Re: [Talk-it] Tasking manager italiano inaccessibile

[Fabrizio Tambussa]

Il 13/Ago/2017 07:59, "dan980"  ha scritto:

Ciao, da ieri sera è nuovamente giù



-


Grazie della segnalazione.
Solita martellata ben assestata, ora è tornato su.
Saluti
Fabrizio
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[OSM-talk] OSM Wikidata SPARQL service updated

[Yuri Astrakhan]

The combined SPARQL database of OSM and Wikidata has been updated:
* There is a short video explaining the basics (at the top of [1])
* new Wikidata interface
* now all OSM "wikipedia" tags and sitelinks in Wikidata are stored the
same way, so it is possible to cross-check when "wikidata" and "wikipedia"
tags do match up (see example [1])
* all ways now store "osmm:loc" with centroid coordinates, making it
possible to crudely filter ways by location
* all tag keys that contain non-latin chars, spaces, etc, are now also
stored without values in "osmm:badkey"

P.S. All OSM data is up to date, refreshed every minute. The data from
Wikidata is about two days behind, still catching up.

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata%2BOSM_SPARQL_query_service#Places_with_incorrect_Wikipedia.2Fwikidata_tags
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2017-08-11

[Dave Hansen]

These are based off of Lambertus's work here:

http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl

If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel
free to ask.  However, please do not send me private mail.  The
odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by
asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit.

Downloads:

http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2017-08-11

Map to visualize what each file contains:


http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2017-08-11/kml/kml.html


FAQ



Why did you do this?

I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact
of doing a large join on Lambertus's server.  I've also
cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently
on removable media.  

http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2017-08-11

Can or should I seed the torrents?

Yes!!  If you use the .torrent files, please seed.  That web
server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this
side of the Atlantic.

Why is my map missing small rectangular areas?

There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the
red rectangles),  I don't see any at the moment, so you may
want to update if you had issues with the last set.

Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card?

If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from
the factory.  I had to reformat it to let me create a >2GB
file.

Does your map cover Mexico/Canada?

Yes!!  I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario
in to the USA.  Some areas of North America that are close
to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps.
This might not happen forever, and if you would like your
non-US area to get included, let me know. 

-- Dave


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/08/2017 17:19, Brian Prangle wrote:


...  and goes to the first source of what is seen to be the 
authoritative source - the wiki- to seek guidance,




Unfortunately, the wiki isn't always "the authoritative source". 
Articles written there include both "descriptive" and "prescriptive" 
ones - saying how mappers currently map things, and telling them how 
they _should_ map things.  When it comes to "how to map things" often 
there needs to be a discussion, because no one person has the whole 
picture.  Sometimes people writing wiki articles take great care to 
represent the different views where they exist and try and thread a 
consensus course through them (Harry Wood please take a bow at this 
point); and sometimes they don't.


For example, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks says that 
"The simplest method is to tag the associated highway with sidewalk 
=both/left/right/no 
(none is sometimes used, but no is preferred 
)", despite 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sidewalk#values showing that 
"none" is the more popular value.  I tried to make the wiki reflect 
usage but it was immediately changed back because "The statement never 
described predominant usage, but preferred usage. That hasn't 
changed.".  Clearly someone thinks that _they_ know better than me and 
the majority of sidewalk mappers in OSM.  Rather than "insisting" it is 
correct as per https://www.xkcd.com/386/ I decided that life was too 
short. I suspect that something rather similar has happened with regard 
to language tagging in Wales.



and then asks, from etiquette, what the local community thinks,



To be fair, from reading the emails it doesn't read to me like that was 
what was happening; it reads very much like he was telling everyone that 
disagreed with him that they were wrong without offering any reasoning 
beyond "the wiki says...".


Unfortunately every multiple-language situation is complicated (and with 
a DWG hat on I've been involved in quite a few).  Some communities 
(Belgium being a notable early example) have settled on a compound 
"name" that doesn't reflect any language name on the ground but is 
intended to indicate that both have equal value; some - possibly the 
majority, but not by much - go with name as the "most used value" - so 
"Eteläinen Rautatiekatu" rather than the rather large mouthful 
"Eteläinen Rautatiekatu / Södra Järnvägsgatan"* for the street in 
Helsinki that I used to stay when working there, despite all street 
signs being bilingual.  Some have gone for locally-relevant variations 
of both.  However it's always the wishes of the local mappers that 
should hold most sway (and, again from personal experience with a DWG 
hat on, that can get difficult when one community is under-represented 
in OSM).


*Can this discussion specifically address what is wrong with the wiki 
page on Welsh placenames 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Wales and 
suggest improvements?*




I'd start by asking some more Welsh mappers!  So far we've had the 
person who created the original cyosm map arguing against a compound 
name, along with a number of (very) frequent visitors from England. 
Other than the person who raised the issue we've not yet had much of a 
balancing population on the other side of the argument; but not everyone 
follows changeset discussion comments or this list.  When the status of 
Western Sahara was raised with the DWG I went through a fairly long 
process which started at 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=602864#p602864 to 
ensure that everyone's views could be taken on board and to make sure 
that no-one was missed - I made sure that ever mapper in the region 
who'd recently mapped affected objects had a comment in a changeset 
discussion (and if no reply a direct message) in what appeared to be 
their usual language.  Contacting _every_ mapper who's mapped in Wales 
is unlikely to be feasible but contacting a subset of regular mappers 
(perhaps based edit count > a certain value) and based on some sort of 
"edits in Wales" criterion could be doable, but based on the Western 
Sahara survey I'd expect that it'd be a sizable amount of effort; just 
putting up a "web survey" form somewhere and hoping people come to it 
won't cut it.


