste chodit pesky,
takze odstraneni highway=path z mapy proste neni v poradku.

A zrejme je legalni i jezdit po ni na kole, ze? Protoze ta cesta v
lese je.

Takze... o cem ta dlouha diskuze? Vlastnik lesa pravdepodobne muze
podniknout nejake pravni kroky proti tomu kdo tu cestu zbudoval... ale
tuhle informaci asi v mape nepotrebujem :-).

Hezky den,
Pavel

-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek


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

Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation

[Simon Poole]

Its done that essentially since day one. As Bryce points out doing so 
keeps the object a valid "area" (and iD makes a valiant effort to stop 
you from breaking that).


It is also one of my favourite examples in talks why trying to keep 
things simple for the user is very difficult and some times 
counterproductive.


Lots of people have had the wtf moment when they come along a 
multi-polgon consisting of just one ring built from two ways. The 
problem is that once the user has split the polygon, there is no obvious 
point in time were you can be sure that the user is finished with it and 
you could simplify, particularly when you are trying to get the user to 
save often and early. So the simplification for the iD user comes at the 
expense of wtf's of everybody else.


Simon

Am 27.10.2020 um 02:05 schrieb Dave F via talk:

Hi

I don't use iD editor much, but I've just discovered it auto-converts 
closed polygons which are split (Shortcut Key = X) into MP relations.


I'm struggling to comprehend a logical reason for this. Is there one? 
If there's been a previous discussion which I've missed please post a 
link.


There's a couple of threads on iD's github issues, bhousel closed them 
with "wontfix - I Saw A Thing I Didn't Like (but is valid in OSM).


It may be valid, but is it desirable or helpful? I split closed ways, 
in P2, for various reasons without wanting them to be converted. How 
many newbies would even know what a MP relation is?


Having them as as split tagged ways is just as "valid". More so, 
considering splitting long ways is desirable.


DaveF




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


OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


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

Re: [talk-cz] mazani nepohodlnych dat

[jzvc via talk-cz]

Dne 26.10.2020 v 13:51 Tonda napsal(a):
Ale není legální jezdit na kole mimo cesty a není legální cesty, v 
tomto případě MTB traily, budovat bez sohlasu vlatníka.

Zákon 289/1995 Sb. (Lesní zákon) § 20

A kolik asi tak nacerno postavenych domu je v OSM zmapovano? Stovky? 
Tisice? Dokonce jsou v OSM zmapovany vsemozne vojenske objekty (a take 
si v tomto pripade dokonce vlastnici/provozovatele stezovali a zadali 
odstraneni, coz bylo odmitnuto).  Vcelku by mne pak zajimalo, jak se 
pozna "legalni" lesni cesta od "nelegalni" lesni cesty.


Mimochodem, meli bychom odstranit z OSM D0 als prazsky okruh, nebot je 
provozovan ilegalne bez kolaudace (pokud se nemylim, je stale v 
testovacim provozu, coz jak uz opakovane prohlasil NS, je neakceptovatelne)




T.

On 26.10.2020 13:30, Pavel Machek wrote:

On Mon 2020-10-26 09:07:44, Eduard Šešulka wrote:

Zdravím,

Nejsem si jistý, jestli se mi podaří odpovědět do správné skupiny, ale
zkusím to.
Pokud jsou trasy ilegální, neměly by v mapě být.


Co presne znamena ze jsou "ilegalni"?

Upozornuju ze je legalni chodit po lese, a to i mimo cesty.

    Pavel


___
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] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 10/26/20 22:56, Bryce Cogswell via talk wrote:
> I agree it’s a little counterintuitive for experienced users but I
> understand the rationale: If you’re splitting a building (closed way)
> how is the result valid unless it’s converted to a multipolygon?

JOSM has no issue splitting a closed way into two separate closed ways.
It's entirely possible the user wants to have two separate buildings
(happens frequently when MapWithAI/RapID mistakenly decides that two or
three (or more) closely packed buildings are one big building).

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK's first tile layer

[Adrian via Talk-GB]

 I can confirm that the Land Registry wms parcels appear to have been converted 
with the Helmert 7-element transformation (no look-up table). This gives a 
misalignment of up to 5 metres. It's ironic that the Land Registry don't seem 
to know where their parcels are to better than 5m.

Now we know what EPSG:27700 does. It does the above transformation.

I agree with Rob that the misalignment of 5m is obvious if you look at Hugh 
Town (Scilly). Both if you compare with the OSM data and if you compare with 
the tracklogs that have been uploaded to OSM. So this transformation won't do. 
I think we need to go for the look-up table.

I've done some testing with JOSM. The look-up table transformation is not in 
JOSM's list of (thousands) of projections. But this custom projection does it:

+proj=tmerc +lat_0=49 +lon_0=-2 +k=0.9996012717 +x_0=40 +y_0=-10 
+ellps=airy +units=m +nadgrids=OSTN02_NTv2.gsb +bounds=-9,49,2,61 +no_defs

I expect something very similar would work in Mapnik.

When you set up this custom projection, JOSM downloads the grid file from the 
JOSM server, and puts it in the JOSM cache folder under a modified name. There 
is then a wait of several seconds while JOSM configures the custom projection. 
You can also get JOSM to do the latest, OSTN15 transformation. The only change 
needed, is to the grid file. This needs some simple hacking because it's not 
supported. You don't change the custom projection, but you alter the file in 
the cache folder. So, find the file, copy its name, and then delete it. 
Download the OSTN15 grid file from the OS website. As Gareth says, you need 
OSTN15_NTv2_OSGBtoETRS.gsb, (and not the other way round). Put the file in the 
cache folder and rename it to the name you just copied. You then need to quit 
and relaunch JOSM for this change to 'take'.

The difference between OSTN02 and OSTN15 is a shift, mostly in longitude, and 
in a similar direction throughout GB, of 1-2cm.

With the look-up table transformation, there will still be a misalignment of 
0.75m relative to WGS84, but this is a lot better than 5m.

If there is consensus, then the wiki needs to be updated to recommend the 
OSTN15 transformation.

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