date:20201208

Always
Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com


On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:31 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Heather - A small group of the LCCWG met via BigBlueButton yesterday to
> start a similar initiative. I was going to send an invite to the rest of
> the LCCWG as well as to this mailing list. Since you have the ball rolling,
> can you include lo...@osmfoundation.org in the mailing.
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:22 PM Heather Leson 
> wrote:
>
>> Great. working in the draft now.
>>
>> Thank you right back. Saturday is just a way to discuss this restart. We
>> can keep building.
>>
>> Heather
>>
>> Heather Leson
>> heatherle...@gmail.com
>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
>> Blog: textontechs.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:10 PM Gertrude Namitala 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Heather for starting this. I will try to be available.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Trudy
>>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 23:05 Mikel Maron,  wrote:
>>>
 This is great

 * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






 On Tuesday, December 8, 2020, 03:55:49 PM EST, Heather Leson <
 heatherle...@gmail.com> wrote:





 Great!   Editing now
 Hope we can have an initial chat

 heather

 Heather Leson
 heatherle...@gmail.com
 Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
 Blog: textontechs.com


 On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:33 PM Rebecca Firth 
 wrote:
 > Hi Heather,
 >
 > Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around but
 really hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had already
 started working on a statement to share. I am sharing here for allies to
 add comments they would like to raise, and to identify people who are keen
 to move this work forward:
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
 >
 > Thanks,
 >
 > Rebecca
 >
 >
 >
 > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson 
 wrote:
 >> Hey
 >>
 >> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in
 osm. There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can
 also touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.
 >>
 >> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
 >>
 >> Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can
 always widen the circle later.
 >>
 >> Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space
 discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code.
 >>
 >> Thanks so much
 >>
 >>
 >> Heather
 >> ___
 >> Diversity-talk mailing list
 >> Code of Conduct:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
 >> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
 >>
 >
 >
 > --
 >
 >
 >
 ___
 Diversity-talk mailing list
 Code of Conduct:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
 Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

>>> ___
>> Diversity-talk mailing list
>> Code of Conduct:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
>> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of conduct

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Clifford Snow

Heather - A small group of the LCCWG met via BigBlueButton yesterday to
start a similar initiative. I was going to send an invite to the rest of
the LCCWG as well as to this mailing list. Since you have the ball rolling,
can you include lo...@osmfoundation.org in the mailing.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:22 PM Heather Leson  wrote:

> Great. working in the draft now.
>
> Thank you right back. Saturday is just a way to discuss this restart. We
> can keep building.
>
> Heather
>
> Heather Leson
> heatherle...@gmail.com
> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
> Blog: textontechs.com
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:10 PM Gertrude Namitala 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Heather for starting this. I will try to be available.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Trudy
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 23:05 Mikel Maron,  wrote:
>>
>>> This is great
>>>
>>> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020, 03:55:49 PM EST, Heather Leson <
>>> heatherle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Great!   Editing now
>>> Hope we can have an initial chat
>>>
>>> heather
>>>
>>> Heather Leson
>>> heatherle...@gmail.com
>>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
>>> Blog: textontechs.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:33 PM Rebecca Firth 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Heather,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around but
>>> really hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had already
>>> started working on a statement to share. I am sharing here for allies to
>>> add comments they would like to raise, and to identify people who are keen
>>> to move this work forward:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Rebecca
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Hey
>>> >>
>>> >> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in
>>> osm. There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can
>>> also touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.
>>> >>
>>> >> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
>>> >>
>>> >> Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can
>>> always widen the circle later.
>>> >>
>>> >> Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space
>>> discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks so much
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Heather
>>> >> ___
>>> >> Diversity-talk mailing list
>>> >> Code of Conduct:
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
>>> >> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ___
>>> Diversity-talk mailing list
>>> Code of Conduct:
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
>>> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>>
>> ___
> Diversity-talk mailing list
> Code of Conduct:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of conduct

Great. working in the draft now.

Thank you right back. Saturday is just a way to discuss this restart. We
can keep building.

Heather

Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com


On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:10 PM Gertrude Namitala 
wrote:

> Thanks Heather for starting this. I will try to be available.
>
> Kind regards,
> Trudy
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 23:05 Mikel Maron,  wrote:
>
>> This is great
>>
>> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020, 03:55:49 PM EST, Heather Leson <
>> heatherle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Great!   Editing now
>> Hope we can have an initial chat
>>
>> heather
>>
>> Heather Leson
>> heatherle...@gmail.com
>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
>> Blog: textontechs.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:33 PM Rebecca Firth 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Heather,
>> >
>> > Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around but
>> really hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had already
>> started working on a statement to share. I am sharing here for allies to
>> add comments they would like to raise, and to identify people who are keen
>> to move this work forward:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Rebecca
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson 
>> wrote:
>> >> Hey
>> >>
>> >> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in
>> osm. There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can
>> also touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.
>> >>
>> >> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
>> >>
>> >> Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can
>> always widen the circle later.
>> >>
>> >> Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space
>> discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks so much
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Heather
>> >> ___
>> >> Diversity-talk mailing list
>> >> Code of Conduct:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
>> >> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ___
>> Diversity-talk mailing list
>> Code of Conduct:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
>> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of conduct

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Gertrude Namitala

Thanks Heather for starting this. I will try to be available.

Kind regards,
Trudy

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 23:05 Mikel Maron,  wrote:

> This is great
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020, 03:55:49 PM EST, Heather Leson <
> heatherle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Great!   Editing now
> Hope we can have an initial chat
>
> heather
>
> Heather Leson
> heatherle...@gmail.com
> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
> Blog: textontechs.com
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:33 PM Rebecca Firth 
> wrote:
> > Hi Heather,
> >
> > Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around but
> really hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had already
> started working on a statement to share. I am sharing here for allies to
> add comments they would like to raise, and to identify people who are keen
> to move this work forward:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rebecca
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson 
> wrote:
> >> Hey
> >>
> >> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in
> osm. There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can
> also touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.
> >>
> >> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
> >>
> >> Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can always
> widen the circle later.
> >>
> >> Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space
> discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code.
> >>
> >> Thanks so much
> >>
> >>
> >> Heather
> >> ___
> >> Diversity-talk mailing list
> >> Code of Conduct:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
> >> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> ___
> Diversity-talk mailing list
> Code of Conduct:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of conduct

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Miriam Mapanauta

Hi Heather,
Thanks a lot for setting this up, I have other work commitments but I will
try to see if I can move anything. As Rebecca mentioned in Geochicas we
started the discussions yesterday and today this document was started. We
invite all to have a look and keep the discussion and action plan open.