If after that sort of discussion there's still opposition to "compound 
names" in Wales I'd suggest that an initial change to the wiki page 
would be the removal of the section added by "Männedorf" in 2014 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Multilingual_names=revision=1121276=1116200 
that introduced the idea in the first place - but we need to make sure 
that people even know about the issue first.


I'm also hoping that this discussion might kickstart OMSUK's Welsh 
language render project




Well good luck with that :) 

Re: [Talk-dk] Vroldvej

[Lars Thegler]

Nej, det er helt korrekt. Man kan ikke komme fra Vroldvej og sydpå af
motorvejen. Det generer også de lokale, kan jeg forstå. Men riget fattes
penge...

/Lars

On 13 August 2017 at 12:42, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:

> Er der nogen der kender Vroldvej/Østjyske Motorvej.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1606163756
>
> Luftfotos er ikke nye nok og der må jo mangle en tilkørsel fra Vroldvej.
>
> --
> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>
> ___
> Talk-dk mailing list
> Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
>
___
Talk-dk mailing list
Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk

Re: [Talk-cz] Cyklistický mapathlon

[Ha Noj]

Čau,

v manuálu PNK [1] je zmínka o nejasnosti jak značit ochranný nebo
víceúčelový pruh pro cyklisty, který je nově v legislativě (v ČR zatím
použit asi 4 místech). Ochranný pruh se odlišuje od piktokoridoru
legislativně a provedením a od vyhrazeného pruhu legislativně i zejména
šířkově.

Možnosti jsou:

1) cycleway=soft_lane byl v OSM navržen přímo na ochranný pruh, ale
zamítnut [3], ale přesto se používá v německu [2][4]
2) cycleway=lane používá se na vyhrazený pruh, žádný vhodný subtag pro
rozlišení "lane=soft_lane" dosud nikdo nepoužil.
3) cycleway=shared_lane se nyní používá na piktogram, žádný vhodný subtag
pro rozlišení "shared_lane=soft_lane" dosud nikdo nepoužil

Já jsem pro konvenci 1), ikdyž je odmítnutá, ale alespoň ji někdo používá a
má logiku

hanoj


[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jrQlTVB0cGCkMDTEP5OTeLBcWxvLWb4sde8GChzRYsQ/edit#
[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=soft_lane#values
[3]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleway%3Dsoft_lane
[4] http://bit.ly/2vuOaEZ
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhový objezd

[Marián Kyral]

Jo ahá, tady to je:
https://openstreetmap.cz/#map=18/50.74749/15.13484=d
Tam tudy jsem nejel ;-)

http://www.mestojablonec.cz/galerie/obrazky/image.php?img=85137=831=578

V jakém to je teď stavu?

Marián


Dne 13.8.2017 v 17:40 Marián Kyral napsal(a):
> Ahoj,
> nějaká přesnější informace by nebyla? Třeba souřadnice? Nebo si otevři
> odkaz: https://openstreetmap.cz/#map=19/50.72850/15.15350=d -
> posuň mapu na správné místo a pošli zpátky kompletní url.
> Jel jsem tamtudy (Liberec - Jablonec) o Velikonocích a žádnou stavbu si
> tam nevybavuji.
>
> Díky,
> Marián
>
> Dne 12.8.2017 v 12:23 Marek Polák napsal(a):
>> Je to u města Jablonec nad Nisou
>> Marek Polák
>>
>>
>>
>> Dne 12. srpna 2017 12:16:41 PM Marek Polák 
>> napsal:
>>
>>> Na budoucí silnici 1/14 není zakreslen budoucí kruhový objezd. Kdo to
>>> umí,
>>> tak to tam doplňte.
>>> Marek Polák
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-cz mailing list
>>> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-cz mailing list
>> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz


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

hebdoOSM Nº 368 2017-08-01-2017-08-07

[weeklyteam]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 368 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/9359/

Bonne lecture !

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

Re: [Talk-dk] Vroldvej

[osm]

Du kan se vejen her:

https://servicelist.kortforsyningen.dk/show_sample.aspx?maptype=WMS=orto_foraar_temp=true=newwin

 

 

-- 

osmviborg

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

Re: [Talk-us] anyone know what software is generating these Q/A Notes?

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/08/2017 00:45, Rihards wrote:

seems to be streetcomplete, although i thought it edited osm data


I did try and discuss this sort of problem with the author over at 
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/351 - specifically 
to say that someone running StreetComplete should be allowed to say that 
"everything is OK in OSM as it currently is, no need to edit the data or 
add a note".  Unfortunately communication failed to occur, and the 
author of this app is committed to adding useless notes to OSM.


