Re: [talk-au] Admin level boundaries

[Nev Wedding]

Thanks cleary
I now see that it is easier to maintain boundary layer segments that are not 
superimposed over each other. I too am finding that the overlain boundaries are 
problematic.

> On 26 Mar 2016, at 11:20 AM, cleary  wrote:
> 
> 
> Nev
> 
> I have added some of those boundaries. Where the administrative boundary
> and the national park boundary share exactly the same way, I have used
> that single way and included it in two separate relations, one for the
> administrative area and the other for the national park.  If the admin
> boundary is not the exact park boundary, then separate ways need to be
> used. 
> 
> I find that having two separate ways but with one superimposed one on
> the other makes it more difficult to work out where any problems are and
> more difficult to edit later, if required. It has been my understanding
> that it is best practice to use the one way for multiple relations, if
> applicable. This is usually easiest to edit and renders exactly
> correctly.
> 
> In NSW, administrative boundaries frequently align exactly with sections
> of national park boundaries, apparently deliberately. If we had separate
> ways for each, I think there would be a lot of messy duplication on the
> map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Nev Wedding wrote:
>> There have been many new admin_level=10 administrative boundaries added
>> in NSW recently. 
>> Are we expected to split and use these as shared sections for the sides
>> of national park multipolygons, etc.
>> Or is it preferable to leave the admin_level=10 (and other admin levels) 
>> alone and separate. 
>> 
>> I assume they are best left separate so that they can be more easily
>> updated later. 
>> 
>> Tag:boundary=administrative
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


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

Re: [talk-au] Admin level boundaries

[cleary]

Nev

I have added some of those boundaries. Where the administrative boundary
and the national park boundary share exactly the same way, I have used
that single way and included it in two separate relations, one for the
administrative area and the other for the national park.  If the admin
boundary is not the exact park boundary, then separate ways need to be
used. 

I find that having two separate ways but with one superimposed one on
the other makes it more difficult to work out where any problems are and
more difficult to edit later, if required. It has been my understanding
that it is best practice to use the one way for multiple relations, if
applicable. This is usually easiest to edit and renders exactly
correctly.

In NSW, administrative boundaries frequently align exactly with sections
of national park boundaries, apparently deliberately. If we had separate
ways for each, I think there would be a lot of messy duplication on the
map.






On Fri, Mar 25, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Nev Wedding wrote:
> There have been many new admin_level=10 administrative boundaries added
> in NSW recently. 
> Are we expected to split and use these as shared sections for the sides
> of national park multipolygons, etc.
> Or is it preferable to leave the admin_level=10 (and other admin levels) 
> alone and separate. 
> 
> I assume they are best left separate so that they can be more easily
> updated later. 
> 
> Tag:boundary=administrative
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative
> ___
> 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] La Poste et la géolocalisation

[osm . sanspourriel]

> Si vraiment ça lui coute tant, qu'elle obtienne une subvention du 
département.
Heu, pas vraiment d'accord : ce n'est pas parce que les personnes de 
Trévargan ne doivent pas être des pigeons que tous les Finistériens 
doivent l'être !
Le nom breton ne doit pas poser problème : il suffit que le postier 
sache lire, c'est que qui est écrit sur le panneau.
Je pense que savoir lire fait partie du bagage que l'on peut demander 
aux préposés des postes.
Savoir distinguer deux noms, même bretons aussi. Je n'ai pas vu dans ta 
liste de "nom à coucher dehors". Bon je suis Breton, mais pas bretonnant.
Si les préposés aux postes ne savent pas lire les noms de leur coin, il 
faut peut-être qu'ils envisagent une reconversion (les lieux-dits ont 
des noms assez stables dans le temps).


Pour les regroupements de boîtes-aux-lettres, mettre un tas de 
boîtes-aux-lettres à un carrefour est un système onéreux pour la poste : 
c'est à aux d'entretenir et si un imbécile y met le feu, ça fait cher.

Le lieu-dit fait sûrement partie de l'adresse.
Reste donc juste des numéros à ajouter.

Et pour ça effectivement une cartopartie avec les enfants de la commune 
(et celles des autres si les écoles sont regroupées comme probable), 
c'est plus utile : compréhension de la géographie, toponymie, etc...


> qui pourrait même conduire à poser des panneaux manquants si les 
normes de signalisation n'étaient pas si contraignantes
foutaise, quand tu vois le nombre de panneaux publicitaires illégaux 
(piquets le long des routes), si les villageois mettent des panneaux 
"faits-main" je vois mal la DIR ou autres protester.

Si c'est la mairie officiellement peut-être.

Si pour 3 chiffres pour 146 adresses (je suis généreux, je fais 
l'hypothèse que chaque habitant a une adresse distincte), il faut 1 600 
€ pour la Poste, autant effectivement mettre des numéros à partir du 
cadastre (sur OSM directement ?).
Géolocaliser ? Que la Poste le fasse si elle le veut à partir des 
données OSM/du cadastre.
Et sinon bien d'autres le feraient sans doute pour moins cher... 
laissant à la Poste le boulot de saisir.


Car, question à Christian Quest, qui est propriétaire des nouvelles 
adresses ? Qui peut créer les nouvelles adresses ?


Jean-Yvon (dans une zone blanche si par zone blanche on entend sans nom 
de rue et de numéro de rue).


Le 2016-03-25 21:16, Philippe Verdy - verd...@wanadoo.fr a écrit :

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Greg Troxel]

Alan McConchie  writes:

> Thanks everyone for your strong but sincere criticism so far. In the
> thread here on talk-us, I explained _what_ we were trying to do, but I
> didn't explain very much about our rationale: _why_ we think this is
> an important idea. The wiki proposal explains that a little bit
> better, as does my email to the tagging list.

I think it would help if you set out your goals, rather than your
mechanism.  I think people are generally sympathetic to recording true
information about the world (that an authority disapproves of a
particular trail).  But, I think many see an element of censorship here,
in terms of trying to hide information from standard consumers of data.

It seems the consensus on talk-us was to use access=no (if usage is
indeed prohibited in some formal sense).  And there are discussions
about some other additional tags to denote positive or negative official
status.

> I know that there are a wide range of opinions within OSM, but I want
> to make it clear that we don't think we were "breaking" OSM data for
> anybody. We were applying the knowledge of local, on-the-ground

I see it as very much breaking data, intentionally.  Several have talked
about how the intent was to cause trails that actually exist to
disappear from maps made by others from the database.  That's the basic
problem and why so many are unhappy about this.

> experts in order to better describe the world within the free-form
> tagging system that exists within OSM. Remember that there are no hard

While the tagging system is free form, there's a very well established
notion of adding access, surface condition, and other nuances by
additional keys that if not understood do not break the main concept.

So the disagreement is really about whether highway=path includes as a
main concept a trail that really exists that you can really walk on, but
with the detail that the authority doesn't like it.

Another problem with wanting to pivot the main tag to the thing you care
about is that there are many people with many concerns.  Why shouldn't
there be highway=unpaved_path so that those don't show up on other
people's maps?  Or a dozen other variations?

> and fast rules within OSM, only informal standards and common
> practices. Please also note that the official proposal process does
> not require anyone to have a new tag approved before they start using
> it. Also see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like
> 

That's true for using new tags for new objects.

It's not true for suppressing data that others have entered.  That's the
concerning part of this whole situation -- party A has the intent is to
control how party B renders data entered by party C, without B or C's
consent.

I think the $64K question is: Do you see it as central to your goals to
cause maps rendered by others to omit these trails, even if those others
don't want to omit them?  Or are you content to have advisory metadata
that people are encourage to use (in routing, and in rendering, like how
access=no works now)?

-gdt, unaffiliated mapper



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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Rihards]

On 2016.03.26. 01:10, Alan McConchie wrote:
...

Thanks everyone for your strong but sincere criticism so far. In the
thread here on talk-us, I explained _what_ we were trying to do, but I
didn't explain very much about our rationale: _why_ we think this is an
important idea. The wiki proposal explains that a little bit better, as
does my email to the tagging list.


and please don't get put off by the reaction - this being the internet 
and such an open project, people tend to have strong opinions and 
express them in much harsher ways than they would in real life.


before i get back to bashing the new tag, i'd like to say a huge thank 
you for getting park people (would be a great band name in the 80ies) 
involved.


offtopic, but i'd be interested in reading some honest blog entry on why 
they were dismissing osm at first/still.

