Re: [Talk-GB] Rooftop Solar & UPRNs

[Dan S]

Hi all

The progress on the solar panel mapping is astonishing. I just have
one small observation to add, from our local checking here in London:

A year ago, it seemed there were not many solar panels to spot in
imagery, in central-ish London, plus the imagery wasn't always clear
enough to be sure. Now, the imagery is better, but also - in our own
area of East London it really is increasingly clear that the builders
of new blocks of flats are putting solar panels on top. These can't be
seen from the ground, and none of the new estates' own websites etc
seem to promote it as green credentials. I'm not aware of any local
authority incentives, so perhaps it is becoming more common for these
to simply be part of the build. Will be looking out for those in new
imagery.

Best
Dan

Op za 1 aug. 2020 om 21:12 schreef SK53 :
>
> When I wrote to this list at the end of June I little suspected that we'd 
> achieve 25% completion of solar panels by the end of July. Obviously, access 
> to greatly improved imagery has made a big difference.
>
> The places mentioned by Dan : LAs around Exeter & the Midlands now have good 
> coverage. The Devon LAs are all over 60% and other LAs in the county are also 
> progressing. In the Midlands it's easier to list places with low coverage: N. 
> Staffordhsire, most of Shropshire, East Lincs and Northamptonshire.
>
> One of my concerns mentioned last time was missing installations in rural 
> areas. Even with 60% coverage it is noticeable that rural LSOAs are less well 
> populated. I've recently been experimenting to see if this can now be 
> addressed and have good results.
>
> Initially I used areas where OSM has most buildings mapped (Derbyshire Dales 
> near Bakewell & in South Hams between Kingsbridge & Dartmouth). I pull 
> buildings down into JOSM with an Overpass query, and add existing solar 
> mapping. Buildings are selected and added to the to do list (a plugin) & then 
> I step through each building. This was effective, but the bbox of individual 
> LSOAs resulted in very large numbers of buildings (~8000), which is really 
> too many for a single task.
>
> I then turned to UPRNs. It is relatively easy to filter UPRNs by LSOA (e.g., 
> in QGIS) and numbers are more manageable (say 1,500-2,000). Again stepping 
> through these resulted in finding virtually all the solar installations 
> expected from the FIT numbers (tested on East Devon 0009A - Branscombe & 
> Derbyshire Dales 0008C - Tissington & Parwich). However the number of items 
> is still too high even when divided into batches, and requires quite some 
> time to work through.
>
> One problem is the sheer number of UPRNs which are not related to buildings. 
> Numerous minor tracks, possibly some footpaths, farm ponds, mobile phone 
> masts, old quarries etc. These may make up as much as 40% of all UPRNs.
>
> An obvious solution would be to use only UPRNs which pertain to buildings, 
> but I didnt have an OS Local building layer available and even then the total 
> number of search locations is still too high.
>
> Instead I've used clustering of UPRNs which seems to give reasonable results. 
> A simple clustering based on distance yields around 100 clusters which can be 
> searched visually. The non-building UPRNs tend to move the centroid away from 
> groups of buildings, but not so far as to be unworkable.
>
> I've used QGIS so I thought I'd document that approach in case anyone fancies 
> using it in there own area (obviously it can be used for things other than 
> solar):
>
> * Filter UPRNs by LSOA. I use a clipping operation in QGIS. A shapefile of 
> LSOAs is available from the ONS site, but there is also a file of 
> UPRN=>Administrative Geographies which may enable this to be done on a Unix 
> command line.
> * Cluster. Search for clustering on the Toolbox option of the Processing 
> Menu. A number of clustering techniques are available. The one I used is 
> DBSCAN. Open this can apply settings of minimum cluster size of 1 and maximum 
> distance of 0.0025 (approximating 250 m in WGS assuming 100 km / degree). Run 
> the tool and results appear as a new layer. This appears identical to the 
> original UPRNs, but each is now assigned a cluster id.
> * Group Clusters. From the Vector menu apply Collect Geomtetries from the 
> Geometry Tools menu. This returns a MULTIPOINT layer rather than the original 
> POINT layer.
> * Located Centroid. The centroid of each cluster can be found by applying 
> Centroid from the Geometry Tools Menu. This latter layer can be saved as a 
> geojson file for use in JOSM (or iD or Potlatch).
>
> In JOSM:
>
> * Open the geojson of clustered UPRNs.
> * Download existing solar data using an overpass query within the viewport of 
> the LSOA data. Make sure this is a new layer as this is the layer used for 
> editing.
> * Select all items in the UPRN layer and add them to the to do list.
> * Activate the solar data layer.
> * Step through each item in the todo list searching for 

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:44 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
> There are many different OSM tagging "dialects" to describe the details of
> a foot-cycle-way crossing a road.
> I looked up the situation of the example on Mapillary. From that it looks
> as if the specific path is a combined foot cycle way  (yellow diamond sign
> with a bicycle and a pedestrian side by side).
>

That sign means both cyclists and pedestrians may be present.  Generally
whether it's a cycleway that lacks sidewalks, or if it's a path, is the
presence of pavement markings.  The latter is foot=yes, highway=cycleway if
it allows pedestrians but doesn't have a specific foot route.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 6

[Bob Gambrel]

Cycleway crossing

At the risk of opening this discussion too far, here is the way I handle
exactly this situation.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=21/45.14100/-93.38143

Ignore any slight mis-alignment between aerial photos and the location of
the nodes and ways. I used Mapbox and things line up fine with it. Other
images sources not quite as well.

Background: in my area almost all "trails" are dual use (bike & foot) so I
use the ID pre-set for Cycle & Foot Path. I also set the pavement type, the
bike-ped separation, one-wayness, and width.  These tags look like:

bicycle=designated
foot=designated
highway=cycleway
name=Rush Creek Regional Trail
oneway=no
segregated=no
surface=asphalt
width=3

For crosswalks when I am doing detailed mapping (which I did for this
area), I do not connect the trail to the road until I have done the
following: I use the ID presets for either marked or unmarked crossing. I
do it by splitting the way at both curbs (usually), then picking the
appropriate preset. I then set foot and bicycles access to designated
(reason below). I then adjust surface type, tactile paving (if known) and
refuge island (almost always no). By splitting first, then connecting
later, ID automatically sets the crossing point (node) as a marked or
unmarked crossing and I don't have to.

In this crosswalk the tagging looks like:

bicycle=designated
crossing=marked
crossing:island=no
footway=crossing
highway=footway
name=Rush Creek Regional Trail
segregated=no
surface=asphalt
width=3

I believe the above follows the wiki, provides lots of very correct
information, and, btw, renders very nicely (e.g. in OSMAND).

My rationale for setting the access to designated: in our  area these 3
meter asphalt trails are designed for both foot and bike traffic. The
trails are designated for that. If a crosswalk connects two segments (as
does this) I assume the crosswalk is designated as well.

If I am in a hurry and cannot do a detailed job on the crosswalk, I connect
the crossing ways and let ID put in a simple crossing node. I usually
modify it to be marked or unmarked.



On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:35 PM  wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Cycleway Crossings (Doug Peterson)
>2. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Paul Johnson)
>3. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Mateusz Konieczny)
>4. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Natfoot)
>5. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Paul Johnson)
>6. Re: Cycleway Crossings (Doug Peterson)
>7. Re: Cycleway Crossings (James Umbanhowar)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Doug Peterson" 
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings
> Message-ID: <1596798661.2...@dpeters2.dyndns.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to
> a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are
> fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway.
>
> I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything
> addressing crossings. There was one screenshot that seemed to show
> intersections or crossings with roads remaining as cycleways. Before I made
> any effort on changing these back I wanted to ask if there was any other
> knowledge out there about this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 08:44:19 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson 
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings
> Message-ID:
> <
> campm96ox+3tsnak80hwscx_xw7cbco-gxo8fkxxx-cdjtrz...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:11 AM Doug Peterson <
> dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
> > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to
> > a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings
> are
> > fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway.
> >
>
> Can we get an example?
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> U

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[Volker Schmidt]

There are many different OSM tagging "dialects" to describe the details of
a foot-cycle-way crossing a road.
I looked up the situation of the example on Mapillary. From that it looks
as if the specific path is a combined foot cycle way  (yellow diamond sign
with a bicycle and a pedestrian side by side).
That means the path could be tagged as
highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=desgnated
segregated=no
(plus surface, smoothness, width, lit etc)
The part that crosses the road (between the kerbs) should additionally be
tagged with
path=crossing
The crossing node between the foot-cycle-way and the road should be tagged
as
highway=crossing
crossing=uncontrolled
foot=yes
bicycle=yes

The essential part is that the crossing node caries the information that is
needed fr routing along the road for cars, and for bicycles and pedestrians
along the foot cycle way.