Thanks to all,

Miriam

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020, 9:33 PM Rebecca Firth  wrote:

> Hi Heather,
>
> Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around but
> really hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had already
> started working on a statement to share. I am sharing here for allies to
> add comments they would like to raise, and to identify people who are keen
> to move this work forward:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rebecca
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey
>>
>> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in osm.
>> There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can also
>> touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.
>>
>> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
>>
>> Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can always
>> widen the circle later.
>>
>> Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space
>> discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code.
>>
>> Thanks so much
>>
>>
>> Heather
>> ___
>> Diversity-talk mailing list
>> Code of Conduct:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
>> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of conduct

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Mikel Maron

This is great

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Tuesday, December 8, 2020, 03:55:49 PM EST, Heather Leson 
 wrote: 





Great!   Editing now
Hope we can have an initial chat

heather

Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson 
Blog: textontechs.com


On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:33 PM Rebecca Firth  wrote:
> Hi Heather,
> 
> Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around but really 
> hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had already started working 
> on a statement to share. I am sharing here for allies to add comments they 
> would like to raise, and to identify people who are keen to move this work 
> forward: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rebecca
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson  wrote:
>> Hey 
>> 
>> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in osm. 
>> There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can also 
>> touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.
>> 
>> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
>> 
>> Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can always 
>> widen the circle later.
>> 
>> Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space 
>> discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code. 
>> 
>> Thanks so much
>> 
>> 
>> Heather 
>> ___
>> Diversity-talk mailing list
>> Code of Conduct: 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
>> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of conduct

Great!   Editing now
Hope we can have an initial chat

heather

Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com


On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:33 PM Rebecca Firth 
wrote:

> Hi Heather,
>
> Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around but
> really hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had already
> started working on a statement to share. I am sharing here for allies to
> add comments they would like to raise, and to identify people who are keen
> to move this work forward:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rebecca
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey
>>
>> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in osm.
>> There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can also
>> touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.
>>
>> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
>>
>> Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can always
>> widen the circle later.
>>
>> Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space
>> discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code.
>>
>> Thanks so much
>>
>>
>> Heather
>> ___
>> Diversity-talk mailing list
>> Code of Conduct:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
>> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-at] Kartenhinweis ohne Ortsaugenschein aufgelöst

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Günther Zinsberger


Hallo!

Am 08.12.20 um 18:49 schrieb Florian Kratochwil:
Beim Hinweis Nr. 2449629 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2449629#map=17/48.24001/16.17985=N) 
meldet jemand anonym, dass ein Pfad in Mauerbach bei Wien ein 
Privatweg sei.


Ich hatte da noch die Hoffnung, dass evtl. Mapillary über die Ferne hier 
helfen könnte, was leider hier nicht zutreffend ist: bei der Abzweigung 
von der Hauptstraße gibt es weder ein Sackgassenzeichen noch ein 
Verbotsschild (klar, da kommen noch die Zufahrten der Häuser dazwischen).


Hier der Link:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/NPfSwRqjc_xbO8GUW2NO9Q
Schade, mir hat Mapillary schon öfters in solchen Situationen geholfen.

Grüße,
Günther


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

Re: [Talk-at] Kartenhinweis ohne Ortsaugenschein aufgelöst

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Stefan Tauner via Talk-at

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:50:56 +0100
Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

> On 08.12.20 19:38, Stefan Tauner via Talk-at wrote:
> > Insbesondere sehe ich es nicht notwendigerweise
> > negativ, in dieser Form auf anonyme Hinweise zu reagieren, wenn es
> > keinen Grund zur Annahme gibt, dass der Hinweis falsch ist.  
> 
> Es gibt nicht mehr und nicht weniger Grund anzunehmen, dass die vom 
> ursprünglichen Mapper eingetragenen Daten falsch sind. Da steht Aussage 
> gegen Aussage, und somit gibt es für einen ortsunkundigen Mapper keinen 
> Anlass sich einzumischen, es sei denn man kann mit Fernerkundungsmetoden 
> eine klare Beurteilung erreichen. Das ist in diesem Fall (Berechtigung) kaum 
> möglich.

Dass die Daten mit größter Wahrscheinlich falsch und jedenfalls
unvollständig waren, da die Straße auf Privatgrund ist, hab ich schon
beschrieben. Das ist problemlos und sehr eindeutig remote feststellbar
(jedenfalls nicht schlechter als vor Ort). Schon allein deshalb ist ein
auf private setzen, damit zumindest temporär nicht mehr drüber geroutet
wird, durchaus sinnvoll, egal ob die Brücke bzw. ein Übergang dann
vorhanden ist oder sich später access=permissive herausstellt.

> > Natürlich sollte dort jemand vorbei schauen. Der ursprüngliche Autor
> > ist (mal wieder) ein ID-User, der nicht mehr aktiv ist.  
> 
> Das heißt noch lang nicht, dass er auf Anfragen nicht antwortet.

Darauf bezog ich mich nicht, sondern die durchschnittlich beschissene
Qualität von ID-Mappern.

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

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

Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of conduct

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Rebecca Firth

Hi Heather,

Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around but really
hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had already started
working on a statement to share. I am sharing here for allies to add
comments they would like to raise, and to identify people who are keen to
move this work forward:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit

Thanks,

Rebecca

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson  wrote:

> Hey
>
> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in osm.
> There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can also
> touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.
>
> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
>
> Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can always
> widen the circle later.
>
> Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space
> discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code.
>
> Thanks so much
>
>
> Heather
> ___
> Diversity-talk mailing list
> Code of Conduct:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>

--
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Mapbox-GL JS version 2: vers la fin de l'Opensource sur les tuiles vectorielles

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Frédéric Rodrigo


Le 08/12/2020 à 21:15, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :

> Cette annonce risque de refroidir un peu.

D'autant que Mapbox avait pris soin d'embaucher un développeur du libre
bien investi sur les tuiles vectorielles histoire s'assécher le marais.

Alors oui OpenLayers et Leaflet sont de bon candidats.


OpenLayers faut des tuiles vectorielles, et est même compatibles avec 
les styles de MapBox GL.


Mais Leaflet ne fait pas de vectoriel.

Il y aussi Tangram de mapzen et Harp.gl de HERE dans le paysage des 
tuiles vecto. Ils supportent les mêmes tuiles, mais pas les mêmes 
formats de style.



Tiens le développeur de Leaflet a aussi été recruté par MapBox (mais a 
fini par

refaire évoluer sa pile).


Le créateur de Leaflet et le Mapbox GL est la même personne : Vladimir 
Agafonkin.




Il serait intéressant de voir l'option que prennent les professionnels
qui utilisent de la tuile vectorielle.


Il sont bien embêté.



Je pense à MapTiler et d'un autre côté la position de
https://openmaptiles.org/ https://github.com/openmaptiles sera
intéressante


Il n'y a pas MapTiler d'un coté et OpenMapTiles de l'autre, c'est le 
même personnes.




(ils ont des SDK pour les clients Android et Apple basés
sur le SDK de MapBox).


Mapbox a déjà fait la même chose avec le SDK mobile. C'était attendu 
pour Mapbox GL JS... mais peut être pas aussi vite.





Jean-Yvon

Le 08/12/2020 à 18:36, Thomas Gratier - osgeo.mailingl...@gmail.com a
écrit :

Salut à tous,

La licence suite à la sortie de Mapbox-GL JS 2.0 change
https://github.com/mapbox/mapbox-gl-js/releases/tag/v2.0.0


Il va falloir envisager de passer à OpenLayers ou à une autre solution
apparemment. Je me trompe?
Avis? Réactions? Intéressé au regard des discussions pour avoir plus
de support des tuiles vectorielles dans OpenStreetMap, en particulier
au niveau des rendus. Cette annonce risque de refroidir un peu.