I don't doubt that the author's heart is in the right place and that 
they, and the app's users, are genuinely attempting to improve the 
quality of OSM data, but unfortunately their actions together will 
dilute the "useful" notes in an area.  Just look at the (lack of) 
quality of 
http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/notes/search?q=Streetcomplete=0 
for examples.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

hebdoOSM Nº 368 2017-08-01-2017-08-07

[weeklyteam]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 368 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/9359/

Bonne lecture !

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

hebdoOSM Nº 368 2017-08-01-2017-08-07

[weeklyteam]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 368 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/9359/

Bonne lecture !

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhový objezd

[Marián Kyral]

Ahoj,
nějaká přesnější informace by nebyla? Třeba souřadnice? Nebo si otevři
odkaz: https://openstreetmap.cz/#map=19/50.72850/15.15350=d -
posuň mapu na správné místo a pošli zpátky kompletní url.
Jel jsem tamtudy (Liberec - Jablonec) o Velikonocích a žádnou stavbu si
tam nevybavuji.

Díky,
Marián

Dne 12.8.2017 v 12:23 Marek Polák napsal(a):
> Je to u města Jablonec nad Nisou
> Marek Polák
>
>
>
> Dne 12. srpna 2017 12:16:41 PM Marek Polák 
> napsal:
>
>> Na budoucí silnici 1/14 není zakreslen budoucí kruhový objezd. Kdo to
>> umí,
>> tak to tam doplňte.
>> Marek Polák
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-cz mailing list
>> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhový objezd

[marek]

Otevření příští rok v červnu, ale na mapy.cz už je zakreslen.
 
Marek Polák
 
__

Od: Marián Kyral 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 13.08.2017 17:52
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhový objezd


Jo ahá, tady to je:
https://openstreetmap.cz/#map=18/50.74749/15.13484=d 

Tam tudy jsem nejel ;-)

http://www.mestojablonec.cz/galerie/obrazky/image.php?img=85137=831=578 


V jakém to je teď stavu?

Marián


Dne 13.8.2017 v 17:40 Marián Kyral napsal(a):
> Ahoj,
> nějaká přesnější informace by nebyla? Třeba souřadnice? Nebo si otevři
> odkaz: https://openstreetmap.cz/#map=19/50.72850/15.15350=d 
 -
> posuň mapu na správné místo a pošli zpátky kompletní url.
> Jel jsem tamtudy (Liberec - Jablonec) o Velikonocích a žádnou stavbu si
> tam nevybavuji.
>
> Díky,
> Marián
>
> Dne 12.8.2017 v 12:23 Marek Polák napsal(a):
>> Je to u města Jablonec nad Nisou
>> Marek Polák
>>
>>
>>
>> Dne 12. srpna 2017 12:16:41 PM Marek Polák 
>> napsal:
>>
>>> Na budoucí silnici 1/14 není zakreslen budoucí kruhový objezd. Kdo to
>>> umí,
>>> tak to tam doplňte.
>>> Marek Polák
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-cz mailing list
>>> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz 

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



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


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

Re: [Talk-dk] Vroldvej

[Lars Thegler]

En Mapillary-fotograf har været forbi for nyligt:

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/l75R9mi7SEiT36X7Z5iO5A

Jeg har åbenbart ikke været der siden før de byggede nye ramper etc.
Beklager forvirringen.

/Lars

2017-08-13 19:30 GMT+02:00 Lars Gravengaard :

> Hej Lars Thegler
>
> Hvornår har du sidst været forbi ?
>
> På det link som osmviborg har givet. Kan man da nu komme både nord og syd
> fra Vroldvej
>
> /Lars
>
> 2017-08-13 16:56 GMT+02:00 Lars Thegler :
>
>> Nej, det er helt korrekt. Man kan ikke komme fra Vroldvej og sydpå af
>> motorvejen. Det generer også de lokale, kan jeg forstå. Men riget fattes
>> penge...
>>
>> /Lars
>>
>> On 13 August 2017 at 12:42, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
>>
>>> Er der nogen der kender Vroldvej/Østjyske Motorvej.
>>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1606163756
>>>
>>> Luftfotos er ikke nye nok og der må jo mangle en tilkørsel fra Vroldvej.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-dk mailing list
>>> Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-dk mailing list
>> Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-dk mailing list
> Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
>
>
___
Talk-dk mailing list
Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk

Re: [Talk-dk] Vroldvej

[Lars Gravengaard]

Er vi ikke enig om at ned kørsel er trukket alt for langt væk fra op
kørslen?

Mvh
Lars

Den 13. aug. 2017 5.53 PM skrev :

> Du kan se vejen her:
> https://servicelist.kortforsyningen.dk/show_sample.aspx?maptype=WMS;
> servicename=orto_foraar_temp=true=newwin
>
>
> --
> osmviborg
>
> ___
> Talk-dk mailing list
> Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
>
>
___
Talk-dk mailing list
Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk

Re: [Talk-dk] Vroldvej

[Lars Thegler]

Ignorér hvad jeg sagde. Der er tydeligvis fundet penge siden...