--
 Rihards

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Mike Thompson]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" of
> social path.  Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and
> register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than
> to this tag :-)
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Social_path
>
> Thanks for the heads up Greg.  I have commented on the discussion page.
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-cz] Smazane cesty V od Stihlic

[Pavel Machek]

Ahoj!

http://mtbmap.cz/#zoom=17=50.005349=14.78746

Kolem tech chatek ve stredu mapy vede cesta, a jsem si pomerne jisty
ze v mape byvala jenze ted tam neni. Sterkovka, vyrazna.

A kdyz se na tu mapu koukam, tech cest tam chybi vic. Umite nekdo
vytahnout z historie kdo to smazal, pripadne revertovat?

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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Alan McConchie]

Hi Greg and others,

Following the official procedure for proposing a new tag 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process 
) I created that wiki 
page a few days ago, and now I've sent an email to the tagging list, to 
officially solicit feedback. 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-March/028966.html 


Thanks everyone for your strong but sincere criticism so far. In the thread 
here on talk-us, I explained _what_ we were trying to do, but I didn't explain 
very much about our rationale: _why_ we think this is an important idea. The 
wiki proposal explains that a little bit better, as does my email to the 
tagging list.

I know that there are a wide range of opinions within OSM, but I want to make 
it clear that we don't think we were "breaking" OSM data for anybody. We were 
applying the knowledge of local, on-the-ground experts in order to better 
describe the world within the free-form tagging system that exists within OSM. 
Remember that there are no hard and fast rules within OSM, only informal 
standards and common practices. Please also note that the official proposal 
process does not require anyone to have a new tag approved before they start 
using it. Also see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like 


For now, I'm happy that Paul retagged the ways in question as highway=path, 
access=no. That's a fine compromise until we've gone through the RFC process 
for the new tag, and had an up or down vote. 

Looking forward to the rest of the discussion,

Alan McConchie
Stamen Design

> On Mar 25, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> 
> There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" of
> social path.  Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and
> register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than
> to this tag :-)
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Social_path
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 03/25/2016 11:36 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" of
> social path.  Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and
> register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than
> to this tag :-)

I wouldn't call it wiki-agitiation; anyone is welcome to propose
something on the wiki - if this were done at the outset then we could
have avoided all this brouhaha.

Personally I don't quite understand the concept of a "social path". A
path is a path is a path; if two paths look the same then we'll tag them
both as e.g. highway=track or highway=footway or whatever is
appropriate. If one of them is official and the other not, or if one of
them is allowed to use and the other not, that can be shown through
extra tags like access=* or operator=* or whatnot.

I'm not sure what the legal status of a "social path" is, either. What
does "this path is considered unauthorized" mean? Does it mean "we'll
have police escort you elsewhere if we see you here", or does it just
mean "you can't sue us if you trip and break your leg here"?

In England there are situations where a public right of way goes through
someone's garden. I'm sure the owner of the garden would love to somehow
hide the way from the map... but do we?

IMHO the contents of the highway tag would normally be something that
can be determined from aerial imagery, without consulting the managing
authority.

Bye
Frederik

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



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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Jack Burke]

Is it just me, or does social_path sound like the way to a "social disease"?

-jack


On March 25, 2016 6:36:56 PM EDT, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag"
>of
>social path.  Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and
>register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than
>to this tag :-)
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Social_path
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [talk-latam] Colaboración de fotos ortográficas

[hyan...@gmail.com]

Eric,

Que sepa OAM aun está en beta y en esa fase aun no es posible subir
imágenes.  También se puede usar el http://whooms.mapwarper.net/ u otro
servicio público.  Tareas - Mapazonia está a sus órdenes.

Saludos,

Humberto Yances

El 25 de marzo de 2016, 17:07, Eric Armijo  escribió:

> Hola Manuel,
>
> por lo reducido del área cubierta puedo imaginarme que la aplicación de la
> toma de datos que mencionas será muy localizada y corresponde a la
> comunidad OSM de  Ecuador responder sobre la utilidad que podría tener el
> modelo digital del terreno y la imagen.
>
> En el contexto de OSM puedo imaginarme que la ortoimagen será útil como
> fuente de referencia (fondo) de alta resolución y muy actualizada, para
> revisar el mapeo vectorial ya realizado de la zona. La utilidad de usar
> esta imagen VANT (vehículo aéreo no tripulado, drone) como referencia
> necesitará evaluarse en comparación con la alternativa actual disponible
> (imágenes Bing de uso libre y de alta resolución).
>
> No estoy familiarizado con la detección automatizada de elementos en
> imágenes capturadas por VANT, pero me parece difícil que reemplace el
> trazado manual que realizan los muchos usuarios OSM, que además asignan
> etiquetas relevantes a elementos de múltiples geometrías.
>
> No veo cómo podría ayudar a OSM el modelo digital del terreno,
> posiblemente porque yo no utilizo este tipo de datos de referencia en mis
> aportes de OSM.
>
> Finalmente, convendría compartir la imagen mosaico debidamente
> georeferenciada mediante alguna plataforma soportada por los editores OSM.
> Conozco que existe un sitio web que recibe imágenes de este tipo (
> http://openaerialmap.org/
> ) y actúa de servidor que puede accederse desde un editor popular de OSM
> como JOSM.
>
> Ahora, fuera del contexto de OSM, las oportunidades que ofrecen
> tecnologías VANT son muchas...
>
> Saludos desde Santa Cruz, Bolivia,
> E
>
> > Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:34:49 -0500
> > From: Manuel Kaufmann 
> > To: talk-latam@openstreetmap.org
> > Cc: Daniel Orellana , Ivan Terceros
> > 
> > Subject: [talk-latam] Colaboración de fotos ortográficas
> > Message-ID: <56f4b1d9.3010...@gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> >
> > Hola a todos,
> >
> > Hace unas pocas semanas hemos llegado a Cuenca, Ecuador desde Paraná,
> > Argentina viajando en auto (¡por más de 2 años!) con un proyecto llamado
> > "Argentina en Python"[1]. Si bien este proyecto está centrado
> > puntualmente en Python, utilizamos mucho OpenStreetMap tanto en nuestro
> > Garmin[2] como en la web, smartphone (Maps.me y OsmAnd) además de
> > colaborar en la medida que podemos (mediante OSMTracker, JOSM,
> > OverpassTurbo y Level0).
> >
> > http://argentinaenpython.com.ar/mapear-con-osmtracker/
> >
> > Durante nuestra estadía en Cuenca, tuvimos la oportunidad de conocer a
> > Daniel Orellana, quien está como director en un proyecto de
> > investigación en la Universidad de Cuenca y ha realizando muchísimos
> > aportes a OSM, y a Ángel Espinoza de Geoinformática[3] con quien tuve la
> > suerte de volar un Sense Fly eBee[4] hace unos días atrás[5] donde,
> > además de deleitaron con ese juguete nos comentó de qué forma usa y
> > colabora con OSM.
> >
> > Nosotros sin mucho conocimiento sobre el tema, le preguntamos qué
> > cantidad / calidad de datos entrega ese juguete y nos dijo que se puede
> > obtener muchísima información con el eBee y sus dos cámaras (RGB y NIR)
> > -aunque para ser sinceros, mucho no entendimos.
> >
> > Como ejemplo, la semana pasada fuimos a Victoria del Portete, Ecuador y
> > el avión capturó los datos de ~100 hectáreas y luego con el software se
> > generó esta Ortofoto y DMS:
> >
> > http://www.geoinformatica.org/inc/img_galeria.php?id=43
> >
> > Una vez que nos puso al tanto de la utilidad de este avión, le pregunté
> > qué posibilidad había de compartir toda esta información (~350 Gb) con
> > la comunidad de OpenStreetMap y nos dijo que no tendría ningún problema,
> > incluso que le gustaría y que cada tanto hace algo, pero el tiempo es la
> > limitante. Sin embargo, cuando me preguntó "¿Cómo usaríamos esa
> > información y para qué?" no le pude dar una respuesta muy clara debido a
> > mi falta de conocimiento en el tema. Lo que le pude decir fue: "Como
> > layer base para luego trazar los vectores (calles, parques, etc)".
> > Entendí que su único requisito para donar los datos es que en la
> > etiqueta "source=" hagamos la referencia correcta.
> >
> > Entonces, me gustaría que ustedes que saben más, me ayuden a redactar
> > una mejor respuesta con respecto puntualmente a:
> >
> > * ¿cómo se van a utilizar los datos?
> > * ¿para qué se van a utilizar concretamente?
> > * ¿qué tipo de información (detallada) le serviría a la comunidad que
> > él facilite?
> >
> > Además, creo haber entendido que él tiene la capacidad (no sé si por el
> > software que usa o 

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Greg Troxel]

There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" of
social path.  Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and
register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than
to this tag :-)

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


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

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage-Layer nicht mehr in JOSM

[Wolfgang Schreiter]

@nebulon42:

Danke für den Hinweis, habe geoimage wieder eingetragen und wird also
hoffentlich bald wieder zur Verfügung stehen.