Cordialement

Thomas 



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

[Diversity-talk] Code of conduct

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Vincent de Château-Thierry

Hey

A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in osm.
There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can also
touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.

1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.

Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can always
widen the circle later.

Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space
discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code.

Thanks so much


Heather
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Adam Snape

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 13:18 Dave F via Talk-GB, 
wrote:

FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive map'.
> It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a  definitive
> statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many authorities add
> a caveat clarifying that it's not the authoritative document.
>
> Dave F
>

Each highway authority is required to maintain a 'definitive map and
statement'. In all cases the map shows the definitive line of the right of
way. The Statement provides any extra information the authority wished to
record, which in some cases may include a full description of the route but
in other cases may contain no additional information at all.

The caveat most councils supply with their electronic mapping is due to the
fact that there may be discrepancies between their digitised versions and
the actual Definitive Maps (and statements) which are still almost
universally paper based.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Mapbox-GL JS version 2: vers la fin de l'Opensource sur les tuiles vectorielles

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden osm . sanspourriel


Bonjour Thomas et les autres.

Tu te trompes : rien n'empêche de faire un fork depuis une version pre
2.0.0.

On remarqueras aussi une évolution de la spec :

https://github.com/mapbox/mapbox-gl-js/tags.

Et du coup on aurait des styles qui deviendraient incompatibles.

Il conviendrait de voir si le changement de licence est compatible avec
les licences sousjacentes.

> Cette annonce risque de refroidir un peu.

D'autant que Mapbox avait pris soin d'embaucher un développeur du libre
bien investi sur les tuiles vectorielles histoire s'assécher le marais.

Alors oui OpenLayers et Leaflet sont de bon candidats. Tiens le
développeur de Leaflet a aussi été recruté par MapBox (mais a fini par
refaire évoluer sa pile).

Il serait intéressant de voir l'option que prennent les professionnels
qui utilisent de la tuile vectorielle.

Je pense à MapTiler et d'un autre côté la position de
https://openmaptiles.org/ https://github.com/openmaptiles sera
intéressante (ils ont des SDK pour les clients Android et Apple basés
sur le SDK de MapBox).

Jean-Yvon

Le 08/12/2020 à 18:36, Thomas Gratier - osgeo.mailingl...@gmail.com a
écrit :

Salut à tous,

La licence suite à la sortie de Mapbox-GL JS 2.0 change
https://github.com/mapbox/mapbox-gl-js/releases/tag/v2.0.0


Il va falloir envisager de passer à OpenLayers ou à une autre solution
apparemment. Je me trompe?
Avis? Réactions? Intéressé au regard des discussions pour avoir plus
de support des tuiles vectorielles dans OpenStreetMap, en particulier
au niveau des rendus. Cette annonce risque de refroidir un peu.


Cordialement

Thomas

___
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-at] Kartenhinweis ohne Ortsaugenschein aufgelöst

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Friedrich Volkmann


On 08.12.20 19:38, Stefan Tauner via Talk-at wrote:

Insbesondere sehe ich es nicht notwendigerweise
negativ, in dieser Form auf anonyme Hinweise zu reagieren, wenn es
keinen Grund zur Annahme gibt, dass der Hinweis falsch ist.


Es gibt nicht mehr und nicht weniger Grund anzunehmen, dass die vom 
ursprünglichen Mapper eingetragenen Daten falsch sind. Da steht Aussage 
gegen Aussage, und somit gibt es für einen ortsunkundigen Mapper keinen 
Anlass sich einzumischen, es sei denn man kann mit Fernerkundungsmetoden 
eine klare Beurteilung erreichen. Das ist in diesem Fall (Berechtigung) kaum 
möglich.



Natürlich sollte dort jemand vorbei schauen. Der ursprüngliche Autor
ist (mal wieder) ein ID-User, der nicht mehr aktiv ist.


Das heißt noch lang nicht, dass er auf Anfragen nicht antwortet. Die Chance 
auf eine Antwort ist allemal höher als bei einer Rückfrage an einen anonymen 
Note-Ersteller, denn der wird davon nicht mal benachrichtigt.


Vorbeischauen ist natürlich sowieso gut. Es ist nur eine Frage von Aufwand 
und Nutzen. Es ist ärgerlich, wenn man zig km fährt und dann vor Ort 
feststellt, dass der Hinweis falsch war. Wenn der Note-Ersteller anonym ist, 
kann man ihm dann nicht mal den Kopf waschen dafür.


--
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Fwd: 2020 OSMF board election and proposed resolutions

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Vincent Bergeot


Le 08/12/2020 à 17:56, pepilepi...@ovh.fr a écrit :


Bonjour,

Comme vous tous j'ai reçu ce mel




Dear Voter,

You are an OpenStreetMap Foundation member eligible to vote in the
election for the three open positions on the Foundation Board. You
will also be asked to vote on three proposed resolutions.

*[...]*

*Test your browser settings* here:
_https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/0123456789012345?p=1_ where you
should see a list of OpenStreetMap editors (randomised each time
you load the page).



[...]

Quand je vais sur cette page et que je teste j'arrive bien à arranger 
les candidats mais quand je clique sur "vote" il ne se passe rien. Je 
m'attendais à un message du genre "OK, ça marche", mais non...


C'est normal, ça ?

J'ai testé avec firefox, vivaldi, comodo, chrome, et même IE, même 
résultat partout.


Mon vote ne va pas tomber à la trappe ?

Merci ! (et merci aussi sur les avis éclairés que j'ai déjà lus)



la page de test ne semble pas être modifiée quand tu fais vote 
effectivement (c'est juste un test). Si j'ai tout compris si tu vois la 
liste des éditeurs OSM alors toutes les "protections" sont désactivées 
et cela doit fonctionner ensuite sur la page de vote qui se trouve plus 
bas dans le mail.









Si ma réponse n'a pas résolu ton problème, c'est que tu n'as pas posé 
la bonne question.



Avais-tu posé la bonne question ?

Bonne soirée

--
Vincent Bergeot

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

Re: [Talk-at] Kartenhinweis ohne Ortsaugenschein aufgelöst

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Friedrich Volkmann


On 08.12.20 18:49, Florian Kratochwil wrote:
User Connecticut bearbeitet offenbar in ganz D und Ö diese Hinweise und hat 
das sehr knapp kommentiert mit "access=private", aber den Hinweis als 
ungelöst belassen.