/Lars

2017-08-13 16:56 GMT+02:00 Lars Thegler :

> Nej, det er helt korrekt. Man kan ikke komme fra Vroldvej og sydpå af
> motorvejen. Det generer også de lokale, kan jeg forstå. Men riget fattes
> penge...
>
> /Lars
>
> On 13 August 2017 at 12:42, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
>
>> Er der nogen der kender Vroldvej/Østjyske Motorvej.
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1606163756
>>
>> Luftfotos er ikke nye nok og der må jo mangle en tilkørsel fra Vroldvej.
>>
>> --
>> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-dk mailing list
>> Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
>>
>
>
___
Talk-dk mailing list
Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk

Re: [Talk-us] natural=* and landuse=* multipolygons at the urban interface

[Rihards]

On 2017.08.13. 23:11, David Kewley wrote:
> Development in Orange County, California pushes into areas currently
> covered by polygons (often large multipolygons) tagged as natural=scrub,
> landuse=meadow, or landuse=[farm|farmland]. These were part of the FMMP
> import http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California_Farms.
> 
> Mostly I try to leave those large multipologons alone, because I don't
> feel confident I can handle them properly, and because I'm using iD (due
> to using a Chromebook), where relation handling is rudimentary.
> 
> But I'd like to update the urban-wildland boundary, where new suburban
> developments are pushing into former wildland, farmland, or
> (historical?) "grazing land". See for example the new development (with
> 2017 imagery recently added to Bing) at
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/33.5352/-117.6034.
> 
> Editing these huge multipolygons, and reviewing others' edits to them,
> becomes very cumbersome, at least to me. It seems to me probably
> sensible and reasonable at the urban edge to split off small parts of
> these multipolygons, e.g. at roads, to make the smaller bits easier to
> edit and review in the context of the expanding urban edge.
> 
> 
> As one test / demonstration edit
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51090963), I carved off a bit of
> natural=scrub from a large outer role of a multipolygon, into its own
> polygon. I manually added new boundary way segments, stitched them
> together into the existing ways, copied tags, and made the split-off
> piece its own polygon, independent of its original parent multipolygon.
> I did the split at an existing highway=residential object (Golden Ridge
> Lane).
> 
> I know, I should find a way to use JOSM, which I expect makes this much
> easier. :)
> 
> Meanwhile, does this seem a reasonable approach to making the urban
> interface a bit more manageable in the future? I.e. splitting off parts
> of large multipolygons (so long as they don't have names or other unique
> identifiers that matter, just generic tags things like natural=scrub),
> to make future editing easier?
> 
> I know for the above example of a new residential area, I could make a
> landuse=residential island, and make it an inner role in the surrounding
> landuse=meadow multipolygon. But at some point as the urban sprawl
> expands, it seems to me it makes more sense to stop pretending the area
> is dominated by the natural features, and make it clear it's dominated
> by e.g. landuse=residential, with possibly interspersed natural features
> like scrub.
> 
> 
> What would the group suggest?
> 
> Is my test edit reasonable, or should it be reverted?

looks very reasonable. you have added the split-off piece as a separate
way, not multipolygon, which makes it easier to handle.

nitpicking - i would disconnect it from the road here :)
http://osm.org/go/TPVmeC512?m=

> Thanks,
> David
> 
> 
> P.S. As an aside (not my main point today), the FMMP-based distinction
> in this area between scrub and meadow seems awfully arbitrary. I could
> be mistaken, but I don't believe the "meadow" is actually used today for
> grazing nor feed harvesting, and in the aerial photography, it appears
> indistinguishable from the adjacent "scrub". It appears (and I'm nearly
> certain from driving by) that there's both substantial grass and
> substantial woody plant cover, in similar ratios in both "meadow" and
> "scrub".
> 
> I don't believe there's any current agricultural use of that land, at
> least not near where I'm giving examples today. There might be some
> large-acreage, semi-wildland grazing or feed harvesting activity
> remaining in Orange County, but I've not noticed any.
> 
> As documented in the FMMP wiki
> page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California_Farms, the FMMP
> designation "Grazing Land" was mapped to landuse=meadow.
> 
> But the FMMP designation of "Grazing Land" explicitly does not mean that
> there *is* grazing activity there, just that it is "...land on which the
> existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is
> suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock." (See for example
> http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/soil_criteria.pdf.)
> So wildlands that will never again see livestock, or harvesting for
> livestock feed, can still be designated Grazing Land by FMMP. Those
> areas map better to natural=grassland or natural=scrub, I think.
> 
> So landuse=meadow seems less useful than natural=scrub or
> natural=grassland for many of these areas. Even though this is a
> secondary point today, I'd welcome comments on this as well.-- 
 Rihards

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

Re: [Talk-us] natural=* and landuse=* multipolygons at the urban interface

[Steve Friedl]

You’re referring to the Scrub From Hell.

I (user SJFriedl) have been mapping extensively in Orange County and 
(especially) in the Santa Ana Mountains and this thing is *everywhere*. Not 
patches here and there, but everything everywhere is part of one enormous scrub 
relation and it’s positively maddening.

Even if you’re not trying to fix the big problem you’re describing, just 
cleaning up a boundary somewhere by adding a few nodes runs over the limit for 
a way (6k-ish?) and *boom* now you have to deal with the big picture. Ugh.