LG
Wolfgang
___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

[OSM-talk-be] Merging way.

[Marc Gemis]

I've been fixing walking routes the past few hours and it seems that
several people have been merging ways. By merging ways one breaks
route relations that only use part of the street.

I've been writing a few changeset comments, but I hope to reach a
larger audience via this mailing list.

So my request is pretty simple: please do not merge 2 ways.

thanks for listening

have a nice easter weekend

m

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

Re: [Talk-cat] Dubtes sobre revisió carrers i representació d'edificacions urbanes

[yo paseopor]

Wenes!
El primer que diré serà Benvinguda Esther!

El segon és donar-te el meu parer (pq no hi ha una veritat absoluta i en
aquesta comunitat ningú mana més que un altre). Sempre que el teu municipi
no estigui en condicions mínimes d'usabilitat (carrers amb nom, sentits,
edificis públics...) és millor mapejar in "situ" i amb coneixement de la
zona , trepitjant el terreny.
Vist que aquesta situació ja l'has superat OSM és un mapa gegant així que
hi ha feina per fer per on vulguis. El meu consell és que parteixis dels
teus interessos personals i/o professionals: (t'agrada muntar en bici? ets
més de conduir? camines gaire? t'interessa el transport públic? O ets més
de fer turisme i allotjar-te a cases rurals que encara no estan a OSM? ...)
Jo sóc partidari de posar les dades generals, si el llogaret no hi és, no
caldrà preocupar-se en marcar si és residencial o una granja, per tant que
hi sigui (amb un punt), però si el punt ja hi és podem passar a definir
l'àrea de l'edifici o de l'ús del terreny (el que fem servir per marcar
polígons industrials o centres comercials) i si això està fet i et segueix
interessant, aquest lloc tindrà edificis, i si estan definits els edificis
tindran entrades...fins on arribi la teva imaginació i interés.

Pel que fa a la wiki s'han establert vàries revisions generals, des de fa
un temps curt li hem donat una embranzida general per tal de donar una
mínima usabilitat i qualitat al mapa català en conjunt. En aquest cas ens
hem decidit pels carrers, però hem reactualitzat transport públic (queda
molt per fer), i afegit, rius, muntanyes, espais naturals...hi ha de tot a
Catalunya i moltes coses encara no surten al mapa, la wiki ens va molt bé
per coordinar-nos per elements concrets, ja que com que hi ha molta feina,
mapejadors aliens si veuen que ja s'hi treballa en un municipi continuaran
avançant en d'altres. Tenim més de 900 municipis així que va molt bé saber
quins estan per tocar i quins ja estan tocats. Com que és una wiki tothom
la pot editar, a la mateixa pàgina tindràs l'explicació de com fer-ho, tot
i que per a això estem la resta, per a ajudar si tens qualsevol dubte.

Per la resta t'animo a que t'apuntis a les llistes de distribució i si
encara no en tens prou als grups de Telegram on petem la xerrada de coses
concretes i immediates.

Benvinguda a la comunitat catalana d'OSM
Salut i mapes
yopaseopor

PD: per acabar faré una mica d'autobombo, et passo una presentació que vaig
fer sobre etiquetatges a OSM a la nostra trobada d'aquest any passat:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EvxZQJWNJXrd3z98LzVs75lOYDYELVA-pfs1Kn5Nmxc/edit?pref=2=1#slide=id.gc855edbf1_0_0
___
Talk-cat mailing list
Talk-cat@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cat

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM plugin to import GeoJSON?

[Stefan Keller]

Hi Blake

2016-03-24 16:01 GMT+01:00 Blake Girardot :
>
> We run into geojson all the time as an interchange format.

I can imagine. Reaffirm this at
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/10564 so people believe us.


> I was not aware of the plugin somehow, but I just tried it out and it worked
> fine for the geojson generated by Field Papers and another community member
> reports that she has used it a great deal with Field Papers and it worked
> great.

Do I understand right: You installed and used succesfully this plugin
in JOSM: https://github.com/iandees/josm-geojson ?

> I just tried it with a few geojson files generated from JOSM and it does not
> seem to import those (example attached)

I'm pretty sure, the JOSM export is wrong:

This
>>
"crs":{
"type":"name",
"name":"EPSG:4326"
},
<<

should look like this:
>>
"crs": {
"type": "name",
"properties": {
  "name": "urn:ogc:def:crs:OGC:1.3:CRS84"
}
  },
>>

:Stefan


2016-03-24 16:01 GMT+01:00 Blake Girardot :
>
> We run into geojson all the time as an interchange format.
>
> I was not aware of the plugin somehow, but I just tried it out and it worked
> fine for the geojson generated by Field Papers and another community member
> reports that she has used it a great deal with Field Papers and it worked
> great.
>
> I just tried it with a few geojson files generated from JOSM and it does not
> seem to import those (example attached)
>
> Cheers,
> Blake
>
>
> On 3/6/2016 12:56 AM, Stefan Keller wrote:
>>
>> To Ian and/or anybody
>>
>> I'm searching a plugin to import GeoJSON vector data into JOSM.
>>
>> I of course know Shapefiles but they are deprecated because e.g. they
>> cut-off field names at 10 chars. GeoJSON or GeoPackage are better
>> alternatives.
>>
>> Is this plugin still maintained: https://github.com/iandees/josm-geojson ?
>> Other plugins or alternatives?
>>
>> :Stefan
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>

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

Re: [Talk-cat] Dubtes sobre revisió carrers i representació d'edificacions urbanes

[josep constantí]

Hola Esther, benvinguda,
No et puc donar la versió oficial "del que cal fer" sinó explicar-te com ho 
faig jo:
1.- Repasso tots els llocs que conec i corregeixo errors i/o afegeixo coses 
noves tant com puc (fonts, equipaments públics...)2.- Si veig que aporto poc 
(ja no sé que afegir) vaig a un altre poble on ho hagi poca cosa i repasso lo 
bàsic (carrers): tenim una campanya per anomenar carrers de tot Catalunya amb 
dades actualitzades cada setmana dels pitjors locs (on hi ha més carrers sense 
noms..) Encara que potser ens dius que l'has consultat, per si de cas poso 
l'enllaç:
WikiProject Catalan/Carrers Niv1 - OpenStreetMap Wiki


|   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
| WikiProject Catalan/Carrers Niv1 - OpenStreetMap WikiPoblació Carrers – sense 
nom(m) nº- carrers Livings – sense nom(m) nº livings Sum total 20/03/16(m) 
Tarragona 91.817,88 790 135,24 2 91.953,12 Rubí 80.579,41 411 1.440,80 10 
82.020,21 Cambrils  |
|  |
| Ver en wiki.openstreetmap.org | Vista previa por Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


Jo ho enfoco com una Viquipèdia de mapes: l'important és deixar-ho millor de 
com ho has trobat.
Salutacions i fins aviat..
josep constantí
 

El Viernes 25 de marzo de 2016 21:31, Esther Mingot 
 escribió:
 

 Hola a tots 
o totes!

Després d'uns dies explorant l'OSM i veient el què hi ha fet i el que queda 
pendent, em vaig registrar per començar a editar un municipi que conec força 
bé. Les primeres edicions han estat posar nom als carrers, verificar les 
interseccions i afegir alguns serveis bàsics, mentre em vaig familiaritzant amb 
els editors.