Das ist das, was ich als Pacman-Mentalität bezeichne. Solche Leute – und von 
denen gibt es sehr viele – sehen OSM wie ein Computerspiel, in dem es darum 
geht, Aufgaben zu erledigen. Wenn sie die Aufgaben als erledigt 
kennzeichnen, glauben sie, sie haben etwas geleistet. Sie vergessen dabei, 
dass sie nur dann etwas leisten, wenn die Daten verbessert werden, nicht 
wenn ein Marker von rot auf grün wechselt. Zudem fällt es auch schwer, sich 
einzugestehen, dass man ein Problem nicht lösen kann. Wir sind von klein auf 
darauf gedrillt, bei Tests irgendeine Antwort hinzuschreiben, weil man dann 
vielleicht doch Punkte bekommt, während man ohne Antwort ganz sicher keine 
Punkte bekommt. Negativpunkte für falsche Antworten werden nicht vergeben. 
So werden falsche Antworten also besser bewertet als gar keine.


Dieser Fall war insofern eine Ausnahme, als der Note offen gelassen wurde. 
Vielleicht nur ein Versehen. Wenn es Absicht war, macht es das ganze auch 
nicht besser, denn jemand, der das richtig bearbeiten will, muss sich dann 
außer dem Note auch eine Vorversion mehr anschauen. Der nichtssagende 
Kommentar im Changeset 652409058, der nicht mal den Note referenziert, trägt 
noch mehr zur Konfusion bei.


Mit gutem Grund steht bei anonymen Notes immer explizit die Warnung dabei: 
"This note includes comments from anonymous users which should be 
independently verified." Leider lesen viele diese Warnung nicht, oder sie 
verstehen sie nicht.


--
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

[Talk-de] Flussrelationen: Mitglieder und deren Reihenfolge

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Hauke Stieler

Moin,

ich hab mir im Rahmen des Schwerpunktes der Woche [0] mal die Flussrelation 
der Ems [1] angeschaut und mir sind zwei Fragen gekommen:

Welche Segmente gehören in die Relation?

Es sind weite Teile des Dortmund-Ems-Kanals auch in der Relation samt  
Schleusen. Diese Liniensegmente sind aber definitiv nicht natürlichen  
Ursprungs und nicht Teil des Flusses Ems. Zumindest nach meinem intuitiven  
Verständnis her dürften sie daher nicht Teil der Relation sein oder gibt es  
gute Argumente es doch zu tun?

Ist eine Reihenfolge der Liniensegmente wichtig?

Ist das in einer waterway-Relation relevant? Zumindest die "main_stream"  
Segmente würde ich in eine Reihenfolge bringen, damit es ordentlich aussieht.  
Aber Nebenströme? Würde ich möglichst an die Stelle in der Liste der Segmente  
packen an der sich der Nebenstrom auch befindet. Oder gibt es dazu  
Gegenargumente?

Das Wiki sagt dazu leider nichts, hat jemand Meinungen?

Viele Grüße
Hauke

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Schwerpunkt_der_Woche
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/370068



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

Re: [Talk-at] opavote - osmf voting

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Florian Kratochwil

Ja, das passt so. Es geht darum, ob die Liste angezeigt wird oder nicht. 
War bei mir genauso.


lg

Am 08.12.20 um 12:25 schrieb snup via Talk-at:


ich habe diese voting testseite probiert. da funktioniert bei mir 
alles, nur der vote button tut nichts. weiss jmand ob das so sein soll?




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


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

Re: [Talk-at] Kartenhinweis ohne Ortsaugenschein aufgelöst

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Stefan Tauner via Talk-at

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:49:28 +0100
Florian Kratochwil  wrote:

> Wie seht ihr das? Bin ich da zu streng / pingelig?

In dem Fall deutet die Note ja sogar darauf hin, dass da überhaupt
keine Brücke ist. Ich kann Armchair-mappenderweise auch keine erkennen,
aber das heißt natürlich nix. Die Straße die dorthin führt, dürfte
aber tatsächlich auf Privatgrund sein. D.h. vermutlich sind die Daten
jetzt leicht besser geworden.

Über die Herangehensweise kann man wohl streiten, aber da die Note
offen gelassen wurde, sehe ich im konkreten Fall nicht viel, was
ich bekritteln würde. Insbesondere sehe ich es nicht notwendigerweise
negativ, in dieser Form auf anonyme Hinweise zu reagieren, wenn es
keinen Grund zur Annahme gibt, dass der Hinweis falsch ist.
Natürlich sollte dort jemand vorbei schauen. Der ursprüngliche Autor
ist (mal wieder) ein ID-User, der nicht mehr aktiv ist.

-- 
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] PLZ und Ortsvorwahlen von Österreich

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Johann Haag

Am Mo., 7. Dez. 2020 um 12:53 Uhr schrieb grubernd :

> On 06.12.20 14:19, Philipp Kolmann via Talk-at wrote:
>  > nachdem ich vor einiger Zeit nach einer Webseite gesucht habe, wo ich
>  > die Ortsvorwahlen suchen kann bzw sehe wie sich die Vorwahlen
>  > zusammensetzen und nichts dazu gefunden habe, habe ich das nun selbst
>  > gebaut.
>
>
> Danke. Danke. Danke.
>
>
> Dass der Herr Haag freiwillige konstruktive Arbeit nicht versteht und
> gleich mit "nur wenig von Belang" und "So schwer ist das nun auch wieder
> nicht" um sich wirft ist man ja leider gewohnt. Bitte lass dich davon
> nicht beeinflussen.
>

Warum immer so so negativ, ich habe seit Dezember 2017, eine PLZ Projekt
Hilfeseite Online, wo es auch eine vollständige für osm aufbereitete
Arbeitstabelle mit Österreichs Postleitzahlen gibt.
https://wordpress.com/post/openstreetmap.home.blog/438
Beteiligung zur Vervollständigung der PLZ Bereiche in OSM sehr willkommen.
Damals wollte ich nach Tirol und Vorarlberg systematisch mit den PLZ in
Wien mit 1010 beginnen, bin aber dort über eine Hausnummer Gstetten
gestolpert.
Warum in aller Welt soll man Österreichs PLZ Relationen erfassen, wenn in
der Bundeshauptstadt im Jahr 2017 noch die Hälfte aller Hausnummern fehlt,
und bei bereits vorhandenen Adressen PLZ Bereiche das pure Chaos herrscht.
Der Rest ist Geschichte.

Grüße Johann




>
> On 06.12.20 18:13, Kevin Kofler via Talk-at wrote:
> > Wobei allerdings generell das Problem ist, daß viele Gemeinden in mehrere
> > Postleitzahlen unterteilt sind, deren Grenzen in den Daten ganz
> > grundsätzlich fehlen, z.B. (nur ein Beispiel von vielen):
> > 3400: Klosterneuburg
> > 3402: Klosterneuburg
> > 3404: Klosterneuburg
> > 3420: Kritzendorf
> > 3421: Höflein an der Donau
> > die alle nur als Liste in der Gemeinde Klosterneuburg erscheinen und
> nicht
> > räumlich abgetrennt.)
>
> Ist das nicht die Idee hinter der Karte?
>
> Du hast eine PLZ und willst die Telefonvorwahl wissen. So zumindest hab
> ich's verstanden.
>
> Nachdem beides ja irgendwie auf dem Mist der Österreichischen Post- und
> Telegraphenverwaltung und deren Rechtsnachfolger gewachsen ist, sollte
> man meinen es gäbe da irgendein brauchbares Verzeichnis. Aus meiner
> Erfahrung: leider nein.
>
>
> Eine Datenlücke kann ich füllen: 2440 Moosbrunn .. Vorwahl 02234
> Gleich wie Gramatneusiedl, also wären die beiden Gemeinden nach deiner
> Logik zusammenzulegen.
>
>
> Feature Request:
>
> Nach einer erfolgreichen Suche mit einer darauffolgenden leeren Suche
> die Karte im aktuellen Zoom und Position zu belassen und nicht auf ganz
> Österreich herauszoomen.
>
> Mindert die Datenlast und man kann im Gebiet rundherum einen Kontext
> herstellen.
>
>
> grüsse,
> grubernd
>
> ___
> Talk-at mailing list
> Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
>