At the time I was most interested/frustrated in this, I didn’t have nearly 
enough chops with relations to give it a go, but after I fully relationalized 
all the city boundaries in Orange County, I’m game. JOSM is great.

You’re right that splitting this up is the right approach, because I don’t 
believe having all this as one huge relation was every the right thing to do as 
I cannot see how the related-ness of all the scrub patches in a very wide area 
is useful information (the scrubs that are part of the relation are not any 
more “related” than standalone patches of scrub in the same area).

There for sure are legitimate agricultural lands in OC, but they’re mainly in 
the foothills of the mountains; I’d not expect to see much grazing in (say) 
Ladera Ranch.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s noticed this :-)

Steve – who lives in Tustin

--- 
Stephen J Friedl  | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | 714 345-4571
st...@unixwiz.net | Southern California | Windows Guy | unixwiz.net





From: David Kewley [mailto:david.t.kew...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 1:12 PM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
Subject: [Talk-us] natural=* and landuse=* multipolygons at the urban interface

Development in Orange County, California pushes into areas currently covered by 
polygons (often large multipolygons) tagged as natural=scrub, landuse=meadow, 
or landuse=[farm|farmland]. These were part of the FMMP import 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California_Farms.

Mostly I try to leave those large multipologons alone, because I don't feel 
confident I can handle them properly, and because I'm using iD (due to using a 
Chromebook), where relation handling is rudimentary.

But I'd like to update the urban-wildland boundary, where new suburban 
developments are pushing into former wildland, farmland, or (historical?) 
"grazing land". See for example the new development (with 2017 imagery recently 
added to Bing) at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/33.5352/-117.6034.

Editing these huge multipolygons, and reviewing others' edits to them, becomes 
very cumbersome, at least to me. It seems to me probably sensible and 
reasonable at the urban edge to split off small parts of these multipolygons, 
e.g. at roads, to make the smaller bits easier to edit and review in the 
context of the expanding urban edge.


As one test / demonstration edit 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51090963), I carved off a bit of 
natural=scrub from a large outer role of a multipolygon, into its own polygon. 
I manually added new boundary way segments, stitched them together into the 
existing ways, copied tags, and made the split-off piece its own polygon, 
independent of its original parent multipolygon. I did the split at an existing 
highway=residential object (Golden Ridge Lane).

I know, I should find a way to use JOSM, which I expect makes this much easier. 
:)

Meanwhile, does this seem a reasonable approach to making the urban interface a 
bit more manageable in the future? I.e. splitting off parts of large 
multipolygons (so long as they don't have names or other unique identifiers 
that matter, just generic tags things like natural=scrub), to make future 
editing easier?

I know for the above example of a new residential area, I could make a 
landuse=residential island, and make it an inner role in the surrounding 
landuse=meadow multipolygon. But at some point as the urban sprawl expands, it 
seems to me it makes more sense to stop pretending the area is dominated by the 
natural features, and make it clear it's dominated by e.g. landuse=residential, 
with possibly interspersed natural features like scrub.


What would the group suggest?

Is my test edit reasonable, or should it be reverted?

Thanks,
David


P.S. As an aside (not my main point today), the FMMP-based distinction in this 
area between scrub and meadow seems awfully arbitrary. I could be mistaken, but 
I don't believe the "meadow" is actually used today for grazing nor feed 
harvesting, and in the aerial photography, it appears indistinguishable from 
the adjacent "scrub". It appears (and I'm nearly certain from driving by) that 
there's both substantial grass and substantial woody plant cover, in similar 
ratios in both "meadow" and "scrub".

I don't believe there's any current agricultural use of that land, at least not 
near where I'm giving examples today. There might be 

Re: [Talk-dk] Vroldvej

[Lars Gravengaard]

Hej Lars Thegler

Hvornår har du sidst været forbi ?

På det link som osmviborg har givet. Kan man da nu komme både nord og syd
fra Vroldvej

/Lars

2017-08-13 16:56 GMT+02:00 Lars Thegler :

> Nej, det er helt korrekt. Man kan ikke komme fra Vroldvej og sydpå af
> motorvejen. Det generer også de lokale, kan jeg forstå. Men riget fattes
> penge...
>
> /Lars
>
> On 13 August 2017 at 12:42, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
>
>> Er der nogen der kender Vroldvej/Østjyske Motorvej.
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1606163756
>>
>> Luftfotos er ikke nye nok og der må jo mangle en tilkørsel fra Vroldvej.
>>
>> --
>> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-dk mailing list
>> Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-dk mailing list
> Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
>
>
___
Talk-dk mailing list
Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk

Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhový objezd

[marek]

https://openstreetmap.cz/#map=19/50.74725/15.13576=d
 
Marek Polák
 
__

Od: Marián Kyral 
Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 13.08.2017 17:40
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhový objezd


Ahoj,
nějaká přesnější informace by nebyla? Třeba souřadnice? Nebo si otevři
odkaz: https://openstreetmap.cz/#map=19/50.72850/15.15350=d 
 -
posuň mapu na správné místo a pošli zpátky kompletní url.
Jel jsem tamtudy (Liberec - Jablonec) o Velikonocích a žádnou stavbu si
tam nevybavuji.