Ara m'agradaria representar les edificacions residencials (les industrials ja 
ho estan). He vist que en alguns llocs s'ha fet la importació des del cadastre, 
en altres fils es parla de dibuixar-les desde zero, i no sé quina opció seria 
la més adequada. A banda de les discrepàncies entre la cartografia del cadastre 
i la del ICC, que en alguns llocs sembla mentida que es basin en les mateixes 
ortofotos.  A més, he vist que en alguns llocs s'ha optat per representar les 
illes i solars urbans i en altres llocs s'han dividit per parcel·les. Hi ha 
algun criteri o recomanació sobre com fer-ho, o si més no, què prioritzar? 

He vist també que la wiki amb la revisió dels carrers a Catalunya està a 
mitges, m'agradaria colaborar-hi però no sé per on començar. La meva idea és 
aprofitar que ara tinc temps i anar revisant els carrers dels municipis de la 
zona, verificant connexions i posant el nom.

A trets generals, per on recomanarieu continuar?

Sólo la verdad nos hará libres 
___
Talk-cat mailing list
Talk-cat@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cat


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

Re: [Talk-de] admin_level 8 entfernen

[Tobias]

Danke...  Für die infos...

Hat also doch alles so seine richtigkeit... 
‎Etwas verwirrend ist es aber auf den ersten blick schon... 

Gruß


  Originalnachricht  
Von: Joachim Kast
Gesendet: Freitag, 25. März 2016 20:29
An: talk-de@openstreetmap.org
Antwort an: Openstreetmap allgemeines in Deutsch
Betreff: Re: [Talk-de] admin_level 8 entfernen


Am 25.03.2016 um 18:26 schrieb Tobias:

Hi Joachim,

Wenn ich http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:boundary zu rate
ziehe dann gehört die fläche wohl zu einem anderen Dorf oder?

Wozu es gehört bekmme ich über die Relationen raus an denen die Enklave
hängt oder?

Wenn ich es richtig deute ist es ein Teil von Haidmühle oder?


Richtig, das Gebiet gehört zu Haidmühle (outer) und ist vollständig
umgeben vom gemeindefreien Gebiet "Frauenberger und Duschlberger Wald"
(inner). Ein Blick in die Geschichte erklärt die hohe Anzahl der
Haidmühler Exklaven.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidm%C3%BChle#Geschichte
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/958942



Gruß und Dank
Tobi

On 25.03.2016 18:08, Joachim Kast wrote:

Hallo Tobi


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214003 kreist laut luftbild eine
wiese ein.


Das ist eine sogenannte Enklave, meistens historisch bedingt durch
kirchliche Besitztümer. Also ok.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enklave



Als source:url wird in den Tags www.geodaten.bayern.de angegeben. Dürfen
wir von dort Daten importieren?


ja, siehe http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Bayern


Grüße
Joachim


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




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




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





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

[Talk-cat] Dubtes sobre revisió carrers i representació d'edificacions urbanes

[Esther Mingot]

Hola a tots o totes!

Després d'uns dies explorant l'OSM i veient 
el què hi ha fet i el que queda pendent, em vaig registrar per començar a
 editar un municipi que conec força bé. Les primeres edicions han estat 
posar nom als carrers, verificar les interseccions i afegir alguns 
serveis bàsics, mentre em vaig familiaritzant amb els editors.

Ara
 m'agradaria representar les edificacions residencials (les industrials 
ja ho estan). He vist que en alguns llocs s'ha fet la importació des del
 cadastre, en altres fils es parla de dibuixar-les desde zero, i no sé 
quina opció seria la més adequada. A banda de les discrepàncies entre la
 cartografia del cadastre i la del ICC, que en alguns llocs sembla 
mentida que es basin en les mateixes ortofotos.  A més, he vist que en 
alguns llocs s'ha optat per representar les illes i solars urbans i en 
altres llocs s'han dividit per parcel·les. Hi ha algun criteri o 
recomanació sobre com fer-ho, o si més no, què prioritzar? 

He 
vist també que la wiki amb la revisió dels carrers a Catalunya està a 
mitges, m'agradaria colaborar-hi però no sé per on començar. La meva 
idea és aprofitar que ara tinc temps i anar revisant els carrers dels 
municipis de la zona, verificant connexions i posant el nom.

A trets generals, per on recomanarieu continuar?

Sólo la verdad nos hará libres___
Talk-cat mailing list
Talk-cat@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cat

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] La Poste et la géolocalisation

[Philippe Verdy]

Aux frais de la municipalité... espérons qu'elle dépose ça dans son
cadastre. Maintenant 146 habitants ça fait peu d'adresses, et ça doit tenir
dans un tableau de 2 pages A4.

Cependant je ne comprend pas ta phrase "seulement l'adresse et le code
postal". Ce n'est pas le cas de tout le monde ? Je suppose que tu voulais
juste dire qu'il n'y a que le nom de la commune et le code postal, à défaut
de nom de rue/route.

Bien que je vois la D60 et plusieurs noms de lieux-dits (qui devraient
faire partie de l'adresse je pense) : Toul ar Goët, Le Cosquer, Bel Air,
Kergantic, Kerye, Nogant, Goulenez, Le Grannec, La Grève, Stang Quélen,
Kerdudal, Kerfenan, Pen ar Stang, Kerfréval, Brigneun, Kerzuel, Keravel,
Croas Nevez, Kerloc'h, Moulin de Pont Gervan, Kerbeuz, Keranquéré, Rulann,
...

Le reste ce sont des routes anonymes de campagne, inhabitées (et un certain
nombre des précédentes sont également inhabitées ou il s'agit d'une unique
maison ou une ancienne ferme disparue).

Je crois que tout bonnement la Poste a surtout du mal à trouver des
facteurs qui reconnaissent et ne confondent pas les noms bretons (et il n'y
a pas assez de monde autour de demander). Il n'y en a pourtant pas beaucoup
la commune est toute petite en comparaison de sa voisine Dinéault, ou même
Châteaulin.

La Poste ne peut-elle pas équiper ses facteurs d'une cartographie GPS et
codifier ses secteurs de tournées de la même façon qu'elle le fait avec les
noms de rues en ville? Ou s'agit-il pour elle de réduire ses tournées dans
la communes à juste quelques points de livraison (et obliger les habitants
à faire quelques centaines de mètres pour aller chercher leur courier à un
carrefour sur les 3 ou 4 rues/routes que comptent encore visiter la Poste) ?

Et pourquoi la petite commune doit payer une facture (10 euros par
habitant, ça doit faire quand même 30 euros par foyer environ, et ce n'est
pas rien dans le budget d'une petite commune) de ce qui est en fait une
économie faite par la Poste (et qui donc ne va rien lui coûter du tout) ?
Si vraiment ça lui coute tant, qu'elle obtienne une subvention du
département. Ou bien que la commune s'adresse à un autre service postal
(comment font les livreurs de journaux de Ouest-France tous les matins?)
pour codifier ça et compléter ce qui peut manquer à son cadastre. La Poste
suivra obligatoirement.

Mais il serait logique de demander d'abord aux habitants s'ils ont des
idées sur la toponymie et le repérage géographique de leur commune (un beau
projet d'activité périscolaire par exemple pour compléter la carte
communale par exempel dans OSM s'il y a encore une école communale, qui
pourrait même conduire à poser des panneaux manquants si les normes de
signalisation n'étaient pas si contraignantes).




Le 25 mars 2016 à 20:12, Christian Rogel 
a écrit :

> Lu dans Ouest-France du 23-03-16 :
> " Tregarvan, commune de 146 habitants...  est en zone blanche. La Poste et
> les secours, … disposent seulement de l'adresse et du code postal.
> Bientôt, chaque boîte aux lettres se verra attribuer un code de trois
> lettres, qui lui permettra d'être géolocalisée. Ce dispositif, mené par La
> Poste pour faciliter son travail, reviendra à 1600 € à la municipalité.
> Tregarvan est l'une des premières communes à le mettre en place."
> Un nouveau silo de donnée privé et mis aux frais du contribuable ?
> Joli prétexte que les zones blanches.
>
>
> Christian R.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-it-trentino] (no subject)

[girarsi_liste]

Il 25/03/2016 20:27, Davide Ondertoller ha scritto:
> ho aggiunto delle info, sempre qua
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071284378
> 
> spero sia più chiaro
> 


Mi dispiace essere puntiglioso :)

Ma il name=capitello, frega perchè sembra un edicola religiosa, però, se
'è un nome identificato in questa maniera, allora ok, oppure il name non
serve.