-- 
Mst. Johann Haag
Innsbruckerstraße 42
6380 St. Johann in Tirol
ÖSTERREICH
Tel: +43 664/174 7414
Mailto:johannh...@hxg.at
___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Christoph Hormann

> Rory McCann  hat am 08.12.2020 18:41 geschrieben:
>  
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 09:43, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> > Can you give an example of something that would follow
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
> > and still would not fulfill ODBL?
> 
> What is and isn't allowed by the ODbL can (I think) only be answered by a 
> court case.

I take that as a no - rendering your original claim:

> There are many examples of poor attribution where someone could argue that 
> they meet this standard.

unsubstantiated.

> These guidelines suffer the same mistake as the old OSMF Legal FAQ¹ of using 
> “should”, rather than “must”.

The original formulation of the advice used 'should' exactly two times - and in 
a context where it means indeed 'should' as per RFC2119, that is in so far as 
attribution *should* be specific to what OSM data is used for in case a map 
uses multiple data sources.  There is no community consensus that this is more 
than a strong recommendation.

BTW - the OSMF organized editing guidelines:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

use the term 'should' 18 times.

... Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Fwd: 2020 OSMF board election and proposed resolutions

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden pepilepi...@ovh.fr

Le 08/12/2020 à 18:36, Vincent de Château-Thierry a écrit :
> Bonsoir,
>
>> De: pepilepi...@ovh.fr
>> C'est normal, ça ?
> Oui. Dans la page en question tu peux lire : "The vote button of this test 
> page does not work" et il faut le prendre au pied de la lettre :)

Évidemment...


Merci, bonne soirée, je vais voter de ce pas.

> J'ai trouvé ça déroutant aussi, mais j'ai pu voter normalement ensuite, sur 
> la vraie page de vote.
>
> vincent
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr


-- 


Si ma réponse n'a pas résolu ton problème, c'est que tu n'as pas posé la
bonne question.

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

[Talk-at] Kartenhinweis ohne Ortsaugenschein aufgelöst

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Florian Kratochwil

Beim Hinweis Nr. 2449629 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2449629#map=17/48.24001/16.17985=N) 
meldet jemand anonym, dass ein Pfad in Mauerbach bei Wien ein Privatweg 
sei.


User Connecticut bearbeitet offenbar in ganz D und Ö diese Hinweise und 
hat das sehr knapp kommentiert mit "access=private", aber den Hinweis 
als ungelöst belassen.


Gleichzeitig hat er einen Teil des Wegs (die Brücke) als access=private 
eingetragen. Änderungssatz: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95160387 mit Quellenangabe 
"note; esri". Also er war nicht dort.


Ich finde, dass dieses "sperren" der Brücke ohne Prüfung vor Ort, nur 
wegen einem anonymen Hinweis, ungerechtfertigt ist. Unsere Karte hat die 
hohe Qualität, weil eben (fast) alles vor Ort geprüft wurde.


Beziehungsweise, wenn man das so wichtig findet, dass man es unbedingt 
sofort ändern will, dann soll man es halt tun, aber ganz klar in den 
Änderungssatz und in den Hinweiskommentar schreiben, dass das ein 
Provisorium ist und unbedingt noch vor Ort geprüft werden soll (mit 
fixme-Tag).


Wie seht ihr das? Bin ich da zu streng / pingelig?

lg
Florian

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] AI mapping roads released in IE

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Andy Townsend


On 08/12/2020 17:34, Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-ie wrote:

Hi,

I never received a response about the question below.. Can I get a confirmation 
on the correct mailing address to use when proposing a posting to the talklist?


No idea what happened, but that mail never made it to 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2020-January/thread.html 
.  This one is at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2020-December/002725.html 
so people should be able to see it.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] AI mapping roads released in IE

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Rory McCann

Yeah this is basically the right list.

Lots of that FB detect stuff is rubbish. They still haven't fixed it. Lots of 
dreck in there.

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 18:34, Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-ie 
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I never received a response about the question below.. Can I get a 
> confirmation on the correct mailing address to use when proposing a 
> posting to the talklist?
> 
> Thanks,
> Oisin
> 
> From: Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 11:02 AM
> To: talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Fw: AI mapping roads released in IE
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This was my first post to the Talk-ie list. If this isnt relevant, or 
> im not using the correct list, can you give me an idea of the 'type' of 
> contributions that are welcome on the thread?
> This looked like it would be in common with previous posts as per the 
> archives.
> 
> Thanks,
> Oisin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc)
> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 8:53 AM
> To: talk-ie@openstreetmap.org 
> mailto:talk-ie@openstreetmap.org>>
> Subject: AI mapping roads released in IE
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As of December 30th it seems Facebook have pushed the ability to map 
> roads in Ireland with their RapId editor -
> 
> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/blob/master/WHATSNEW.md
> 
> 
> 
> For those who don't know what MapWithAI is check out https://mapwith.ai
> 
> For now this is roads only, and keep in mind that their are alot of 
> fences, ditches, and tracks in there. However, there is an option to 
> mark signals as false positives which may help improve  AI for
> a future round. Having another source to verify, or survey, will be 
> necessary in plenty of cases but a nice tool all the same.
> 
> Oisin
> 
> ___
> 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] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Rory McCann

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 09:43, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> Can you give an example of something that would follow
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
> and still would not fulfill ODBL?

What is and isn't allowed by the ODbL can (I think) only be answered by a court 
case.

These guidelines suffer the same mistake as the old OSMF Legal FAQ¹ of using 
“should”, rather than “must”. While some dialects would treat “should” as a 
very strong should, practically a “must”, the original author of that FAQ has 
said it was a mistake².

Someone could rightly read “should do/do not do X” as an optional requirement. 
Someone could read “the attribution should not be automatically hidden without 
action by the user” as meaning “It's OK to hide the attribution behind a popup 
that the user must click on”.

Interestingly there's an internet standard on these terms, RFC 2119³

¹ 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Where_to_put_it.3F
² https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-February/082136.html
³ https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Rory McCann

Yes, fundamentally, you're 100% correct. The ODbL licence is the thing that 
matters when it comes to what's legally required. And that says nothing about 
“device independent pixels” or “javascript popup clicks”, it only refers to the 
mental state of someone.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on data protection 
(Art. 8) is only about 80 words long  (DE 73, EN 82, GA 101), but the GDPR that 
implements it is 55,000 words long. I view the ODbL as like our “constitution” 
for what you can do with the data. It will be short, but for practical real 
word answers you need laws & court cases which expand on it. One can always 
challenge a law for violating a constituation limit or requirement, and it 
should be the same with the ODbL & the OSMF's Attribution Guidelines.