I noted that the highway=path carries the name and the the corresponding
relation carries the same name. That seems redundant.

Volker






Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] ref:fr vers site http://t4t35.fr/Megalithes/

[Yves P.]

> Ce site est il très vivant ?
Aucune idée

> Pérenne ?
Aucun site :(

Par contre c'est peut-être une référence ?
Il décrit 21 694 "cailloux" (il est en français, avec des cartes OSM et sans 
pub)

Quant à https://www.megalithic.co.uk , ça semble 
aussi une référence (et pas que des "cailloux". Il y a des pubs, et des cartes 
OSM).
Mais je n'arrive pas à trouver le nombres d'objets décrits.
Le dernier identifiant est le 53930 
.

__
Yves



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

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[Natfoot]

all of my edits are using the ID presets.

Nathan P
email: natf...@gmail.com


On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:53 AM Mark Wagner  wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
> "Doug Peterson"  wrote:
>
> > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding
> > crossings to a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike
> > trail). The crossings are fine. It is that the crossing is then been
> > changed to a footway.
> >
> > I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything
> > addressing crossings. There was one screenshot that seemed to show
> > intersections or crossings with roads remaining as cycleways. Before
> > I made any effort on changing these back I wanted to ask if there was
> > any other knowledge out there about this.
>
> This almost always happens because someone's adding crosswalks using
> iD, types "crosswalk" into the tag search, sees "Marked Crosswalk"
> (highway=footway, footway=crossing, crossing=marked) as the first hit,
> and fails to notice "Marked Cycle Crossing" (highway=cycleway,
> cycleway=crossing, crossing=marked) as the fourth.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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] Cycleway Crossings

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
"Doug Peterson"  wrote:

> I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding
> crossings to a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike
> trail). The crossings are fine. It is that the crossing is then been
> changed to a footway. 
> 
> I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything
> addressing crossings. There was one screenshot that seemed to show
> intersections or crossings with roads remaining as cycleways. Before
> I made any effort on changing these back I wanted to ask if there was
> any other knowledge out there about this.

This almost always happens because someone's adding crosswalks using
iD, types "crosswalk" into the tag search, sees "Marked Crosswalk"
(highway=footway, footway=crossing, crossing=marked) as the first hit,
and fails to notice "Marked Cycle Crossing" (highway=cycleway,
cycleway=crossing, crossing=marked) as the fourth.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[Harald Kliems]

Yeah, I think the defaults in iD are most likely what's causing this
tagging. I've seen a lot of it in my area as well.
 Harald (hobbesvsboyle)

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:36 PM James Umbanhowar  wrote:

> I think that iD doesn't have a preset for cycleway=crossing so that
> editors may think that is not a valid tag for a crossing.
>
> On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 14:04 -0400, Doug Peterson wrote:
> > That wiki page was helpful. In one set of cases the change was from
> > highway=cycleway on the way to highway=footway and adding
> > footway=crossing. In another set it added highway=crossing to the
> > intersection node. It looks like from the crossing wiki that the
> > tagging should really be on the node. Way can be tagged as a crossing
> > but it seems discouraged. The footway wiki indicates footway=crossing
> > should also be on the node.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > Mateusz Konieczny  wrote ..
> > >
> > >
> > > Aug 7, 2020, 13:11 by dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org:
> > >
> > > > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding
> > > > crossings to a designated
> > > cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are
> > > fine. It is that
> > > the crossing is then been changed to a footway.
> > > link?
> > >
> > > > I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything
> > > > addressing crossings.
> > > There was one screenshot that seemed to show intersections or
> > > crossings with roads
> > > remaining as cycleways. Before I made any effort on changing these
> > > back I wanted
> > > to ask if there was any other knowledge out there about this.
> > > is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing maybe helpful?
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[James Umbanhowar]

I think that iD doesn't have a preset for cycleway=crossing so that
editors may think that is not a valid tag for a crossing.

On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 14:04 -0400, Doug Peterson wrote:
> That wiki page was helpful. In one set of cases the change was from
> highway=cycleway on the way to highway=footway and adding
> footway=crossing. In another set it added highway=crossing to the
> intersection node. It looks like from the crossing wiki that the
> tagging should really be on the node. Way can be tagged as a crossing
> but it seems discouraged. The footway wiki indicates footway=crossing
> should also be on the node.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Doug
> 
> Mateusz Konieczny  wrote ..
> > 
> > 
> > Aug 7, 2020, 13:11 by dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org:
> > 
> > > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding
> > > crossings to a designated
> > cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are
> > fine. It is that
> > the crossing is then been changed to a footway. 
> > link?
> > 
> > > I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything
> > > addressing crossings.
> > There was one screenshot that seemed to show intersections or
> > crossings with roads
> > remaining as cycleways. Before I made any effort on changing these
> > back I wanted
> > to ask if there was any other knowledge out there about this.
> > is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing maybe helpful?
> 
> ___
> 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] Cycleway Crossings

[Doug Peterson]

That wiki page was helpful. In one set of cases the change was from 
highway=cycleway on the way to highway=footway and adding footway=crossing. In 
another set it added highway=crossing to the intersection node. It looks like 
from the crossing wiki that the tagging should really be on the node. Way can 
be tagged as a crossing but it seems discouraged. The footway wiki indicates 
footway=crossing should also be on the node.

Thanks,

Doug

Mateusz Konieczny  wrote ..
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 7, 2020, 13:11 by dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org:
> 
> > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to a 
> > designated
> cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are fine. It is 
> that
> the crossing is then been changed to a footway. 
> >
> link?
> 
> >
> > I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything addressing 
> > crossings.
> There was one screenshot that seemed to show intersections or crossings with 
> roads
> remaining as cycleways. Before I made any effort on changing these back I 
> wanted
> to ask if there was any other knowledge out there about this.
> >
> is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing maybe helpful?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:49 PM Natfoot  wrote:

> here is my example and location specific response
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/663362208
>

I'd probably call that highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=yes based off
what I'm seeing in the aerial photography.  I seem to recall it was striped
out as a cycleway at one point and it's possible the lane and edgelines
wore off; if this is the case, then highway=cycleway, foot=yes would be the
correct set of tags for that short collection that got dinged to
highway=footway.  I will say that highway=footway is definitely
inappropriate in this one.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[Natfoot]

here is my example and location specific response
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/663362208
Nathan P
email: natf...@gmail.com


On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:14 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Aug 7, 2020, 13:11 by dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org:
>
> I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to
> a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are
> fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway.
>
> link?
>
>
> I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything
> addressing crossings. There was one screenshot that seemed to show
> intersections or crossings with roads remaining as cycleways. Before I made
> any effort on changing these back I wanted to ask if there was any other
> knowledge out there about this.
>
> is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing maybe helpful?
>
> ___
> 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] Cycleway Crossings

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Aug 7, 2020, 13:11 by dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org:

> I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to a 
> designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are 
> fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway. 
>
link?

>
> I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything addressing 
> crossings. There was one screenshot that seemed to show intersections or 
> crossings with roads remaining as cycleways. Before I made any effort on 
> changing these back I wanted to ask if there was any other knowledge out 
> there about this.
>
is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing maybe helpful?