Semmai un tourism=information, information=table mi par necessario, però
mi rimetto ad altri interventi.



-- 
Simone Girardelli
_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|



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

Re: [Talk-cz] Fotky rozcestniku na osmap.cz

[Tom Ka]

Dne 21. března 2016 8:13 Michal Grézl  napsal(a):
> 2016-03-19 19:24 GMT+01:00 Tom Ka :
>> Zmeny souradnic ted nachystam a poslu soukrome jako SQL UPDATE.

Delam upravy OsmHiCheck/gp aby to z toho nejak padalo polo
automaticky, poslu pak mimo maillist pokusne UPDATE.

> Ja bych radeji pouzil cas z exifu fotografie. Taky muzu pouzit timestamp z fs.
> Budu vyrabet nejake zakladni ziskani exif dat. Datum z fs muzu nejak
> vracet taky.
> Do db by to slo dat primo taky, ale to se mi moc nechce.

jsem pro to dat rozhodne do DB pri insertu jako TIMESTAMP, z exifu to
jde vytahnout vzdy kdyz to tam bude ale kdyz ne, tak spolehat na cas
souboru je podle mne dost k nicemu. Staci aby se soubor zkopiroval
nebo s nim provedla jina operace a je to nenavratne v tahu. Proto je
podle mne jedine reseni davat to do DB tak jako lat a lon (ty jsou
prece taky v exifu).

> /table/move
> typ volani POST
> post parametry: id, lat, lon

a je to zase na nejake tvoje schovalovani nebo kdy se to projevi?

Bye

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

Re: [Talk-de] admin_level 8 entfernen

[Joachim Kast]

Am 25.03.2016 um 18:26 schrieb Tobias:
> Hi Joachim,
> 
> Wenn ich http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:boundary zu rate
> ziehe dann gehört die fläche wohl zu einem anderen Dorf oder?
> 
> Wozu es gehört bekmme ich über die Relationen raus an denen die Enklave
> hängt oder?
> 
> Wenn ich es richtig deute ist es ein Teil von Haidmühle oder?

Richtig, das Gebiet gehört zu Haidmühle (outer) und ist vollständig
umgeben vom gemeindefreien Gebiet "Frauenberger und Duschlberger Wald"
(inner). Ein Blick in die Geschichte erklärt die hohe Anzahl der
Haidmühler Exklaven.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidm%C3%BChle#Geschichte
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/958942

> 
> Gruß und Dank
> Tobi
> 
> On 25.03.2016 18:08, Joachim Kast wrote:
>> Hallo Tobi
>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214003 kreist laut luftbild eine
>>> wiese ein.
>>
>> Das ist eine sogenannte Enklave, meistens historisch bedingt durch
>> kirchliche Besitztümer. Also ok.
>>
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enklave
>>
>>>
>>> Als source:url wird in den Tags www.geodaten.bayern.de angegeben. Dürfen
>>> wir von dort Daten importieren?
>>
>> ja, siehe http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Bayern
>>
>>
>> Grüße
>> Joachim
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-de mailing list
>> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
>>
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
> 


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

Re: [Talk-it-trentino] (no subject)

[Davide Ondertoller]

ho aggiunto delle info, sempre qua
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071284378

spero sia più chiaro

Il giorno 24 marzo 2016 19:53, girarsi_liste  ha
scritto:

> Il 22/03/2016 16:28, Davide Ondertoller ha scritto:
> > l'oggetto in questione
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071284378
> >
> > secondo voi è corretto l'inserimento?
> >
> > si tratta di una edicola in pietra (altezza 1,80 mt) che ospitava gli
> > 'avvisi' del feudatario - datata verso il XVII (non riesco a trovare
> > letteratura sul manufatto)
> >
>
> L'edicola è un building? se sì va messo con la sua geometria ed un
> building=yes.
>
> È una tabella di fatto? allora historic:tourism=information,
> historic:information=table (da discutere, mia opinione).
>
> È un monumento? se sì va messo historic=monument oppure memorial, a
> seconda di come viene riconosciuta dagli storici/in campo turistico, che
> di solito collima, ma non si sa mai, quà devi valutare sulla base di
> informazioni conosciute.
>
> Se si conosce la data di costruzione o periodo, allora anche start_date=*
>
> È con copertura di un tetto, allora anche roof=yes, e per il tipo di
> tetto vai sul wiki e guardati il tag roof:shape.
>
> L'altezza è conosciuta quindi height=1.8 (metri è di default).
>
> Se è conosciuta anche la larghezza, width=*, per la profondità penso
> faccia fede il building.
>
> Materiale, penso cemento o calcestruzzo anche se di allora, quindi
> material=concrete, oppure, però andrebbe discusso perchè non sono in
> grado di capirlo, historic:material=concrete.
>
> Esistono anche i tag per la openhistoricalmap [0], per cui vanno un pò
> studiati e valutati se ritienei di creare un'evento storico in quel
> contesto.
>
>
> [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map
>
>
> --
> Simone Girardelli
> _|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_
> |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-it-trentino mailing list
> Talk-it-trentino@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it-trentino
>
___
Talk-it-trentino mailing list
Talk-it-trentino@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it-trentino

[OSM-talk-fr] La Poste et la géolocalisation

[Christian Rogel]

Lu dans Ouest-France du 23-03-16 :
" Tregarvan, commune de 146 habitants...  est en zone blanche. La Poste et les 
secours, … disposent seulement de l'adresse et du code postal.
Bientôt, chaque boîte aux lettres se verra attribuer un code de trois lettres, 
qui lui permettra d'être géolocalisée. Ce dispositif, mené par La Poste pour 
faciliter son travail, reviendra à 1600 € à la municipalité. Tregarvan est 
l'une des premières communes à le mettre en place."
Un nouveau silo de donnée privé et mis aux frais du contribuable ?
Joli prétexte que les zones blanches.


Christian R.


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

[Talk-tr] mapyear.org

[Roman Neumüller]

Tesadüfen gördüm mapyear.org - osm katılıyor mu oralarda?

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

Re: [Talk-de] admin_level 8 entfernen

[Dietmar]

Hallo Tobi,

Joachim hat bereits auf den erlaubten Import hingewiesen.

Es gibt halt einige Gemeinden, bei denen etliche, zum Teil Minigebiete
dazugehören.

Wenn Du Josm kennst, das wirst Du darin immer sehen, zu welcher
Gemeinderelation das Gebiet gehört (Rolle: outer) oder in welches andere
Gebiet es ein "Loch" (Rolle: inner) darstellt.

Bitte las die Grenzen in Ruhe, die sind in Ordnung und werden nur dann
angepasst, wenn es Gemeindegebietsveränderungen gibt, was in Bayern eher
selten vorkommt.

Übrigens gibt es eine Bayern Mailingliste, da wäre es sinnvoll gewesen,
dort zu posten oder zumindest den Verteiler mit zu verwenden, da ist ja
das örtliche know how vertreten.

viele Grüße

Dietmar aus Augsburg
(Teilnehmer am damaligen Import)


Am 25.03.2016 um 17:46 schrieb Tobias:
> Hi,
> 
> ich habe in Niederbayern einige admin_level 8,9,10 und 11 ways gefundnen
> die auf mich wirken als wären sie unachtsam importiert worden. Einige
> beispile sind:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213988
> oder
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194922912
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214003 kreist laut luftbild eine
> wiese ein.
> 
> Als source:url wird in den Tags www.geodaten.bayern.de angegeben. Dürfen
> wir von dort Daten importieren?
> 
> Ich bin mir etwas unsicher aber ich würde die Wege einfach entfernen da
> sie imo falsch sind.
> 
> 
> Gruß und Dank
> Tobi
> 
> Ein paar andere Wege die mir verdächtig vorkommen aber noch geprüft
> werden müssen sind:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213990
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194922911
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194919084
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194919201
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194917596
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194922912
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213988
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214003
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213993
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213998
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186608489
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214006
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186517968
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186517950
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186517951
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/195746966
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186517949
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186608453
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186608456
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214008
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214001
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213995
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213999
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213994
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276219
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276180
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276184
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276287
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276182
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276183
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276274
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276179
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276178
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276269
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186260937
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186260931
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214005
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186190431
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186190430
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186603891
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186603887
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186190427
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194827594
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369069719
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369069718
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369069720
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194912159
> 
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
> 

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

[Talk-lt] Klaidos Baltijos jūros regione

[Tomas Straupis]

Sveiki

  Kiek yra klaidų OpenStreetMap žemėlapyje mūsų regione ir kaip
Lietuva atrodo kaimynų kontekste:

  https://blog.openmap.lt/2016/03/25/klaidos-baltijos-juros-regione/

  Gerų švenčių! ;-)

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Mapování pro renderer

[Pavel Bokr]

Ahoj,

nevim mam na mysli uplne to same, ale ja uz nekolikrat uvazoval o necem 
podobnem, ze by bylo dobre aby z OSM slo ziskat plochu zastaveneho uzemi mesta 
/ obce. Tohle by prislo vhod napriklad pro mapy malych meritek.