So I think there's a lot of benefit in writing out, in my more detail, how you 
can follow §4.3, rather than speaking in generalities.

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 00:08, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> 
> > Rory McCann  hat am 07.12.2020 22:57 geschrieben:
> > 
> > But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the 
> > relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution 
> > where someone could argue that they meet this standard.
> 
> As i have already explained to you in
> 
> http://blog.imagico.de/the-osmf-changes-during-the-past-year-and-what-they-mean-for-the-coming-years-part-2/#comment-141145
> 
> the opposite is the case - the advise as formulated precisely explains 
> the criterion for valid attribution.
> 
> Attribution has the purpose to be perceived by humans.  To determine if 
> a certain form of attribution is acceptable you have to look at the 
> effect it has on human perception while interacting with the produced 
> work.
> 
> It is understandable that to people with a primarily technical 
> background this very concept appears uncomfortable and hard to grasp 
> and their reflex is to substitute this with something purely technical 
> where you can essentially program a test to verify if the attribution 
> is OK independent of the human user.  That cannot work.   
> 
> -- 
> Christoph Hormann 
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Fwd: 2020 OSMF board election and proposed resolutions

Bonsoir,

> De: pepilepi...@ovh.fr

> 
> C'est normal, ça ?

Oui. Dans la page en question tu peux lire : "The vote button of this test page 
does not work" et il faut le prendre au pied de la lettre :)
J'ai trouvé ça déroutant aussi, mais j'ai pu voter normalement ensuite, sur la 
vraie page de vote.

vincent

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Mapbox-GL JS version 2: vers la fin de l'Opensource sur les tuiles vectorielles

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Thomas Gratier

Salut à tous,

La licence suite à la sortie de Mapbox-GL JS 2.0 change
https://github.com/mapbox/mapbox-gl-js/releases/tag/v2.0.0

Il va falloir envisager de passer à OpenLayers ou à une autre solution
apparemment. Je me trompe?
Avis? Réactions? Intéressé au regard des discussions pour avoir plus de
support des tuiles vectorielles dans OpenStreetMap, en particulier au
niveau des rendus. Cette annonce risque de refroidir un peu.


Cordialement

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] AI mapping roads released in IE

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-ie

Hi,

I never received a response about the question below.. Can I get a confirmation 
on the correct mailing address to use when proposing a posting to the talklist?

Thanks,
Oisin

From: Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) 
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 11:02 AM
To: talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Fw: AI mapping roads released in IE

Hi,

This was my first post to the Talk-ie list. If this isnt relevant, or im not 
using the correct list, can you give me an idea of the 'type' of contributions 
that are welcome on the thread?
This looked like it would be in common with previous posts as per the archives.

Thanks,
Oisin




From: Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc)
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 8:53 AM
To: talk-ie@openstreetmap.org 
mailto:talk-ie@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: AI mapping roads released in IE

Hi all,

As of December 30th it seems Facebook have pushed the ability to map roads in 
Ireland with their RapId editor -

https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/blob/master/WHATSNEW.md



For those who don't know what MapWithAI is check out https://mapwith.ai

For now this is roads only, and keep in mind that their are alot of fences, 
ditches, and tracks in there. However, there is an option to mark signals as 
false positives which may help improve  AI for
a future round. Having another source to verify, or survey, will be necessary 
in plenty of cases but a nice tool all the same.

Oisin

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Fwd: 2020 OSMF board election and proposed resolutions

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden pepilepi...@ovh.fr

Bonjour,

Comme vous tous j'ai reçu ce mel




Dear Voter,

You are an OpenStreetMap Foundation member eligible to vote in the
election for the three open positions on the Foundation Board. You
will also be asked to vote on three proposed resolutions.

*[...]*

*Test your browser settings* here: __

_https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/0123456789012345?p=1_
where you should see a list of OpenStreetMap editors (randomised
each time you load the page).



[...]

Quand je vais sur cette page et que je teste j'arrive bien à arranger
les candidats mais quand je clique sur "vote" il ne se passe rien. Je
m'attendais à un message du genre "OK, ça marche", mais non...

C'est normal, ça ?

J'ai testé avec firefox, vivaldi, comodo, chrome, et même IE, même
résultat partout.

Mon vote ne va pas tomber à la trappe ?

Merci ! (et merci aussi sur les avis éclairés que j'ai déjà lus)

Bonne soirée,

Jean-Pierre



-- 


Si ma réponse n'a pas résolu ton problème, c'est que tu n'as pas posé la
bonne question.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Edward Catmur via Talk-GB

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:04 PM Simon Still  wrote:

>
> I’d actually say *more* of an issue with OSM is paths that are marked that
> ARE NOT a legal right of way.  Around Peaslake in the Surrey Hills there
> are various ‘mountain bike trails’ shown on OSM that are not rights of way
> and which the landowners say should not be ridden.
>
>
If there is a path on the ground, it should be in OSM. Set access=no,
certainly, but the path itself should be in the database.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field Do tag for the USER

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden ael via Talk-GB

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:47:08PM +, David Woolley wrote:
> On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:
> > I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous 
> > to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
> > access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all 
> > traffic in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676
> 
> In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is only
> the name".  It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay Walk", but
> the "DO NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name.

Given the recent thread, it is odd that it has "warning=hazard"
rather than hazard=yes or something more specific.

> Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrinnoans, horses, and
> vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag
> for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is
> required before using "access=discouraged".

This seems to be taking things far too far. We *should* tag for the
user! Equating subjective with "there isn't a sign" is also pushing
things too far.

We are trying to make OSM the best map we can. Tagging dangerous or
non-existant paths in a way that ordinary users/routers cannot
distinguish is just plain wrong and irresponsible.

I am all in favour of tagging PROWs even where there is nothing on the
ground, but in a way distinct from "proper" paths/ways.

Agreed: do not tag for the renderer, but do tag for the user.

ael

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar panels on Alvares House in Homerton

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden SK53

Hi Mat,

They do indeed look like solar panels, although the images arent as clear
as one would like.

You can just add a single node as a solar panel (preferably with
location=roof & a direction tag) or try & map the lot as an area. The
number of modules is a difficult to discern. Using the measurement tool in
iD (or Vespucci or Josm) indicates values of about 6.4, 7.9 and 12.9 m with
width of around 1.9 for some of the groups of modules. I can't really
decide if these are rows of single modules with long axis roughly E-W or
pairs of angled modules with long axis pointing S. One group measuring 6.4
m looks to have 7 modules in the former configuration, which might suggest
a slightly smaller module width of 90 cm. (I'm using this measurement
approach to determine module counts for installations where this is not
directly obvious from imagery: as most modules are roughly 1.6 by 1 m and
laid out in rectangles the typical case is straightforward : unlike here.)