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

Re: [Talk-at] Regionen mappen

[Stefan Tauner]

Friedrich kriegt oft (zu Recht) heftige Kritik ob seines Umgangstons
und seiner Kompromisslosigkeit. Auch wenn die Mail nicht ganz frei von
Seitenhieben war :), möchte ich sie als positives Beispiel für einen
fundierten Diskussionsbeitrag hervorheben und mich dafür bedanken.

Dieses "Daumenhoch" wäre mein Posting alleine aber nicht Wert. Ich will
auch meine Zustimmung zu den vorgebrachten Vorschlägen ausdrücken;
insbesondere admin_level=5 für die sehr "unnatural" "Viertel" und das
grundsätzliche Behandeln von Regionen - das geht wirklich ab.

Anekdote dazu: Ich plane gerade Urlaub im Kaiserwinkl (sic! siehe
https://www.kaiserwinkl.com) in Tirol. Das Suchergebnis dazu ist...
seht selbst: https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=kaiserwinkl

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

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

Re: [Talk-at] Regionen mappen

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 07.08.20 13:53, Florian Kratochwil wrote:
Ich habe in den letzten Wochen ein paar Österreichische Regionen gemappt. 
Ich finde nämlich, dass diese in der Gesellschaft bekannten Bezeichnungen 
wichtig sind in OSM. Wenn eine Karte nicht "weiß", wo oder was das 
Waldviertel ist, dann ist das peinlich.


Das Waldviertel war bereits einmal korrekt als place=region gemappt, aber 
irgendein Rumpelstilz hat es gelöscht.



Einleitung: Es gibt verschiedene Regionstypen:
Regionen können begrenzt sein durch Grenzen einer oder mehrerer Kategorien. 
Politische, geografische, wirtschaftliche, klimatische, kulturelle, 
landschaftliche, ...


a) "Viertel": zB Weinviertel, Waldviertel oder Mühlviertel: Die sind 
landschaftlich unterscheidbar, durch ihre Geologie, ihre landwirtschaftliche 
Nutzung, ihr Klima.


Nicht wirklich. Geologisch gehören z.B. die Neustadtler Platte und der 
Dunkelsteiner Wald zum Waldviertel. Ebenso hat das südliche Wiener Becken 
geolisch und botanisch mehr mit dem Marchfeld gemeinsam als mit dem 
Schneeberg. Die Viertel sind eher nur das, was der Name schon sagt: Man hat 
das Bundesland in ungefähr 4 gleiche Teile geteilt und die Grenzen 
hauptsächlich nach der Geometrie festgelegt.


Es wäre sogar nicht ganz abwegig, diese Viertel als boundary=administrative 
+ admin_level=5 zu taggen. "administrative" heißt ja nicht, dass es eine 
eigene Regierung gibt, sondern dass sie verwaltungstechnisch 
zusammengehören. Sportverbände, die ja doch so halb amtlich sind, richten 
z.B. einene Ligen und Meisterschaften für die Vierteln aus.


Ich habe Fall a) als place=region und region:type=natural_area gemappt 
(Anm.: OpenTopoMap rendert Regionen, sobald es ein region:type gibt). Mit 
dem region:type-key bin ich nicht 100% zufrieden, wollte aber vorerst nichts 
neues erfinden. Es gibt bei region:type bis auf mountain_area noch keine 
Wiki-Empfehlungen.


Gebirge gehören als natural=mountain_range getaggt, nicht als region. Die 
einzige logische Alternative wäre geological=*.


region:type=* ist in der jetzigen Form ein Unsinn, und die Wikiseite hat ein 
gewisser "Geozeisig" erstellt, der schon bekannt dafür ist, alle möglichen 
abstrusen Tags nach eigener Lust und Laune und ohne jedwede Diskussion im 
Wiki zu Standards zu erklären.


Von der Nutzung von Keys, deren Bedeutung noch nicht mal definiert ist, rate 
ich grundsätzlich ab. landcover=* ist ein abschreckendes Beispiel.


Alle Keys, die mit :type bzw. _type enden, weisen schon mal darauf hin, dass 
der Erfinder entweder der englischen Sprache nicht mächtig genug war um sich 
einem sprechenderen Schlüsselnamen auszudenken (z.B. artwork:artform start 
artwork_type, fence:construction statt fence_type, castle:function statt 
castle_type, board:subject statt board_type, usw.) oder dass er sich keine 
Gedanken darum gemacht hat, um was für eine Art von Kategorisierung es sich 
überhaupt handelt.


b) "Ebenen": zB Tullnerfeld, Eferdinger Becken, Marchfeld, Machland: Diese 
Gebiete haben meistens einen Gebirgszug am Rand, aber nicht immer (zB das 
Marchfeld ist durch die Donauauen im Süden begrenzt) und werden intensiv 
landwirtschaftlich genutzt. Ich habe das getrennt in "Grenze ist rein 
topografisch" (Fall b1) und "die Grenze setzt sich zusammen aus 
topografischen und anderen Grenzen" (Fall b2).


Für Ebenen wär eher sowas wie natural=plain angemessen, analog zu 
natural=valley und mountain_range. Aber mir ist schon klar, dass du Ebenen 
unter Anführungszeichen gesetzt hast und die Beispiele nur Teile von Ebenen 
sind. place=region scheint mir für solche Fälle schon richtig, aber für eine 
Unterkategorisierung müsste man sich wie gesagt erst mal die Bedeutung des 
Schlüssels überlegen, bevor man sich über Tag-Werte Gedanken macht.


Und jetzt habe ich entdeckt: natural=plain, zum Beispiel genutzt beim Wiener 
Becken und natural=basin (einige Male genutzt in der Slowakei).


natural=basin kann verschiedenes bedeuten, genauso wie das deutsche Wort 
"Becken" verschiedenes bedeuten kann: In der Geomorphologie (und 
gemeinsprachlich) ist es eine Hohlform, in der Geologie hingegen ein Gebiet, 
wo Sediment abgelagert wird.


Dass der Node fürs Wiener Becken im Weinviertel liegt, kommt wahrscheinlich 
von der Nationalität des Mappers, der quasi von N oder NO ins Wiener Becken 
herüberschaut. Ich würde den Node südlich der Donau setzen. Geologisch 
gesehen ist es bei Fischamend am tiefsten.


--> Was meint ihr: Ist Fall b1 eher natural=plain / natural=basin als 
place=region? Ich finde: Wenn mountain_area ein place=region ist und kein 
natural (so stehts im Wiki) dann ist auch ein Becken ein place_region.


Wenn man von einer falschen Prämisse ausgeht, ist natürlich auch die 
Schlussfolgerung falsch.


Wie man diese Fälle taggt, hängt dennoch davon ab, als was man sie sieht. 
Man darf Ebenen / Becken (geomorph.) / Becken (geolog.) nicht durcheinander 
bringen, und beim Marchfeld denke ich eher an die Landwirtschaft als an die 
Ebene.


natural=basin erfordert 

Re: [Talk-lv] Valmieras apkaimju robežas

[Instigater via Talk-lv]

Vietējie gan brīnās par līdz šim nedzirdētiem apkaimju nosaukumiem. :D


On 07.08.20 15:58, Peteris Bruns wrote:
> Dati jau ir iekš open data, var ņemt no turienes.
> Priekā!
> https://data.gov.lv/dati/lv/dataset/apkaimes
>
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 15:53, pec...@gmail.com
>  mailto:pec...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Sveiki! :)
>
> 
> https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/valmiera-noteikusi-un-publice-pilsetas-apkaimju-robezas.a369701/?utm_source=MLpoust_campaign=news_medium=soc
>
> Zinu Valmiera daudziem tuva, drošvien pāris stundu darbs savadīt.
>
> Pēteris.
>
> ___
> Talk-lv mailing list
> Talk-lv@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lv
>
>
>
> -- 
> pb
>
> ___
> Talk-lv mailing list
> Talk-lv@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lv

-- 
Instigater
Serveru noma Eiropas Savienības datu centrā - sākot no 13 EUR/mēn.
www.projektam.lv

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Défibrillateur et tag name=*

[Éric Gillet]

Le 07/08/2020 à 10:10, Yves P. a écrit :
soit trop "simple" (Mairie) et ne correspondant pas à un panneau sur 
place ou un "identifiant".