U obci je toto mozne ziskat vetsinou jen pomoci residential (protoze tam casto 
nic jineho nebyva, mozna nekdy farmyard). U mest uz je to slozitejsi – tam je 
toho treba zkombinovat vic minimalne residential a industrial a to stejne neni 
vse, idealne dal treba plochy pro zeleznici, zahradkarske kolonie, hrbitovy, 
brownfieldy, komercni a obchodni plochy a nejspis jeste dalsi (konstrukce, 
garaze). Je bohuzel faktem, ze mnoho ploch neni v mape (a kdy vubec 
budou/budou vubec?) a nektere veci v ramci zastaveneho uzemi nemusi byt 
zakresleny plochou indikujici ze to je zastavene uzemi vubec (napr. pokud 
spravne tusim nezahrnovat do residential treba dalnici vedouci pres mesto 
apod). Jedine si mozna zkusit pomoc jeste bufferovanim nebo nejakymi dalsimi 
upravami dat.


Ja mam ted pro kamarada nahodou rozdelanou mapu, kde jsem potreboval zakreslit 
plochou Prahu a Plzen. Pouzil jsem vnejsi administrativni hranice (v to uz je i 
extravilan), neni to presne ale je to lepsi nez nic. Pokud by byla nejaka 
plocha vymezujici zastavene uzemi bylo by to uplne super.

Nemyslim, ze je ale dobre kvuli tomu ohybat residential na neco co uz by melo 
byt industrial (otazkou je pak co se mysli mensim prumyslovym provozem), ale 
nejak definovane celkove zastavene uzemi by bylo dobre pro ruzna vyuziti OSM 
dat. Jsem tedy take zvedavy jak toto resit.

Pavel Bokr


From: Mikoláš Štrajt 
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 6:12 PM
To: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [Talk-cz] Mapování pro renderer

Jak řešit situace, kdy si to vyloženě říká o "mapování pro renderer"?

Příklad ze života:

mám mapový styl, který při oddálení zobrazuje šedou barvo landuse=residential. 
To funguje celkem pěkně na většinu vesnic ale ne tak v Praze. V Praze je naopak 
landuse=residential poměrně málo.

Vyloženě si to říká o jejich doplnění do mapy, ale je mi jasné, že bych je tam 
doplňoval jen "od oka" (a tak bych označil i některé menší průmyslové provozy 
např.). 

Jak podobnou situaci řešit nějak systémově?

-- 
Mikoláš Štrajt / Severák
= 



___
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-de] admin_level 8 entfernen

[Tobias]

Hi Joachim,

Wenn ich http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:boundary zu rate
ziehe dann gehört die fläche wohl zu einem anderen Dorf oder?

Wozu es gehört bekmme ich über die Relationen raus an denen die Enklave
hängt oder?

Wenn ich es richtig deute ist es ein Teil von Haidmühle oder?

Gruß und Dank
Tobi

On 25.03.2016 18:08, Joachim Kast wrote:
> Hallo Tobi
> 
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214003 kreist laut luftbild eine
>> wiese ein.
> 
> Das ist eine sogenannte Enklave, meistens historisch bedingt durch
> kirchliche Besitztümer. Also ok.
> 
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enklave
> 
>>
>> Als source:url wird in den Tags www.geodaten.bayern.de angegeben. Dürfen
>> wir von dort Daten importieren?
> 
> ja, siehe http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Bayern
> 
> 
> Grüße
> Joachim
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
> 


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

[Talk-cz] Mapování pro renderer

[Mikoláš Štrajt]

Jak řešit situace, kdy si to vyloženě říká o "mapování pro renderer"?

Příklad ze života:

mám mapový styl, který při oddálení zobrazuje šedou barvo landuse=
residential. To funguje celkem pěkně na většinu vesnic ale ne tak v Praze. V
Praze je naopak landuse=residential poměrně málo.

Vyloženě si to říká o jejich doplnění do mapy, ale je mi jasné, že bych je 
tam doplňoval jen "od oka" (a tak bych označil i některé menší průmyslové 
provozy např.). 

Jak podobnou situaci řešit nějak systémově?

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

Re: [Talk-de] admin_level 8 entfernen

[Joachim Kast]

Hallo Tobi

> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214003 kreist laut luftbild eine
> wiese ein.

Das ist eine sogenannte Enklave, meistens historisch bedingt durch
kirchliche Besitztümer. Also ok.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enklave

> 
> Als source:url wird in den Tags www.geodaten.bayern.de angegeben. Dürfen
> wir von dort Daten importieren?

ja, siehe http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Bayern


Grüße
Joachim


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

[Talk-de] admin_level 8 entfernen

[Tobias]

Hi,

ich habe in Niederbayern einige admin_level 8,9,10 und 11 ways gefundnen
die auf mich wirken als wären sie unachtsam importiert worden. Einige
beispile sind:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213988
oder
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194922912

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214003 kreist laut luftbild eine
wiese ein.

Als source:url wird in den Tags www.geodaten.bayern.de angegeben. Dürfen
wir von dort Daten importieren?

Ich bin mir etwas unsicher aber ich würde die Wege einfach entfernen da
sie imo falsch sind.


Gruß und Dank
Tobi

Ein paar andere Wege die mir verdächtig vorkommen aber noch geprüft
werden müssen sind:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213990
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194922911
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194919084
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194919201
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194917596
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194922912
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213988
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214003
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213993
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213998
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186608489
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214006
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186517968
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186517950
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186517951
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/195746966
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186517949
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186608453
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186608456
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214008
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214001
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213995
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213999
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186213994
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276219
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276180
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276184
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276287
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276182
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276183
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276274
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276179
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276178
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186276269
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186260937
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186260931
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186214005
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186190431
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186190430
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186603891
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186603887
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186190427
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194827594
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369069719
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369069718
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369069720
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194912159

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Liege n'est pas residential

[Glenn Plas]

a looser qry (and XML readable ;-)

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

Think it never existed at all, the zero point is the license change,
i.e. around april 2010 I believe.

It's not really totally clear on that btw, if you happen to see
augmented diffs with negative numbering, they are from before the change.

I would conclude that they never existed to begin with..

Glenn


On 25-03-16 13:47, joost schouppe wrote:
> I've been trying to get older versions with the augmented diff in
> Overpass. But either it never did exist, or I'm not doing it right:
> see for example http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ff5
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Liege n'est pas residential

[joost schouppe]

I've been trying to get older versions with the augmented diff in Overpass.
But either it never did exist, or I'm not doing it right:
see for example http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ff5
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 294

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 294 týdeníku weeklyOSM:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/7084

Téma čísla: Program konference SotM CZ+SK 2016

* Aplikace pro pořizování dat.
* Problémy s OAuth v JOSM.
* tag office=goverment.
* OpenStreetMap v Maroku.
* Kde bude SotM 2017?
* Automobilka BMW a OSM.

Pěkné počtení...

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Greg Troxel]

Mike Thompson  writes:

> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
>> They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1]
>>
> Totally unacceptable.  OpenStreetMap maps what is observable on the ground
> (generally). If they:
>
> 1) Don't want that trail to exist, they can restore that area to its
> natural state, and *then*, delete the data from OSM.
> 2) Don't want people to use those trails, they can place "no public access"
> signs at the places where these "unofficial" trails join the "official"
> trails, and then add the appropriate "access=* tags to OSM as others have
> suggested.
> 3) Simply do not want these to show up on their map, they can do some post
> processing of the OSM data after export, but before rendering
>
> I often map unofficial trails based upon on the ground survey with GPS and
> camera supplemented with Strava and BIng.  It is great to have the data in
> there for my personal use and that of others who like to hike the back
> country, but I also want it to be there for search and rescue, wildland
> fire fighters and other emergency personnel. In effect removing this data
> by using a tagging scheme that no one but the editor in question
> understands is a huge disservice.
> Mike

Mike (and Frederik, and many others) is entirely correct here.  The real
problem is CaliParks breaking data for others, and another view is that
they are not just tagging for the renderer, but tagging for their
renderer only.