There are plenty more unmapped installations on adjacent buildings
including the apartment blocks to the E.

As aerial imagery quality improves we'll likely revisit many mapped solar
power installations to either improve or check module counts.

Jerry

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 15:09, Mat Attlee  wrote:

> In surveying and adding Alvares House in Homerton in London, I noticed
> that the Bing aerial photos seem to indicate solar panels on the roof
> though I can't find any details on them
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882360871
>
> Cheers
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB

This reminds me a bit of this location, also in Wiltshire:

https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/?lat=51.06209564615185=-2.0421791551466137=3=0

Note the orange diagonal line. That is the line of a bridleway according to the 
Wiltshire ROW data as sourced on rowmaps.com (so not necessarily the definitive 
map). Contrast that to the brown line a bit to its north and west which is the 
bridleway as mapped on OSM, using bridleway signs apparent on the ground plus a 
bit of assumption. The brown line is a well-defined and easily-navigable (on 
horse and bike as well as foot) track, but there are no actual bridleway signs 
on the bit which diverges from the orange  line so it 'may not' be an actual 
bridleway - even though ground evidence suggests it 'probably' is. I first 
mapped this in 2010 from a ground survey,, but lacking any legal source for it 
not being a bridleway, it's remained an OSM bridleway ever since even though 
part of it technically isn't.

The orange line is a random line across a field with no evidence on the ground 
whatsoever. No signs, no gates, no stiles, no nothing - and therefore not 
mappable.

Wiltshire seems to be like this quite often, incidentally: its signposting can 
be a bit inconsistent and I've noticed quite a few divergences between 
web-based council data and ground evidence. We need the definitive data to be 
legally used in OSM in these cases; though maybe the council should really be 
trying to actually divert the path to the on-the-ground route that people 
actually use!

Nick

From: nathan case 
Sent: 08 December 2020 15:11
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method.

But what would you suggest in the situation where a PROW runs through a 
building(s)? Map through it as a fully-fledged footway? Doesn't matter what 
your abilities are, you won't be able to go through there - well unless you can 
pass through walls...  At what point does a completely inaccessible, or even 
re-rerouted path (just not in the PROW data), become disused?

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:
> but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the 
> PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new 
> buildings, or rivers).

IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph taken 
thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.

Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.

Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
mean it's been declared disused.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden nathan case

> Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrians, horses, and 
> vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag 
> for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is 
> required before using "access=discouraged".

There is a sign: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Bay_Walk#/media/File:Cross_Bay_Walk_Warning.jpg
 though I'm unsure on how "official" that is. It doesn't have the city/county 
council logo on it, for example. But the city council does discourage the use 
of the route without a guide on their website: 
https://www.lancaster.gov.uk/environmental-health/health-and-safety/cross-bay-walks-guidance-for-walkers-and-organisers

(sorry - I seem to have derailed the original topic).

-Original Message-
From: David Woolley  
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:47 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:
> I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very 
> dangerous to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
> access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all 
> traffic in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is only the 
name".  It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay Walk", but the "DO 
NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name.

Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrians, horses, and 
vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag 
for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is 
required before using "access=discouraged".

"warning" appears to be non-standarised, and also subjective.

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

[talk-latam] Respuesta a [Ticket#2020120710000024]

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Maritza Rodríguez

Hola Mario



Nos gustaría abordar algunas de las cuestiones que se han escrito tanto
aquí como en otros canales para resolver estas preocupaciones y llegar a un
consenso.



En primer lugar, nos sentimos un poco confundidos cuando escuchamos que
nuestro capítulo no ha sido responsivo. Nuestro capítulo de YouthMappers,
que se encuentra en la Universidad de Panamá, está abierto a la
comunicación, la retroalimentación y la colaboración. Queremos asegurarnos
de que las expectativas estén alineadas para todas las comunicaciones
futuras. En este espíritu, organizamos una reunión y nos conectamos con
usted  el 17 de
septiembre. Sentimos que nos estábamos adaptando a sus demandas sobre cuál
plataforma de comunicación usaríamos. Durante esta reunión, reconocimos que
deberíamos responder a los mensajes en OSM y entendimos que es necesario
revisarlos con más frecuencia. También reafirmamos nuestro deseo de
aprender a ser mejores mapeadores y estar al día con las pautas de la
comunidad de OSM.



Para ser francos, hemos sentido que sus mensajes han tenido un tono
exigente de forma que no nos ayuda llegar a entender. Este tono ha
resultado en la pérdida de nuevos miembros de la comunidad OSM. Un ejemplo
de esto es cuando nuestros estudiantes pidieron su ayuda y apoyo durante la
reunión del 17 de septiembre. En lugar de ayudar a proporcionar recursos,
simplemente nos escribió que los buscáramos los recursos en el Internet.
Esto no fue con el espíritu de colaboración, buenas comunicaciones que
ayudan a crecer / mejorar la comunidad OSM de Panamá, de la cual somos
parte. De hecho, esta reunión y otros mensajes intimidaron a muchos de los
miembros de nuestro capítulo y los desanimaron a continuar aprendiendo y
desarrollando sus habilidades de OSM. Usted ha dicho que su objetivo es
"... *** no *** para evitar que editen ...", sin embargo, sus acciones han
provocado que los estudiantes universitarios panameños se sientan
desanimados e intimidados de participar en su propia comunidad local de OSM
y desarrollar sus habilidades.



Además, los organizadores de YouthMappers (que administran la cuenta
i...@youthmappers.org) nos dijeron que Mateusz Konieczny recibió dos
respuestas con respecto a las organized editing guidelines, el 16 de
noviembre, el día de la primera comunicación por correo electrónico y un
segunda respuesta el 4 de diciembre como seguimiento.



Con respecto a las organized editing guidelines, tomamos su sugerencia que
nos dio durante la llamada del 17 de septiembre y creamos una página del
capítulo en el wiki de OSM, que puede encontrar aquí

y creamos una página para nuestros proyectos recientes que se puede
encontrar aquí
.
Creemos que el trabajo de nuestro capítulo no encaja completamente a las
organized editing guidelines, pero aceptamos los comentarios de la
comunidad y creamos las páginas para cumplir. Para ser claros, no recibimos
remuneración por mapear ni es parte de nuestro “... currículum
universitario ...”. Nuestras ediciones son realizadas por nosotros -
estudiantes que mapean juntos y participan de forma completamente
voluntaria. Lo cual creemos que cae dentro de la declaración de las
organized editing guidelines que no se aplica a: “...community activities
like mapping parties between friends…”.



No vemos las tareas que usted mencionó en el administrador de tareas
 de la comunidad OSM colombiana que
aparece en la Wiki de OSM, lo que podría ser un descuido de nuestra parte
¿podría compartirlas con nosotros?

Nos encantaría trabajar con usted y otros en la comunidad de OSM Panamá,
pero nos gustaría hacerlo de una manera constructiva que apoye a nuevos
mapeadores de todo tipo. Ha sido muy desalentador y ha dificultado el
crecimiento de la comunidad. La comunidad OSM en Panamá y alrededor del
mundo está formada por una comunidad de comunidades con diferentes
perspectivas, niveles de habilidad e intereses. Esto debe ser bienvenido y
tratado como algo positivo.