Le panneau c'est le gros texte gravé sur la façade du dit établissement ;D

Si tu parles d'une étiquette officielle apposée sur l'appareil, 
effectivement non.


C'est pour répondre à ton exemple d'arrêt de bus, qui lui a sûrement une 
étiquette.



Mais cette info est dans le fichier GeoDAE.
En effet. Mais souvent dans les jeux de données il y a des infos 
fausses, subjectives ou redondantes. Pas tout est bon à prendre.



Pour "A droite au fond du couloir", je ne vois pas de tag qui décrit ça ;)


Avec le level, la position dans OSM et les panneaux sur place ça doit 
suffire largement. Si ça suffit pas, il y a un problème d'accessibilité 
du DAE.

Le cas échéant, defibrilator:location + signalement aux entités concernées.


Un exemple réel : "À gauche au fond du couloir, devant l'infirmerie"
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6323423304

Merci pour l'exemple. On dirait que l'infirmerie n'est pas 
cartographiée, ça réglerait le problème sans tag dédié pour le DAE.



Dans un listing, il manque une info essentielle : "Collège des Lacs"


Pourquoi pas "Infirmerie" ? Ou "Collège" ? Ou "Collège de 
Clairvaux-les-Lacs" ? Le nom n'est toujours pas pertinent à mon avis.


Autre tag manquant : access=customers ou access=private. Je connais pas 
ce collège, mais à ma connaissance en général ils ne laissent pas 
rentrer le public, donc le DAE n'est pas vraiment accessible au public



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

[Talk-TW] weeklyOSM #523 2020-07-21-2020-07-26

[weeklyteam]

台灣社群朋友好：
每週 OSM 新聞匯集文摘，# 523 期，如今已經發佈台灣華語版本，涵蓋開放街圖世界的大小事情！

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/zh/archives/13451/

歡迎閱讀！

你知道你能提供消息給 weeklyOSM 小組嗎？只要用 OSM 帳號登入 https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login 
就可以了。關於怎麼撰寫的方式請參閱：http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
誰：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
那裡呢？：https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-TW mailing list
Talk-TW@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Défibrillateur et tag name=*

[Jacques Lavignotte]

Le 07/08/2020 à 10:10, Yves P. a écrit :

"Premier étage" oui. En plus la valeur du tag peut-être traduite en 
différentes langues.

Pour "A droite au fond du couloir", je ne vois pas de tag qui décrit ça ;)

Un exemple réel : "À gauche au fond du couloir, devant l'infirmerie"


Un autre exemple réel :

defibrillator:location = Dans le renforcement, situé sur le mur en 
pierre à l'arrière de la mairie, près du parc de la salle des fêtes, en 
face de la bibliothèque et de la cour de l'école


:(



Yves


J.

--
GnuPg : 156520BBC8F5B1E3 Because privacy matters.
« Quand est-ce qu'on mange ? » AD (c) (tm)

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Heritage Week 2020

[Brian Hollinshead]

I get 404 page not found if I use the linK?

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 13:59, Tadeusz Cantwell  wrote:

> As part of Heritage Week 2020, we plan to join mappers and local history
> enthusiasts to enhance the neglected midlands.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.ie/putting-clonmels-history-on-the-map/t
> ___
> 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] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Francois Gerin]

Thanks to Pieter for the link https://www.openhistoricalmap.org
=> It deserves more visibility/publicity I think, so as to improve the 
cleaning of the main OSM DB...


I'm contributing a lot to balnam too. I make use of it a lot, exactly to 
ensure or recover missing paths.

Most of the time (80-90%), balnam does the job well and quickly.
For the rest, I personally contact the local public authority. In the 
past, it was not efficient at all and quite discouraging... But now that 
slow/sweet mobility is more and more a public topic, I noticed that many 
local authorities changed their mind and quickly take actions when I 
warn them about some issue.
=> Just got several good results in Andenne (usually never responding) 
and Fernelmont (depending on the contact person).


My reactions to the user's comments:

*Comment 1*: Not valid, they try what they can, but they have nothing. 
The trick is just a question of communication and the way to address the 
point. Just got a serious case again on path 73 in Sclayn 
, but it's the last one of a 
long series, which allowed me to refine my approach.
=> Balnam is definitely the way to go, they indeed use also various 
maps, including federal ones that are no more accessible to us. Also, 
the local authorities have access to these maps, we still made use of 
them in Andenne in July.


*Comment 2*: The IGN failure is a distinct story. Sad for them, but not 
related to the topic. There are regulations, local authorities have to 
comply to them. I never and will probably never make use of IGN anymore, 
they're "dead" because they did not adapt to the modern reality. Even 
the military guys I met in the woods of Marche-les-Dames use OSM, more 
up to date...
Again, nowadays local authorities eventually comply and react, much more 
than a few years ago. The best is to make use of this!


*Comment 3*: The user points himself exactly to balnam... Red lines are 
very visible, much more than a simple OSM map, and make a good support 
for the discussion with local authorities. Just for the demo, look at 
all the paths that were suppressed in the area of Groyenne 
. The balnam layer makes it 
very clear...


The main point is that balnam is based on volunteers, it's not an 
official service. But here again, due to the recent changes I'm quite 
convinced that things are evolving in the good direction: more and more 
people use balnam, more and more local authorities face discussions on 
this, more and more people contribute to surveillance... The recent 
results I got were not possible a few years ago, now they are. At some 
point, there will be a public service to take over balnam... That's a 
good way to force a reaction. Once enough people are aware, public 
figures take care of the topic, and here it's very positive.


=> If the user wishes, he can contact me: fgerin on OSM, fge1 on balnam.

++
F


On 7/08/20 13:50, Matthieu wrote:

Thanks for these clarifications.

The user agreed to revert, not without explaining why he still 
believes that the ways should be mapped. I quote him below for the 
completeness. I advised him to use balsam (ironically he *IS* a balnam 
volunteer !), will refer it to OHM too.


Le premier réflexe qu'a un accapareur lorsqu'il est confronté à des 
autorités communales est le plus souvent d'indiquer que la voirie 
n'existe même pas sur carte, le deuxième sera de dire qu'elle n'est 
pas visible sur les photos aériennes.
Bref, je crois qu'on est pas du tout sur la même longueur d'onde et 
je le regrette.


Pour la petite histoire, un nombre important de voiries ont disparu 
_*suite*_ au fait qu'elles n'étaient plus reprises sur l'IGN (souvent 
par négligence des géographes de terrain)
La voirie que vous voulez pouvoir utiliser sans que le propriétaire 
du manège ne vous interpelle est un voirie innomée sans véritable 
statut tant qu'elle n'a pas été reconnue comme communale par la 
commune (procédure longue et difficile, actuellement rarement mise en 
oeuvre). C'est une voirie privée.


Pour tenter de la rendre communale, la méthode la plus 
souvent utilisée est d'indiquer au riverain toutes les voiries qui 
ont disparues (qu'il a volé), cette disposition permet de 
"culpabiliser" l'accapareur qui, bien souvent, accepte par la suite 
certaines concessions.


*Je m'incline et j'enlève d'OSM les voiries publiques accaparées 
autour des Hayettes.*




Matthieu

On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:44, Pieter Vander Vennet > wrote:


Hey everyone,

Mapping long-erased paths (and other old features) can be done on 
OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .


The correct way to put pressure on the municipality is to work 
together with Balnam.be  (in Wallonia) or Trage 
Wegen VZW (for Flanders). They have this kind of experience and they 
know which historical sources to use (such as the 'atlas trage 
buurtwegen' and a 

[OSM-talk-fr] Photos — Re: Projet du mois de septembre (en préparation) : défibrillateurs !

[Yves P.]

>> Comment publier des photos utiles ?
>> Une, deux ?
> 
> Une : https://postimg.cc/zHk0cms3 
Avec l'expérience des PEI ("bornes" incendie), je soutiens qu'il en faut 
parfois plus :
Une ou plusieurs pour situer le DAE.
Une de près pour voir le modèle, son état (à l'instant t).
Eventuellement une autre pour voir les infos sur les étiquettes (nom du 
fabriquant, du modèle, raison sociale, coordonnée du responsable, date de la 
prochaine maintenance, de remplacement des électrodes, de remplacement de la 
batterie).