Díky,
Marián

Dne 12.8.2017 v 12:23 Marek Polák napsal(a):
> Je to u města Jablonec nad Nisou
> Marek Polák
>
>
>
> Dne 12. srpna 2017 12:16:41 PM Marek Polák 
> napsal:
>
>> Na budoucí silnici 1/14 není zakreslen budoucí kruhový objezd. Kdo to
>> umí,
>> tak to tam doplňte.
>> Marek Polák
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-cz mailing list
>> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz 

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



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


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

[Talk-us] natural=* and landuse=* multipolygons at the urban interface

[David Kewley]

Development in Orange County, California pushes into areas currently
covered by polygons (often large multipolygons) tagged as natural=scrub,
landuse=meadow, or landuse=[farm|farmland]. These were part of the FMMP
import http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California_Farms.

Mostly I try to leave those large multipologons alone, because I don't feel
confident I can handle them properly, and because I'm using iD (due to
using a Chromebook), where relation handling is rudimentary.

But I'd like to update the urban-wildland boundary, where new suburban
developments are pushing into former wildland, farmland, or (historical?)
"grazing land". See for example the new development (with 2017 imagery
recently added to Bing) at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/33.5352/-117.6034.

Editing these huge multipolygons, and reviewing others' edits to them,
becomes very cumbersome, at least to me. It seems to me probably sensible
and reasonable at the urban edge to split off small parts of these
multipolygons, e.g. at roads, to make the smaller bits easier to edit and
review in the context of the expanding urban edge.


As one test / demonstration edit (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51090963), I carved off a bit of
natural=scrub from a large outer role of a multipolygon, into its own
polygon. I manually added new boundary way segments, stitched them together
into the existing ways, copied tags, and made the split-off piece its own
polygon, independent of its original parent multipolygon. I did the split
at an existing highway=residential object (Golden Ridge Lane).

I know, I should find a way to use JOSM, which I expect makes this much
easier. :)

Meanwhile, does this seem a reasonable approach to making the urban
interface a bit more manageable in the future? I.e. splitting off parts of
large multipolygons (so long as they don't have names or other unique
identifiers that matter, just generic tags things like natural=scrub), to
make future editing easier?

I know for the above example of a new residential area, I could make a
landuse=residential island, and make it an inner role in the surrounding
landuse=meadow multipolygon. But at some point as the urban sprawl expands,
it seems to me it makes more sense to stop pretending the area is dominated
by the natural features, and make it clear it's dominated by e.g.
landuse=residential, with possibly interspersed natural features like scrub.


What would the group suggest?

Is my test edit reasonable, or should it be reverted?

Thanks,
David


P.S. As an aside (not my main point today), the FMMP-based distinction in
this area between scrub and meadow seems awfully arbitrary. I could be
mistaken, but I don't believe the "meadow" is actually used today for
grazing nor feed harvesting, and in the aerial photography, it appears
indistinguishable from the adjacent "scrub". It appears (and I'm nearly
certain from driving by) that there's both substantial grass and
substantial woody plant cover, in similar ratios in both "meadow" and
"scrub".

I don't believe there's any current agricultural use of that land, at least
not near where I'm giving examples today. There might be some
large-acreage, semi-wildland grazing or feed harvesting activity remaining
in Orange County, but I've not noticed any.

As documented in the FMMP wiki page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California_Farms, the FMMP designation
"Grazing Land" was mapped to landuse=meadow.

But the FMMP designation of "Grazing Land" explicitly does not mean that
there *is* grazing activity there, just that it is "...land on which the
existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is
suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock." (See for example
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/soil_criteria.pdf.) So
wildlands that will never again see livestock, or harvesting for livestock
feed, can still be designated Grazing Land by FMMP. Those areas map better
to natural=grassland or natural=scrub, I think.

So landuse=meadow seems less useful than natural=scrub or natural=grassland
for many of these areas. Even though this is a secondary point today, I'd
welcome comments on this as well.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk-ie] OSM Ireland chapter - reboot

[Dave Corley]

Hi,

First, I want to apologise, this is a long email, but if you are at all
interested in moving OSM in Ireland to the next level, please read on and
give your feedback when you're done.

Efforts to get the OSM Ireland group set up as a legal entity and
established as a recognised chapter have never really got out of the
starting blocks for us, mainly because it's an exceptionally long, boring
process to get it all done.

Back when Rory gave the Townlands presentation at a Sotm or two ago, I
contacted everyone who took part and asked a number of questions to allow
for some stats to be included in the presentation. I asked a few questions
specifically around the topic of setting something up properly. If I recall
correctly, all but one were interested in joining an official OSM Ireland,
but less than half wanted to be involved in setting it up. But that ratio
is to be expected. If I'm honest, it was a lot higher than I originally
expected.