It has had zero effect on OSM data, but my local Conservation Commission
has the same policy: on Conservation land, there is a rule requiring
people to stay on official trails.  (I know this because I've read the
rules and becuase I have talked to the Conservation Coordinator.)  Their
maps don't have the unofficial trails, but OSM has most of the more
obviosly visible ones.  I haven't gotten to it, but have more or less
decided I'd put access=no on the unofficial trails.

There are two things that could happen.  One is access=no, we can both
do that and allow it without per-trail signs.  A published official map
and rules suffices; the point is that an ordinary person can determine
what is and is not allowed - it doesn't have to be obvious at any
particular physical local.  (My town tends to have a signboard at
trailheads with a map and rules; this is really not hard to figure out.)

Another is that there could be some sort of additional positive tag,
like officially_maintained=yes, added to trails that a landowner
declares to be usable.  The real point is that these should be extra
metadata, not changing the primary tag.

Finally, I think the notion that omitting actual trails from maps does
not serve the cause of safety.   It makes it harder for map users to
stay oriented, especially if they are using paper maps without GPS.
Having trails marked as not allowed makes it easier to navigate.

And ultimately, putting up no entry signs at unofficial trails is going
to be more effective than trying to suppress map data.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] User Accounts in Ireland (was Re: Mobile speed camera zones)

[Simon Poole]

Am 25.03.2016 um 10:16 schrieb Simon Poole:
> ...
>
> - the number of mappers that edited data in Ireland: this is a bit more
> involved to determine and the best way is to simply to look at a full
> history extract of the country in question. I'm not aware of current
> numbers, but I did do this before the licence change, last time June
> 2012: 2'249 was the number at the time (as comparison 1'684 was the
> total number of mappers that had started out in IE at that point in time).

Using the geo-coded changesets I get 4'340 editors total as of last
month (this is a bit fuzzier than analysing a history  extract).



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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] User Accounts in Ireland (was Re: Mobile speed camera zones)

[Dave Corley]

Ignore my previous figure. I didn't see that you are only looking for the
number from the last 12 months.

Dave
On 25 Mar 2016 11:28, "Donie Kelly"  wrote:

> Hi Dan
> Are you making progress with them?
>
> Donie
>
> > On 25 Mar 2016, at 09:04, Daniel Cussen  wrote:
> >
> > Have we any rough idea of the numbers of editors say in the last year
> > who have edited OSM Ireland? Even a wild guess. The Gardai want to
> > know ...
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-ie mailing list
> > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] User Accounts in Ireland (was Re: Mobile speed camera zones)

[Donie Kelly]

Hi Dan 
Are you making progress with them?

Donie

> On 25 Mar 2016, at 09:04, Daniel Cussen  wrote:
> 
> Have we any rough idea of the numbers of editors say in the last year
> who have edited OSM Ireland? Even a wild guess. The Gardai want to
> know ...
> 
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Liege n'est pas residential

[Glenn Plas]

There are 2 users who are quite busy in that area, plenty of changesets:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lf6648

The changesets I've checked haven't got landuse mods present. I've
scanned 1.6 million changesets of the last 30 days and none have the
keyword 'landuse' in the comments in that area. (it will only check
comments however).

But it seems this user has been doing some landuser stuff:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Buxtehude

He's got 'land use' in the comments, that explains why I could not find
it in the scan.

Both have recent changes, but so far I could not find a delete of a
large poly.

Chances are, it happened a long time ago.

Glenn

On 25-03-16 10:19, joost schouppe wrote:
> Something does show up at zoom level 9, so removal might be relatively
> recent. Strangely enough, I cannot seem to find any deleted objects
> where the outline used to be. At least, not with Potlatch 1.
> 
> 2016-03-25 9:24 GMT+01:00 joost schouppe  >:
> 
> At least, on our map :)
> 
> My theory is someone mapped it in low detail, someone else deleted
> that huge polygon but didn't finish mapping in detail yet (or never
> did start). Anyone know what's going on?
> (maybe the line or relation is just broken?)
> 
> I'm tempted to quickly draw a simple outline for the whole city (to
> be deleted as the situation improves).
> 
> -- 
> Joost @
> Openstreetmap
>  | Twitter
>  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
>  | Reddit
>  | Wordpress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joost @
> Openstreetmap
>  | Twitter
>  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
>  | Reddit
>  | Wordpress
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] User Accounts in Ireland (was Re: Mobile speed camera zones)

[Dave Corley]

3755 users

Based on info from here http://stat.latlon.org
On 25 Mar 2016 05:40, "Marc Gemis"  wrote:

> I hoped for a moment that Pascal Neis' site would be helpful:
> http://osmstats.neis-one.org/?item=countries=Ireland
>
> but it only gives an overview on how many mappers a day (use the
> arrows next to the graphs) , not a total number of mappers.
>
> Joost Schouppe made a tool for that (he had a presentation on SOTM
> 2014). I'll ask him whether the site is still online
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Daniel Cussen  wrote:
> > Ca, someone tell me how many user accounts there are than have edited
> > osm irl data (yes there is a reason)
> >
> > On 31/03/2014, Killyfole and District Development Assocation
> >  wrote:
> >> Colm,
> >>
> >> It is because no-one has added those details yet.  Road sections can be
> >> tagged with what ever
> >> data we wish to tag them with.  The OSM wiki describes how to use the
> tags.
> >> Speed on that
> >> section of way is tagging using maxspeed=*  We use the ref=* tag to
> record
> >> the road reference
> >> number ie R999, L etc
> >>
> >> The following link is a visual layer which colour codes the speed limits
> >> stored in the OSM
> >> database and shows it on an OSM map.  The small key on the right shows
> the
> >> legend/key for
> >> the colours.  As you zoom in, minor roads will appear. Grey roads
> indicate
> >> that we do not have
> >> data available for those sections.
> >>
> >>
> http://www.itoworld.com/map/35?lon=-7.03486=53.36929=8=true
> >>
> >> Notice that the North speeds are a yellow/green colour, this is because
> the
> >> speed limits here
> >> are in miles per hour, not km/h.
> >>
> >> I suggest you come along to #osm-ie and have a chat.
> >>
> >> KDDA
> >>
> >>
> >>> However, with an adjacent minor road:
> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/53.7570/-6.3205 it
> >>> does
> >>> not have "Lanes" or "Reference". Is this because it is an unclassified
> >>> road? How does one record the local road number?
> >>>
> >>> Colm
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-ie mailing list
> >> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-ie mailing list
> > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Liege n'est pas residential

[joost schouppe]

Something does show up at zoom level 9, so removal might be relatively
recent. Strangely enough, I cannot seem to find any deleted objects where
the outline used to be. At least, not with Potlatch 1.

2016-03-25 9:24 GMT+01:00 joost schouppe :

> At least, on our map :)
>
> My theory is someone mapped it in low detail, someone else deleted that
> huge polygon but didn't finish mapping in detail yet (or never did start).
> Anyone know what's going on?
> (maybe the line or relation is just broken?)
>
> I'm tempted to quickly draw a simple outline for the whole city (to be
> deleted as the situation improves).
>
> --
> Joost @
> Openstreetmap  |
> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
>  | Reddit
>  | Wordpress
> 
>



-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup
 | Reddit
 | Wordpress

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] User Accounts in Ireland (was Re: Mobile speed camera zones)

[Simon Poole]

Am 25.03.2016 um 10:04 schrieb Daniel Cussen:
> Have we any rough idea of the numbers of editors say in the last year
> who have edited OSM Ireland? Even a wild guess. The Gardai want to
> know ...

That is yet another number, I'll tweak one of my DB queries if I get
around to it this weekend.

Simon




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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] User Accounts in Ireland (was Re: Mobile speed camera zones)

[Simon Poole]

[resending ..seems as if the list doesn't like signed messages]

Typically there are two different numbers that are interesting:

- number of mappers that started off editing in Ireland (see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/36408 and
https://github.com/simonpoole/OpenStreetMap-Contributor-Stats/releases/download/2015-09/country_monthy_raw.ods
): 2'880 as of November of last year.