>> Sur quel site ?
Mapillary :
Certains y sont hostiles depuis le rachat par Facebook.
De plus, pas évident de mettre une seule photo. Pas de système de tags pour 
regrouper les photos d'un même objet.

Wikimedia Commons :
Photos libre de droits, souvent de qualité.
Catégories pour regrouper les photos d'un même objet ou d'un même sujet.
Bonus, on peut mettre le modèle {{On OSM|type=node|OSM_ID=6274037529}}  qui 
permet de retrouver l'objet dans OSM (et faire de la pub à notre projet)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DAE,_Jura_(France)_01.jpg 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DAE,_Jura_(France)_02.jpg 




>> Dans quels champs ?
> 
> image=*
Ce tag est trop permissif car il ne filtre pas les sources.
Tu peux même mettre un lien sur postimg.cc  qui va afficher 
de la pub, ne respecter aucune licence ;)

Si les photos viennent de Mapillary, le tag ad hoc est mapillary.
Idem pour Wikimedia Commons.

Je rajoute comment ?

Si on accepte plusieurs photos, il faut? un tag qui "accepte" des valeurs 
multiples ;)

Est-ce que "toutes" les applis gèrent correctement :
wikimedia_commons=File:DAE,_Jura_(France)_01.jpg 
;File:DAE,_Jura_(France)_02.jpg
 
image=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/DAE%2C_Jura_%28France%29_02.jpg;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/DAE%2C_Jura_%28France%29_01.jpg
 

mapillary=YiV_q27qaVxKpy6ZGHzK1g 
;tLHykPTfGg5qT0GZuj8KDA
 
;6OtqJuD1iQUq4_IKN0LV3w
 

image=https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/YiV_q27qaVxKpy6ZGHzK1g 
;https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tLHykPTfGg5qT0GZuj8KDA;https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6OtqJuD1iQUq4_IKN0LV3w
 


Je rappel (encore) que les tags sont limités à 255 caractères ?

__
Yves


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

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:11 AM Doug Peterson <
dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org> wrote:

> I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to
> a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are
> fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway.
>

Can we get an example?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Défibrillateur et tag name=*

[Yves P.]

De Éric Gillet
> 
> Je pense qu'il vaut mieux pas de nom, car il sera soit trop long (Premier 
> étage mairie de Tourcoing),
name="Mairie" ou "Mairie de Tourcoing"

> soit trop "simple" (Mairie) et ne correspondant pas à un panneau sur place ou 
> un "identifiant".
Le panneau c'est le gros texte gravé sur la façade du dit établissement ;D

Si tu parles d'une étiquette officielle apposée sur l'appareil, effectivement 
non.
Mais cette info est dans le fichier GeoDAE.

> Pour indiquer la position à un humain : defibrillator:location="Premier étage 
> de la mairie à droite", mais même cet exemple peut être bien décrit avec les 
> tags :
> 
> level=1
> location=indoor
> opening_hours=*
> access=*
+1

"Premier étage" oui. En plus la valeur du tag peut-être traduite en différentes 
langues.
Pour "A droite au fond du couloir", je ne vois pas de tag qui décrit ça ;)

Un exemple réel : "À gauche au fond du couloir, devant l'infirmerie"
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6323423304 


Tient, je n'ai pas mis de tag name.

Dans un listing, il manque une info essentielle : "Collège des Lacs"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 8/4/20 13:16, dorothea at osmfoundation.org (Dorothea Kazazi) wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
> dispute resolution panel:
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispute-resolution-panel/
> 
> .. and is asking for comments and feedback.
> Please reply to this message ~ thank you.

I think this is a great idea and I would be interested in serving on the
panel. I do most of my edits with software besides iD (JOSM, Vespucci,
and StreetComplete), however I used iD almost exclusively for the first
2-3 years or so I contributed to OSM and still use iD from time to time
(mainly to make quick edits and map turn restrictions).

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

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

Re: [Talk-lv] Valmieras apkaimju robežas

[Peteris Bruns]

Dati jau ir iekš open data, var ņemt no turienes.
Priekā!
https://data.gov.lv/dati/lv/dataset/apkaimes

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 15:53, pec...@gmail.com  wrote:

> Sveiki! :)
>
>
> https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/valmiera-noteikusi-un-publice-pilsetas-apkaimju-robezas.a369701/?utm_source=MLpoust_campaign=news_medium=soc
>
> Zinu Valmiera daudziem tuva, drošvien pāris stundu darbs savadīt.
>
> Pēteris.
>
> ___
> Talk-lv mailing list
> Talk-lv@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lv
>


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

[OSM-talk-ie] Heritage Week 2020

[Tadeusz Cantwell]

As part of Heritage Week 2020, we plan to join mappers and local history
enthusiasts to enhance the neglected midlands.

https://www.openstreetmap.ie/putting-clonmels-history-on-the-map/t
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

[Talk-lv] Valmieras apkaimju robežas

[pec...@gmail.com]

Sveiki! :)

https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/valmiera-noteikusi-un-publice-pilsetas-apkaimju-robezas.a369701/?utm_source=MLpoust_campaign=news_medium=soc

Zinu Valmiera daudziem tuva, drošvien pāris stundu darbs savadīt.

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

Re: [talk-cz] Značky highway_1 v datech

[majkaz]

Zrovna dělám ten Týn nad Vltavou, kde to nejspíš vypadá na Pokemony :)
 
Konkrétní příklad:
 
V datech:
highway=tertiary, highway_1=footway, highway_2=path, highway_3=cycleway a k 
tomu ještě bicycle=yes
Ve skutečnosti:
Trojka procházející vsí, bez chodníku. Na ní není vůbec nic značené, zkrátka 
typický průjezd obcí, i když úzký.
Změnit: v tomhle případě mažu všechno mimo highway=tertiary
 
 
Jiný příklad, ve městě:
highway=residential, access=no, highway_1=cycleway + k tomu tudy vedená 
cyklotrasa
Ve skutečnosti:
ulice relativně nově se zákazem vjezdu všeho, cyklotrasu samozřejmě nikdo 
nepřeznačil, a ani jinudy nejde
změněno na highway=residential, vehicle=no, cyklotrasa ponechaná
 
 
Jde mi o to zkontrolovat, jestli náhodou to highway_(něco) nechce říct že tam 
je chodník, cyklostezka, cyklopruh, zkrátka nevím co ještě by dotyčný mohl 
takhle zadat. Chce to prohlédnout všechny ty hodnoty, vybrat co platí, a 
skončit jen s highway=něco. K tomu případně přidat značky přístupu, chodníku, 
cyklostezky, tedy nepřipravit se o nějaká data.
 
Majka
 
__

Od: "Pavel Machek" 
Komu: "OpenStreetMap Czech Republic" 
Datum: 07.08.2020 14:31
Předmět: Re: [talk-cz] Značky highway_1 v datech


Ahoj!

> Narazila jsem v datech na to, že máme některé silnice zmapované i pomocí 
značek highway_1/2/...
> Je jich pár v okolí Prahy, pak Vltavotýnsko a zbytek je na Moravě, především 
mezi Brnem a Olomoucí.
>  
> Bylo by dobře to projít a naházet ty značky nějak smysluplně, nejlépe někdo, kdo ví, jak to na dané 
silnici aktuálně vypadá. Pro zájemce: dotaz na overpass >, výzva maproulette 
>
> To Vltavotýnsko nějak dám dohromady.

Uplne nechapu (a ani maproulette nepomohla) ... co presne znamena / ma
znamenat to highway_1 a jak se to ma opravit?

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 

https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz 

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

Re: [Talk-it] OpenStreetMap compie 16 anni

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Grazie Anisa per l'idea!

Cercherò di mandare qualcosa :-)

Ale

On 06/08/20 16:19, Anisa Kuci wrote:


Ciao a tutti,

Quest'anno OSM compie 16 anni! \o/

Paesi di tutto il mondo hanno organizzato piccole iniziative per 
festeggiare il 16° compleanno 
 
questo fine settimana.