What I would love to see is a functioning OSM Ireland body which, at an
absolute minimum, could do the following

   - Scheduling regular meet up's - These would have some organisation
   around them e.g. guest speakers, break out groups, objectives etc. This
   could be monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly, doesn't matter, just even
   setting up a schedule and sticking to it would be a great achievement
   - Work on increasing the qty of daily contributors - Some simple things
   like automating messages to first time mappers, or a tool to ensure every
   new contributor's edits are reviewed for accuracy/vandalism etc. Basically,
   just setting up some structure around it to ensure we engage with new folks
   in the most efficient and effective ways possible. I see no reason why a
   number of 50 a day shouldn't be achievable within an 18 month period if
   this is done right.
   - Setting up an Import strategy - There is an ever growing pool of open
   data being released. To make full use of it is going to require a
   signficant body of up-front work (selecting, categorising, prioritising,
   tools and import process).
   - Lining up other, structured, mapping tasks - For example doing a 1
   month blitz on lane mapping, or a 3 month clean-up of errors using Osmi or
   keepright etc etc etc. We did this with the enormous townland mapping
   project. Smaller scale versions, with a little work, could have a real,
   lasting impact on the map
   - Commiting to organising a State of the Map yearly. This doesn't need
   to have a load of bells and whistles, hell, year one would likely be one
   day, but it has to be possible to get a 2 day conference going within 2
   years, whatever format it may take (barcamp, unconference etc). There's
   enough going on now between mappers, govt, commercial and academic folks
   that is easily within reach.
   - Lastly, getting out of Dublin. I know Dublin has the biggest
   population of mappers, but what about having the meetup in a location
   outside of Dub once or twice a year. Or there could be a night away where
   we do a load of ground work on the basemap first, then hit the ground in a
   town and get every street name, address, business and attraction all in one
   day, then meet back somewhere, have a bite to eat and a few drinks.

In my head, I'm seeing each of those things needing 2-3 people to work on
them, i.e. working groups, to ensure nobody gets left holding the bag and
to avoid burnout.

Now, I'd like to say, all of the above is purely what *I* think OSM Ireland
should be about. Others may feel differently, and that's totally fine. It's
kind of the point of this email :)

With all of that in mind, to get us formally set up, what I am proposing is
the following

1. A meeting in early Sept  (the 2nd or the 9th) where we will come
together to hammer out a lot of the basics of setting up OSM Ireland. Note,
this will involve people coming together, agreeing on the structure and,
most importantly, some people agreeing to take some work e.g. research
whats involved in setting up a bank account, what are the legal
requirements, how will we manage membership, etc etc

2. A second meeting in early Oct where the majority of the structure is
locked down. Work to start on Articles of Association etc if required at
this point. Again, some people would need to agree to take on some tasks to
keep the process moving.

3. A third meeting in Nov and a fourth in Dec, to lock down any last
elements. At this point we would need to agree a provisional board
probably, to allow for paperwork to proceed for banks, govt. etc. Note,
this board would step down at the first general meeting of OSM Ireland and
elections would be held at that first meeting.

4. Jan, get all the paperwork sent to whoever

5. TBD, once paperwork is approved by relevant bodies, agenda for first
general meeting to be determined and election process to begin

There you go. With a bit of luck, before the next round of green milkshakes
hits McDonalds, we would be a 

Re: [Talk-us] natural=* and landuse=* multipolygons at the urban interface

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

David, I would contact Nathan Mixter directly (in OSM, nmixter, import account 
Eureka gold) and ask him what he thinks, as he is (largely speaking) the 
original importer of these (and many other, very large) imports, many of which, 
unfortunately generated consternation or reversion.  You might ask him what his 
plans are to "upkeep" the data he has imported.

Nathan is a friend of mine I met in OSM (on a personal and "let's go 
hiking/camping/backpacking together" level) and I have helped him on both 
improving the Santa Cruz County (my home) and Monterey County (next door to 
both of us) landuse imports that he initiated.  Together, we did the 
single-county FMMP import of Monterey County (only, I didn't help with other 
counties) over many months (instead of the days Nathan thought it might take) 
as I wanted to convey the care, vetting, quality assurance and teamwork that 
such an endeavor truly requires to get it right (or much closer to right, as I 
still think Monterey County's landuse from this import is "pretty good," if I 
say so myself).  I/we documented what we did if you click around the links in 
our wiki, already introduced in this thread.

In short, these landuse polygons are indeed very large, unwieldy or virtually 
"just kill me now" highly difficult to edit using iD (PLEASE use JOSM to edit 
complex polygons like these!).  I declare that they aren't anything "sacred," 
especially as new human urban development simply outdates more and more edges 
of these data as obsolete.  Subtle differences between scrub and meadow, while 
I admire your diligence in determining "what is best" for a given area, are not 
hard-and-firm.  I'd characterize these FMMP imports as "2010-12 data, roughly 
applied to OSM to avoid large blank areas in California" (except Monterey 
County, were I was very careful to apply the lipstick carefully so there was no 
piggy ugliness about it).  So, should these FMMP import (multi)polygons need to 
be changed, edited, modernized and especially trimmed down to more manageable 
size, please, get a read from Nathan if you can, then take the controls of JOSM 
firmly in your hands and go for it!  Especially as those bulldozers build those 
suburbs.

Nathan, you might please chime in either on-list or via email to this distro; 
thank you.  If you wish, I additionally invite anybody to contact me off-list 
to ask about this topic should you care to know further details, though Nathan 
is the primary importer of these data.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

[Marc Gemis]

hallo,

sorry to say, but so far this thread reads as follows for me

* please do not map what is on the ground
* do not follow the wiki, it's wrong
* join us at a pub meeting and we tell you how to map
* o yes, we do not have pub meetings in remote areas
* you will have to contact half of the British mapping community to
hear their opinion
  (but they do not read the mailing list, nor changeset comments)

my conclusion: please do not map in the UK.