- the number of mappers that edited data in Ireland: this is a bit more
involved to determine and the best way is to simply to look at a full
history extract of the country in question. I'm not aware of current
numbers, but I did do this before the licence change, last time June
2012: 2'249 was the number at the time (as comparison 1'684 was the
total number of mappers that had started out in IE at that point in time).

Simon

Am 25.03.2016 um 01:49 schrieb Daniel Cussen:

> Ca, someone tell me how many user accounts there are than have edited
> osm irl data (yes there is a reason)
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-se] Ange förbuden utfart

[Fredrik Ramsberg]

Man kan skapa en "turn restriction", en relation som säger att man inte får
köra från vög A in på väg B. Används normalt för att säga att man inte får
svänga vänster i en korsning, men borde funka bra till det här också.

Mvh,

Fredrik
Den 25 mar 2016 09:29 skrev "Tomas Marklund" :

> Precis så har även jag gjort vid några tillfällen, skapat en liten stump
> på en meter som får vara enkelriktad. Det ger önskat resultat även om det
> egentligen är "fel" om man ska vara petig.
>
> Har nån annan några bättre idéer?
>
> /Tomas
> Den 24 mar 2016 7:29 em skrev "Jimmy Utterström" :
>
>> Hallå!
>>
>> Jo, jag undrar hur jag lämpligast markerar att det inte är tillåtet att
>> använda den "utfart" som kan beskådas här:
>> https://www.google.se/maps/@63.2933291,18.7087567,3a,75y,325.55h,71.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7Fcmz2-jB20_YG1er206LA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>> (Jag använder självklart inte Google maps som källa vid mappningen i OSM,
>> länkar endast till bilden så att ni ser vad jag pratar om).
>>
>> Gatan i sig (Högbergsgatan) är ju inte enkelriktad. Utan det är ju endast
>> förbudet att ta utfarten till själevadskartan. Skall jag markera en väldigt
>> kort del av gatan, just före korsningen, som enkelriktad eller hur går jag
>> lämpligast till väga för att se till att trafikreglerna behandlas korrekt
>> vid exempelvis rutt-planering i OSM?
>>
>> //Jimmy U
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-se mailing list
>> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
>
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

[OSM-talk-be] Liege n'est pas residential

[joost schouppe]

At least, on our map :)

My theory is someone mapped it in low detail, someone else deleted that
huge polygon but didn't finish mapping in detail yet (or never did start).
Anyone know what's going on?
(maybe the line or relation is just broken?)

I'm tempted to quickly draw a simple outline for the whole city (to be
deleted as the situation improves).

-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup
 | Reddit
 | Wordpress

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] User Accounts in Ireland (was Re: Mobile speed camera zones)

[Marc Gemis]

Unfortunately Joost's site does not include worldwide information. He
does not have to time to continue support for it. Sorry.


m.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> I hoped for a moment that Pascal Neis' site would be helpful:
> http://osmstats.neis-one.org/?item=countries=Ireland
>
> but it only gives an overview on how many mappers a day (use the
> arrows next to the graphs) , not a total number of mappers.
>
> Joost Schouppe made a tool for that (he had a presentation on SOTM
> 2014). I'll ask him whether the site is still online
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Daniel Cussen  wrote:
>> Ca, someone tell me how many user accounts there are than have edited
>> osm irl data (yes there is a reason)
>>
>> On 31/03/2014, Killyfole and District Development Assocation
>>  wrote:
>>> Colm,
>>>
>>> It is because no-one has added those details yet.  Road sections can be
>>> tagged with what ever
>>> data we wish to tag them with.  The OSM wiki describes how to use the tags.
>>> Speed on that
>>> section of way is tagging using maxspeed=*  We use the ref=* tag to record
>>> the road reference
>>> number ie R999, L etc
>>>
>>> The following link is a visual layer which colour codes the speed limits
>>> stored in the OSM
>>> database and shows it on an OSM map.  The small key on the right shows the
>>> legend/key for
>>> the colours.  As you zoom in, minor roads will appear. Grey roads indicate
>>> that we do not have
>>> data available for those sections.
>>>
>>> http://www.itoworld.com/map/35?lon=-7.03486=53.36929=8=true
>>>
>>> Notice that the North speeds are a yellow/green colour, this is because the
>>> speed limits here
>>> are in miles per hour, not km/h.
>>>
>>> I suggest you come along to #osm-ie and have a chat.
>>>
>>> KDDA
>>>
>>>
 However, with an adjacent minor road:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/53.7570/-6.3205 it
 does
 not have "Lanes" or "Reference". Is this because it is an unclassified
 road? How does one record the local road number?

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

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Video du dernier meetup carto à Paris

[Christian Quest]

J'ai fait une brève intervention à propos d'OSM lors du dernier meetup
carto parisien.

La vidéo est en ligne: https://air.mozilla.org/meetup-carto-paris-5/

Mon intervention commence à 1h18...

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

Re: [Talk-se] Ange förbuden utfart

[Tomas Marklund]

Precis så har även jag gjort vid några tillfällen, skapat en liten stump på
en meter som får vara enkelriktad. Det ger önskat resultat även om det
egentligen är "fel" om man ska vara petig.

Har nån annan några bättre idéer?

/Tomas
Den 24 mar 2016 7:29 em skrev "Jimmy Utterström" :

> Hallå!
>
> Jo, jag undrar hur jag lämpligast markerar att det inte är tillåtet att
> använda den "utfart" som kan beskådas här:
> https://www.google.se/maps/@63.2933291,18.7087567,3a,75y,325.55h,71.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7Fcmz2-jB20_YG1er206LA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> (Jag använder självklart inte Google maps som källa vid mappningen i OSM,
> länkar endast till bilden så att ni ser vad jag pratar om).
>
> Gatan i sig (Högbergsgatan) är ju inte enkelriktad. Utan det är ju endast
> förbudet att ta utfarten till själevadskartan. Skall jag markera en väldigt
> kort del av gatan, just före korsningen, som enkelriktad eller hur går jag
> lämpligast till väga för att se till att trafikreglerna behandlas korrekt
> vid exempelvis rutt-planering i OSM?
>
> //Jimmy U
>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
>
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [Talk-cz] JOSM down/up load connection timeout

[Tom Ka]

Zkousel jsem vyvojove servery ale tam zrejme nejsou spravna data, takze to
nejsem schopen uplne verne nasimulovat. Podle vseho ale spis ne. I s
ohledem na to, ze je to viditelne vazane na zatez hlavniho serveru (kdyz je
v americe noc, tak je to vzdy vyrazne lepsi) to ale muze byt tim, ze devel
jsou minimalne zatizene.

Neni tu nekdo jiny kdo pouziva JOSM a IPv6? Driv to nedelalo, takze je to
bude zmena na strane serveru, v JOSM nebo aktualizace Javy.

Bye


Dne 15. března 2016 23:19 Jan Martinec  napsal(a):

> Ahoj,
> Jenom na divnopřipojení přes proxy a VPN a SSH tunel: měl jsem problém, že
> mi timeoutovalo uzavření changesetu (buď se nezavřel vůbec, nebo jsem jen
> nedostal lokálně potvrzení, že byl nahraný), a vůbec věci vyžadující TCP
> spojení >10 sec.
>
> Když zkusíš změnit server na vývojový. dělá to tam taky?
>
> HPM
> Ahoj,
>
> poslednich par tydnu mi zacalo zlobit JOSM - hlavne odpoledne (v USA
> spicka?) mi dost casto pri stahovani dat (at uz pres menu nebo pres
> remote control) chvili zkousi a pak skonci na connection timeout. To
> same nekdy pro nahrani dat nas server. Za par minut (nebo po nekolika
> pokusech) to zase jede v pohode. Chova se tak na vice ruznych
> pripojenich (cesnet, netbox), oboji ma IPv6, ale i po disable a IPv4
> only to nebylo lepsi. Ve stejny cas pri zadani URL do prohlizece
> (firefox) vzdy proslo ihned a bez problemu.
>
> Jedine co jsem nasel na webu je tohle nemecke vlakno:
>
>
> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=cs=de=cs=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fpid%3D582931
>
> ale bez reseni.
>
> Setkal se s tim nekdo?
>
> Diky
>
> ___
> 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