Mi sarebbe piaciuto proporre un incontro di persona, in modo che 
potessimo avere la possibilità di vederci e incontrarci, ma come tutti 
sappiamo non è possibile vista la situazione.


Allora, adattiamoci!

Ognuno manda gli auguri di compleanno a OSM da qualsiasi luogo si 
trovi, pubblicando su Facebook o Twitter una foto del suo gadget OSM 
più interessante o una foto propria con il gadget OSM o foto di cosa 
sta attualmente mappando in OSM.
Per favore taggate OSM Italia o inviatemi i link dei vostri post in 
modo da poterli poi condividere dai canali di OSM Italia (Facebook - 
@OpenStreeMap.Italia  
/ Twitter - @OpenStreetMapIt ), e 
non dimentichiamoci di usare l'hashtag #OpenStreetMap16. :D


Per chi non ha un account sui social, mandatemi entro questo weekend 
su telegram (AnisaKuci) o email una delle foto qui sopra e un'augurio 
e farò un album da condividere nei social di OSM Italia.


Grazie mille a tutti e buona mappatura,

Anisa

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

DAI ALLA CONOSCENZA LIBERA UN NUOVO NOME. IL TUO.
Devolvi il 5x1000 a Wikimedia Italia:
nella tua dichiarazione dei redditi inserisci il Codice Fiscale 94039910156

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

[Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[Doug Peterson]

I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to a 
designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are fine. 
It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway. 

I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything addressing 
crossings. There was one screenshot that seemed to show intersections or 
crossings with roads remaining as cycleways. Before I made any effort on 
changing these back I wanted to ask if there was any other knowledge out there 
about this.

Thanks,

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Pieter Vander Vennet]

Hey everyone,

Mapping long-erased paths (and other old features) can be done on
OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .

The correct way to put pressure on the municipality is to work together
with Balnam.be (in Wallonia) or Trage Wegen VZW (for Flanders). They
have this kind of experience and they know which historical sources to
use (such as the 'atlas trage buurtwegen' and a whole heap of different
maps).

Even though I sympathise deeply with the contributor, OSM is not a place
for razed paths - it clutters the database too much and it becomes very
unclear what is in scope for OSM. Do we map razed buildings too? When do
we delete them? When they are razed 5yrs ago? 10yrs ago? 100yrs  ago?
Again, all these /are/ welcome in OpenHistoricalMap, where there is some
support by giving end-dates.

To touch on the topic of Wegspotter - he too mapped a lot of razed roads
which frustrated many within the community. Due to some stupid techical
issue, it took a long time before the community could get in touch with
him. Once we finally got in touch, we could synchronize and align.

Kind regards, Pieter

On 07.08.20 08:53, joost schouppe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths
> somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous
> discussions that there is some consensus that paths that are really,
> really gone (there's a building on top; or there's a lot of fences or
> overgrowth; it doesn't re-appear from time to time) do not belong in
> OSM at all. Then again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to
> clean them out of the database.
>
> When someone starts adding a lot of this kind of path as an actual
> highway type, then they should be stopped.
>
> Mathieu,
> You say "He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those
> paths was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a
> discussion about the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths
> for the general public. He promised to delete the date once the case
> will be closed."
> I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in
> private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some
> other people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still
> change their mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes.
>
> Best,
> Joost
>
> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet
> mailto:matth...@gaillet.be>>:
>
> Good point. 
>
> A search led me to this
> discussion 
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
>  which
> emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes. 
>
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>
>
>
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie > > a écrit :
>>
>>  Hello,
>>
>> In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist
>> anymore. I didn't want to delete his work complete and
>> deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left
>> name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the
>> usual map
>> but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special
>> historic map.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Erik
>>
>>
>> Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have
>>> deleted some bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as
>>> fixme:highway for now. The user also didn't snap roads to the
>>> rest of the road network properly.
>>> If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a
>>> user block. A convincing argument for them to do the work
>>> properly could be that we might be forced to just revert all
>>> their work.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Joost
>>>
>>> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck
>>> mailto:wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the
>>> aims of the mapper. I also have been working with
>>> communities to keep vicinal ways open. I am also aware that
>>> certain ways are only accessible certain times of the year
>>> due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the
>>> moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the
>>> year. In general I advocate leaving paths through fields
>>> (even plowed) that are legal rights of way. My reasoning is
>>> that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind of path
>>> will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of
>>> way crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense
>>> to put those in OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the
>>> changesets that you linked to. I didn't like what I saw.
>>> People who want to 

[OSM-talk-be] Mapping disapPeared vicinal paths

[Philippe Casteleyn]

Is there a difference with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/wegspotter/history#map=10/50.9708/4.1934=C
except that wegspotter
-knows how to map
-always gives answers
?
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Matthieu]

Thanks for these clarifications.

The user agreed to revert, not without explaining why he still believes that 
the ways should be mapped. I quote him below for the completeness. I advised 
him to use balsam (ironically he *IS* a balnam volunteer !), will refer it to 
OHM too.

> Le premier réflexe qu'a un accapareur lorsqu'il est confronté à des autorités 
> communales est le plus souvent d'indiquer que la voirie n'existe même pas sur 
> carte, le deuxième sera de dire qu'elle n'est pas visible sur les photos 
> aériennes.
> Bref, je crois qu'on est pas du tout sur la même longueur d'onde et je le 
> regrette.

> Pour la petite histoire, un nombre important de voiries ont disparu suite au 
> fait qu'elles n'étaient plus reprises sur l'IGN (souvent par négligence des 
> géographes de terrain) 
> La voirie que vous voulez pouvoir utiliser sans que le propriétaire du manège 
> ne vous interpelle est un voirie innomée sans véritable statut tant qu'elle 
> n'a pas été reconnue comme communale par la commune (procédure longue et 
> difficile, actuellement rarement mise en oeuvre). C'est une voirie privée.

> Pour tenter de la rendre communale, la méthode la plus souvent utilisée est 
> d'indiquer au riverain toutes les voiries qui ont disparues (qu'il a volé), 
> cette disposition permet de "culpabiliser" l'accapareur qui, bien souvent, 
> accepte par la suite certaines concessions.

> Je m'incline et j'enlève d'OSM les voiries publiques accaparées autour des 
> Hayettes.
> 

Matthieu

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:44, Pieter Vander Vennet  wrote:
> 
> Hey everyone,
> 
> Mapping long-erased paths (and other old features) can be done on 
> OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ 
>  . 
> 
> The correct way to put pressure on the municipality is to work together with 
> Balnam.be (in Wallonia) or Trage Wegen VZW (for   Flanders). They have 
> this kind of experience and they know which historical sources to use (such 
> as the 'atlas trage buurtwegen' and a whole heap of different maps).
> 
> Even though I sympathise deeply with the contributor, OSM is not a place for 
> razed paths - it clutters the database too much and it becomes very unclear 
> what is in scope for OSM. Do we map razed buildings too? When do we delete 
> them? When they are razed 5yrs ago? 10yrs ago? 100yrs  ago? Again, all these 
> are welcome in OpenHistoricalMap, where there is some support by giving 
> end-dates.
> 
> To touch on the topic of Wegspotter - he too mapped a lot of razed roads 
> which frustrated many within the community. Due to some stupid techical 
> issue, it took a long time before the community could get in touch with him. 
> Once we finally got in touch, we could synchronize and align.
> 
> Kind regards, Pieter
> 
> On 07.08.20 08:53, joost schouppe wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths 
>> somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous discussions 
>> that there is some consensus that paths that are really, really gone 
>> (there's a building on top; or there's a lot of fences or overgrowth; it 
>> doesn't re-appear from time to time) do not belong in OSM at all. Then 
>> again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to clean them out of the 
>> database.
>> 
>> When someone starts adding a lot of this kind of path as an actual highway 
>> type, then they should be stopped.
>> 
>> Mathieu,
>> You say "He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths 
>> was a way to put pressure on the Commune   and the owner in a 
>> discussion about the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the 
>> general public. He promised to delete the date once the case will be closed."
>> I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in 
>> private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some other 
>> people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still change their 
>> mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Joost
>> 
>> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet > >:
>> Good point. 
>> 
>> A search led me to this discussion 
>> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
>>  
>> 
>>  which emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes. 
>> 
>> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>>> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie mailto:ebe...@gmail.com>> 
>>> a écrit :
>>> 
>>>  Hello,
>>> 
>>> In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist anymore. 
>>> I didn't want to delete his work complete and 
>>> deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left 
>>> name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map
>>> but it is visible in an editor 

Re: [talk-cz] Značky highway_1 v datech

[Pavel Machek]

Ahoj!