For me, this mean that OSM-UK has to go a long way to attract new
mappers in a friendly way.
It's a pity that even after 13 years, it is not documented properly
how street names in Wales have to be mapped.

I hope this will be fixed next year. I'm planning on a vacation in
Wales and I hope I can contribute by applying the general rules that I
apply now in Belgium. Or that I can find proper documentation on how
to map.

regards

escada

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] OSM Ireland chapter - reboot

[Martín Ferrari]

Hi Dave,

On 13/08/17 21:52, Dave Corley wrote:

> What I would love to see is a functioning OSM Ireland body which, at an
> absolute minimum, could do the following
[snip]

Excuse me for the possibly dumb question.. But why is a legal entity
needed to achive any of these goals? Seems to me all of that could be
done as an informal group... Actually, I would say that there is no
point in setting a formal structure unless there is an already
functioning group.

My 2¢.

-- 
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)

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

[talk-au] A question about the license that applies to a product from OSM data

[Nicholas G Lawrence]

Hello all,

I have a question about applying the ODbL. I can take this to the legal list, 
but I am hoping there is a quick and easy answer.

Some contractors working for my organisation are building a network model for 
Queensland using OSM data.

The model is for routing, and has value-added attributes, for example, 
weighting of particular routes.

My question is, does the ODbL apply to this result?

Or is attribution "raw data was sourced from OpenStreetMap" sufficient?

Thanks,

Nick Lawrence
Senior Spatial Science Officer
Geospatial Technologies
07 3066 7977



***
WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally
privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was
intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one
is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print
or copy this email without appropriate authority.

If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and 
any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not
waived or destroyed by that mistake.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain 
and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by 
third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
your computer system).

Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads,
or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
***

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

Re: [talk-au] A question about the license that applies to a product from OSM data

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Nick,

This might help
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases#Case_3:_I_want_to_publish_something_based_on_OSM_and_my_own_data
specifically it says:

If you created your data without any use of OSM, and don't merge it with
OSM, then you have a "collective" database, not a derivative database.
However, if you have any data that was derived from OSM - for instance
because you used street names from OSM, or you geocoded your data using
the locations of roads or building shapes in OSM - then you are making a
derivative database.
Cheers,
Andrew

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, at 12:28 PM, Nicholas G Lawrence wrote:
> Hello all,


>  


> I have a question about applying the ODbL. I can take this to the
> legal list, but I am hoping there is a quick and easy answer.>  


> Some contractors working for my organisation are building a network
> model for Queensland using OSM data.>  


> The model is for routing, and has value-added attributes, for example,
> weighting of particular routes.>  


> My question is, does the ODbL apply to this result?


>  


> Or is attribution “raw data was sourced from OpenStreetMap”
> sufficient?>  


> Thanks,


>  


> Nick Lawrence


> Senior Spatial Science Officer


> Geospatial Technologies


> 07 3066 7977


>  


> 


> ***-
> >  WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally
>  privileged, confidential or private information and may be
>  protected by>  copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was
>  intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one>  is 
> allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose,
>  distribute, print>  or copy this email without appropriate authority.
> 
>  If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by
>  mistake,>  please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies 
> of
>  this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
>  system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and>  any 
> legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not>  waived or 
> destroyed by that mistake.
> 
>  It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain>  and 
> is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by>  third 
> parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with>  your 
> computer system).
> 
>  Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
>  opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads,
>  or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
>  -
>  ***> 


> _
> 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-dk] Vroldvej

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Er der nogen der kender Vroldvej/Østjyske Motorvej.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1606163756

Luftfotos er ikke nye nok og der må jo mangle en tilkørsel fra Vroldvej.

-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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

[Talk-dk] U-vendinger

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Jeg kigger på
https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/danieljh/cj69ndyvf2iyu2rmuckadahxs.html?access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoiZGFuaWVsamgiLCJhIjoiTnNYb25JSSJ9.vYOnsuu1zeKcGW2nj0uJZw#7.41/55.861/9.891


som markerer skarpe sving på motorveje og hovedveje.

Hvis man skal dreje mere en 90grader, er der nok et problem med mapningen.

Jeg har rettet en masse fejl, men problemet er U-vendinger.

Ruteberegnere antager jo at man altid kan dreje, medmindre det er
forbudt af turn-restrictions, ensretninger, osv. Hvis der et skilt, der
forbyder U-vendinger et det jo nemt nok, så skal det bare være en turn
restriction i OSM.

Men der er også steder hvor vi har turn-restrictions uden at der er
skilte, fx:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2007102423

I praksis skal man ikke prøve en U-vending her hvis man ved en fejl er
kommet til at køre af vandelvej.

Men hvad med fx:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2805289890

Kan man lave en U-vending her.


Eller hvad med her:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4173955946

Hvis man kan lave U-vendinger burde vi nok mappen en bane til det.

-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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