> Narazila jsem v datech na to, že máme některé silnice zmapované i pomocí 
> značek highway_1/2/...
> Je jich pár v okolí Prahy, pak Vltavotýnsko a zbytek je na Moravě, především 
> mezi Brnem a Olomoucí.
>  
> Bylo by dobře to projít a naházet ty značky nějak smysluplně, nejlépe někdo, 
> kdo ví, jak to na dané silnici aktuálně vypadá. Pro zájemce: dotaz na 
> overpass , výzva maproulette 
> 
> To Vltavotýnsko nějak dám dohromady.

Uplne nechapu (a ani maproulette nepomohla) ... co presne znamena / ma
znamenat to highway_1 a jak se to ma opravit?

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


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

[talk-cz] Značky highway_1 v datech

[majkaz]

Ahoj všem.
 
Narazila jsem v datech na to, že máme některé silnice zmapované i pomocí značek 
highway_1/2/...
Je jich pár v okolí Prahy, pak Vltavotýnsko a zbytek je na Moravě, především 
mezi Brnem a Olomoucí.
 
Bylo by dobře to projít a naházet ty značky nějak smysluplně, nejlépe někdo, kdo ví, jak to 
na dané silnici aktuálně vypadá. Pro zájemce: dotaz na overpass 
, výzva maproulette 

To Vltavotýnsko nějak dám dohromady.
 
Majka

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

[Talk-at] Regionen mappen

[Florian Kratochwil]

Liebe Liste!

  Ich habe in den letzten Wochen ein paar sterreichische Regionen 
gemappt. Ich finde nmlich, dass diese in der Gesellschaft bekannten 
Bezeichnungen wichtig sind in OSM. Wenn eine Karte nicht "wei", wo oder 
was das Waldviertel ist, dann ist das peinlich.

  Dabei habe ich bemerkt, dass 1) es verschiedene Regionstypen gibt, die nicht 
einfach kategorisierbar sind und 2) kein eindeutiges Tagging-Schema dazu 
etabliert ist.

  Bevor ich weitermache (oder whrenddessen), wollte ich Feedback von euch 
einholen.

  Einleitung: Es gibt verschiedene Regionstypen:
  Regionen knnen begrenzt sein durch Grenzen einer oder mehrerer 
Kategorien. Politische, geografische, wirtschaftliche, klimatische, kulturelle, 
landschaftliche, ...

  a) "Viertel": zB Weinviertel, Waldviertel oder Mhlviertel: Die sind 
landschaftlich unterscheidbar, durch ihre Geologie, ihre landwirtschaftliche 
Nutzung, ihr Klima. Sie haben auch Grenzverlufe entlang politischer 
Grenzen (Staatsgrenze zu Tschechien, Grenze zw N und O). Die 
Regionen selbst haben keine politische Wirksamkeit (es gibt in N zwar 5 
"Hauptregionen", wovon das Wald- und das Weinviertel welche sind, aber diese 
Hauptregionen wollte ich nicht eintragen. In den Hauptregionen gibt es 
nmlich Unterschiede zu den klassischen Vierteln, weil wenn eine Gemeinde 
Teile im Wein- und Teile im Waldviertel hat, dann zhlt das nur zu einer 
Hauptregion).

  Ich habe Fall a) als place=region und region:type=natural_area gemappt (Anm.: 
OpenTopoMap rendert Regionen, sobald es ein region:type gibt). Mit dem 
region:type-key bin ich nicht 100% zufrieden, wollte aber vorerst nichts neues 
erfinden. Es gibt bei region:type bis auf mountain_area noch keine 
Wiki-Empfehlungen. Vielleicht region:type=landscape, weil das Aussehen wird 
sehr vom Menschen (durch die Landwirtschaft und die Siedlungsstruktur) 
geprgt, ist also nicht "natrlich".


  b) "Ebenen": zB Tullnerfeld, Eferdinger Becken, Marchfeld, Machland: Diese 
Gebiete haben meistens einen Gebirgszug am Rand, aber nicht immer (zB das 
Marchfeld ist durch die Donauauen im Sden begrenzt) und werden intensiv 
landwirtschaftlich genutzt. Ich habe das getrennt in "Grenze ist rein 
topografisch" (Fall b1) und "die Grenze setzt sich zusammen aus topografischen 
und anderen Grenzen" (Fall b2).

  Ich habe Fall b1 als place=region und region:type=basin und Fall b2 als 
place=region und region:type=natural_area (also wie Fall a) getaggt. Auch hier 
gefiele mir region:type=landscape besser

  Und jetzt habe ich entdeckt: natural=plain, zum Beispiel genutzt beim Wiener 
Becken und natural=basin (einige Male genutzt in der Slowakei).

  --> Was meint ihr: Ist Fall b1 eher natural=plain / natural=basin als 
place=region? Ich finde: Wenn mountain_area ein place=region ist und kein 
natural (so stehts im Wiki) dann ist auch ein Becken ein place_region.
  Anmerkung: zum mountain_area gab es eine Diskussion im deutschen Forum: 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=16094 und es ist auch 
natural=mountain_range in Verwendung.


  c) Gebiete, die aus wirtschaftlicher Betrachtung zusammengefasst werden, zB 
das Fragnerland. Diese Regionsbezeichnung habe ich auf ein paar Schildern 
(Wegweiser, Betriebe-in-der-Region-Tafeln) entdeckt und mich dann erkundigt, 
was das ist. Das Fragnerland ist eine Bezeichnung von ein paar Gemeindem am 
Rand des Wienerwalds, von denen aus frher Hndler ("Fragner") nach 
Wien gezogen sind. Der Begriff wird jetzt von einem Verein weitgefhrt, 
der die Zusammenarbeit dieser Gemeinden strken soll.
  Ich habe das als place=region gemappt, aber mir ist kein region:type 
eingefallen. Vielleicht "economic"?

  d) Die Wachau: Die hat den Sonderfall, dass sie Unesco-geschtzt ist und 
dort explizit "Kulturlandschaft" heit. Ich habe sie als place=region und 
region:type=culutral_landscape getaggt.

  Zusammenfassend:
  Ich habe alles als place=region getaggt
  Ich habe teilweise region:type Werte erfunden bzw. noch keine eingetragen.
  Fr rein topografisch begrenze Regionen gibt es mit natural=basin bzw. 
natural=plain bereits (selten) genutzte Alternativen

  Hilfreiche Links:
  Taginfo place=region 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/place=region#overview
  Taginfo region:type 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/region%3Atype#values
  Taginfo natural=mountain_range 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=mountain_range#overview
  Taginfo natural (basin, plain knnten passen) 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/natural#values
  Overpass natural=plain https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WPW
  Overpass natural=basin https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WPY
  OpenTopoMap als Beispiel, wie Regionen gerendert werden knnen: 
https://opentopomap.org/#map=9/48.3955/15.5017

  Habt ihr Kommentare dazu?

  lg
  Florian

  ps: Ich habe es als Relationen oder Polygone gemappt, je nach 
Gre und Vorhandensein von Linien.
  pps: Weil die Opentopomap nicht so oft neu rendert, sind noch nicht alle 
Regionen, die ich zuletzt gemappt 

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Projet du mois de septembre (en préparation) : défibrillateurs !

[Yves P.]

De Jean-Yvon
> Renseigner le SIREN ne me semble pas [valoir] le coût/coup.
> Car au mieux tu auras des stats sur les données entrées dans OSM sur une 
> donnée peu motivante (on ne va pas sauver quelqu'un avec un numéro SIREN).
> 
+1

Cette info peut directement être obtenue à partir du tag ref:FR:GeoDAE

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Projet du mois de septembre (en préparation) : défibrillateurs !

[Yves P.]

Philippe Verdy
> pour les DAE, il doit pouvoir recevoir tout le monde, c'et bien pour ça que 
> l'obligation d'équipement impose la pose à l'extérieur et non à l'intérieur 
> dans les espaces privés


Il n'y a d'obligation que pour certains types d'ERP :
-  Si votre établissement correspond à un ERP de catégorie 1,2,3, vous avez 
pour obligation de détenir un DAE à partir du 1er janvier 20201.

-  Si votre établissement correspond à un ERP de catégorie 4, cette 
obligation entrera en vigueur à partir du 1er janvier 2021.

-  Si votre établissement fait partie des 7 types d’établissements de la 
catégorie 5 concernés par cette loi, alors vous devrez vous munir d’un DAE à 
partir du 1er janvier 2022. 

(source: FAQ de GeoDAE 
)
Concrètement, quels sont ces ERPs ?

__
Yves

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[Matthieu Gaillet]

First of all : thanks all for sharing your thoughts and insight. I learned a 
lot. I believe that this case, which as I discovered was already discussed 
should be clarified and documented on the wiki, but that’s another story.

> 
> While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths 
> somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous discussions that 
> there is some consensus that paths that are really, really gone (there's a 
> building on top; or there's a lot of fences or overgrowth; it doesn't 
> re-appear from time to time) do not belong in OSM at all.

That’s also my understanding : generally speaking ghost or historic 
(disappeared) objects don’t belong to OSM. The only exception I’m aware of are 
old (removed) railways that can be mapped but it makes sense since the space 
used by that railway is generally still visible.

> Then again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to clean them out of 
> the database.

I do. Each time I encounter a not existent path I contact the contributor and 
generally end up deleting it.

> You say "He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those paths 
> was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a discussion about 
> the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for the general public. 
> He promised to delete the date once the case will be closed."
> I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in 
> private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some other 
> people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still change their 
> mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes.

Yes, I contacted him privately. I kindly explained him (twice) that the 
community was largely against such kind of (poor) mapping and that he had to 
revert. I offered him help for his future edits (he’s novice as far as I can 
tell). I’m waiting for his answer. I believe there is not much more time to 
spend on this case which is pretty straightforward.

Matthieu

> 
> Best,
> Joost
> 
> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet  >:
> Good point. 
> 
> A search led me to this discussion 
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
>  
> 
>  which emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes. 
> 
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
> 
> 
> 
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie mailto:ebe...@gmail.com>> a 
>> écrit :
>> 
>>  Hello,
>> 
>> In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist anymore. I 
>> didn't want to delete his work complete and 
>> deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left name=Voetweg 
>> SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map
>> but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special historic map.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Erik
>> 
>> 
>> Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted some 
>>> bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now. The user 
>>> also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly. 
>>> If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user block. 
>>> A convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be that we 
>>> might be forced to just revert all their work.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Joost
>>> 
>>> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck 
>>> mailto:wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>>:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims of the 
>>> mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep vicinal ways 
>>> open. I am also aware that certain ways are only accessible certain times 
>>> of the year due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the 
>>> moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the year. In general I 
>>> advocate leaving paths through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights 
>>> of way. My reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind 
>>> of path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way 
>>> crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put those in 
>>> OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
>>> 
>>> With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets that you 
>>> linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to check only one 
>>> example, this is a good one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389 
>>>  There is no place in OSM for 
>>> that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing the situation on the ground, 
>>> it is clear to me that nobody will try to follow that track. So I would say 
>>> to revert changes like that.
>>> 
>>> As for the arguments of the mapper:
>>> * Putting something in OSM does not put any 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping disaperead vicinal paths

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

While I don't mind disused:* and razed:* to keep these kinds of paths
somewhere in the database, it is my impression from previous discussions
that there is some consensus that paths that are really, really gone
(there's a building on top; or there's a lot of fences or overgrowth; it
doesn't re-appear from time to time) do not belong in OSM at all. Then
again, I've never seen anyone make a real effort to clean them out of the
database.

When someone starts adding a lot of this kind of path as an actual highway
type, then they should be stopped.

Mathieu,
You say "He denied reverting the changeset, arguing that mapping those
paths was a way to put pressure on the Commune and the owner in a
discussion about the openness and accessibility of surrounding paths for
the general public. He promised to delete the date once the case will be
closed."
I only see one changeset discussion, so I assume you discussed this in
private messages? If you make a few changeset comments, maybe some other
people can join the discussion there. Hopefully we can still change their
mind about this; if not we'll need to revert some changes.

Best,
Joost

Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 22:36 schreef Matthieu Gaillet :

> Good point.
>
> A search led me to this discussion
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
>  which
> emphasizes the use of the disuse: or abandoned: prefixes.
>
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>
>
>
> Matthieu G.  (en mode mobile)
>
> Le 6 août 2020 à 22:15, EeBie  a écrit :
>
>  Hello,
>
> In my neighbourhood somone mapped paths and ways that don't exist anymore.
> I didn't want to delete his work complete and
> deleted highway=path and replaced it by  historic=path and left
> name=Voetweg SLH°82. In this way the path isn't visible in the usual map
> but it is visible in an editor and in an eventual special historic map.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
>
> Op 6/08/2020 om 13:00 schreef joost schouppe:
>
> Hi,
>
> The example Wouter showed hurt my eyes too much, so I have deleted some
> bits; I marked a few that maybe exist as fixme:highway for now. The user
> also didn't snap roads to the rest of the road network properly.
> If they don't respond to comments, we might have to consider a user block.
> A convincing argument for them to do the work properly could be that we
> might be forced to just revert all their work.
>
> Best,
> Joost
>
> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 10:45 schreef Wouter Hamelinck <
> wouter.hameli...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Let me start by saying that I have all the sympathy for the aims of the
>> mapper. I also have been working with communities to keep vicinal ways
>> open. I am also aware that certain ways are only accessible certain times
>> of the year due to vegetation etc. Even if a path is not visible at the
>> moment you pass there, it might be at other times of the year. In general I
>> advocate leaving paths through fields (even plowed) that are legal rights
>> of way. My reasoning is that as soon as you pass with a small group a kind
>> of path will be visible. On the other hand, if the legal right of way
>> crosses buildings, gardens, canals... it makes no sense to put those in
>> OSM. Nobody will ever follow those.
>>
>> With that in mind, I've taken a look at some of the changesets that you
>> linked to. I didn't like what I saw. People who want to check only one
>> example, this is a good one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/833838389
>> There is no place in OSM for that kind of legal fiction. Even not knowing
>> the situation on the ground, it is clear to me that nobody will try to
>> follow that track. So I would say to revert changes like that.
>>
>> As for the arguments of the mapper:
>> * Putting something in OSM does not put any pressure on the owner. Nobody
>> will be impressed by the argument "you have to keep the way open because I
>> just put it on a website where everybody can put things".
>> * It makes the data in OSM useless. The tracks in OSM are used on a daily
>> basis by many, many hikers. The presence of legal fictions in OSM makes it
>> useless for them. They don't care where they should be able to pass in
>> theory. They want to know where they can pass in reality.
>>
>> In conclusion, the mapper is trying to have some very dubious advantage
>> for his personal use and by doing that makes the data useless for all other
>> users. For me it is clear that those ways should be removed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wouter
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:21 AM Matthieu Gaillet 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Recently an user mapped a set of disappeared “communal” or "vicinal”
>>> ways. By disappeared I mean they are physically absolutely not existent on
>>> the ground. They were either plowed or constructions were built right on
>>> them.
>>>
>>> I believe it goes against the general rule that states that one might
>>> only map what’s visible on the field. Additionally the mapping itself was
>>> poorly done and the source mentioned was not