Para mejorar la comunidad OSM en Panamá y garantizar un espacio de trabajo
colaborativo y saludable, nos encantaría trabajar con usted en la
actualización del wiki de OSM Panamá, en una capacitación para miembros de
la comunidad sobre validación y otras áreas que podemos identificar para
mejorar.


Cordialmente:

*Maritza Rodríquez* y Karen  Martínez

Jóvenes Mapeadores

Universidad de Panamá



[talk-latam] Fwd: [Ticket#202012071024] YouthMappers Chapter @ Panamá
University*Mario Frasca* mario at anche.no

*Mon Dec 7 18:31:27 UTC 2020*


   - Previous message (by thread): [talk-latam] YouthMappers Chapter @
   Panamá University
   

   - *Messages sorted by:* [ date ]

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden David Woolley


On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676


In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is 
only the name".  It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay 
Walk", but the "DO NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name.


Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrians, horses, and 
vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not 
tag for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign 
is required before using "access=discouraged".


"warning" appears to be non-standarised, and also subjective.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar panels on Alvares House in Homerton

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Jez Nicholson

As an aside, I do see on RightMove that the thing that looks like a
swimming pool isn'tit is a children's play area.

You could check the planning permission maybe?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:09 PM Mat Attlee  wrote:

> In surveying and adding Alvares House in Homerton in London, I noticed
> that the Bing aerial photos seem to indicate solar panels on the roof
> though I can't find any details on them
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882360871
>
> Cheers
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden nathan case

That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method. 

But what would you suggest in the situation where a PROW runs through a 
building(s)? Map through it as a fully-fledged footway? Doesn't matter what 
your abilities are, you won't be able to go through there - well unless you can 
pass through walls...  At what point does a completely inaccessible, or even 
re-rerouted path (just not in the PROW data), become disused?

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-GB  
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:
> but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the 
> PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new 
> buildings, or rivers).

IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph taken 
thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.

Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.

Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
mean it's been declared disused.

DaveF

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

[Talk-GB] Solar panels on Alvares House in Homerton

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Mat Attlee

In surveying and adding Alvares House in Homerton in London, I noticed that
the Bing aerial photos seem to indicate solar panels on the roof though I
can't find any details on them

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882360871

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Simon Still

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 14:20, SK53  > wrote:
> Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces 
> (particularly after my experience 
> 
>  in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources 
> to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs, etc.) 
> when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from the 
> regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path blighting a 
> walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed to the HA and 
> get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal knowledge about the 
> PRoW.
> Jerry

If there is a RoW surely it should be marked - these are *rights of way* 
whether or not they have been kept in good order, blocked or are rarely used.  
NOT including it on a map surely just means it less likely that it will be used 
in future.  

I’d actually say *more* of an issue with OSM is paths that are marked that ARE 
NOT a legal right of way.  Around Peaslake in the Surrey Hills there are 
various ‘mountain bike trails’ shown on OSM that are not rights of way and 
which the landowners say should not be ridden.  

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 14:10, Dave F via Talk-GB  > wrote:
> 
> IMO, this is bad mapping.
> Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph 
> taken thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.
> Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
> wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.
> Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
> mean it's been declared disused.

Indeed - I know of bridleway across fields and bogs in the Lake District where 
the ground is too wet to retain any signs of use distinct from cattle hoof 
prints. Signposts rot, signs fall down or get obscured by undergrowth. 

There are paths I walk and trails I ride that we go out and clear of nettles 
and bracken to keep them usable in summer. ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 13:18, Dave F via Talk-GB
 wrote:
>
> https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg
>
> There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement.

Not quite. Before we're able to use any third-party data in OSM, we
need to verify that it is available under a suitable licence. So you
would still need to get permission from Wiltshire Council to use that
data, and ensure that any required attribution statements or
disclaimers are correctly recorded at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils
.

If you trust the author of Rowmaps, you could make use of the
Wiltshire data that's available from
https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/WT/ (which claims to be re-usable
under the OGL v3) once the appropriate attribution statement is added
to the OSM Contributors page linked above. However the precise
attribution statement required isn't clear, and the copyright text in
the files on rowmaps conflicts with the statement that it's available
under the OGL v3. (If the text in the files is correct, then they're
incompatible with OSM use, due to the additional sub-licensing
requirement.)

So I think we'd be better to wait for a successful outcome at
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_9
before using the Wiltshire data. Many other councils have made their
data available under terms we can use in OSM, as you can see from
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/ .

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

That's very interesting Jerry, thanks. I thought the byway's reference was
a bit odd actually as in it's the same as the byway that it intersects. In
my experience, usually the paths I've looked at are a single line ie. a
single beginning and end so maybe it has been "tacked on" to an existing
path rather than given a new reference.

Mark


On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 14:22 SK53,  wrote:

> Yes, these are not infrequent. We may have discussed some specific
> examples before, but one which comes to mind is one crossing
> 
> the River Derwent at Duffield. This is marked on the definitive map and the
> name of a track "Save Penny Lane" suggests the purpose of the ford. Dave
> Venables went & did a couple of surveys to find if anything existed but
> drew a blank. Not long afterwards I had the good fortune to meet someone
> concerned with the Millenium Meadow to the S of the site of the crossing
> and apparently the ford was washed out long ago (if memory serves me right
> late 1800s).
>
> It's always worth looking at other sources of information. For instance,
> the first OS 7th series with overprinted PRoW data appeared in the late
> 1960s, and these maps are now out of copyright so maybe usable (as Robert
> says it may be a little more complex as the PRoW data copyrights may rest
> with the Highway Authority & I dont know if local government copyright
> follows the same rules as for central government). Even some 1st edition
> Landranger issued in 1974 may be usable as most were photo-enlarged
> versions of the 7th series. Looking at existing allowable sources (NLS maps
> within editors) I find it interesting that there is no sign of a path or
> track here on OS 7th series, NLS 1:10,560 and 1st edition 1:25k. It is
> marked on the GSGS 1:25k which will have been compiled from older 6 inch
> mapping. This suggests that the bridleway ceased to be used before around
> 1940. One possibility is that it has been added to the definitive map
> fairly recently as part of a lost paths initiative.
>
> Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces
> (particularly after my experience
> 
> in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources
> to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs,
> etc.) when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from
> the regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path
> blighting a walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed
> to the HA and get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal
> knowledge about the PRoW.
>
> Jerry
>
> PS. As an aside does anyone know if there is an article in the Charles
> Close Society journal about how PRoW data were added to the 7th series?
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:15, ael via Talk-GB 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
>> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
>> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
>> have
>> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
>> can't
>> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
>>
>>  I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
>>  walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
>>  presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
>>  were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
>>  no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
>>  dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
>>  map.
>>
>>  OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
>>  As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
>>  and added a note.
>>
>>  ael
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden SK53

Yes, these are not infrequent. We may have discussed some specific examples
before, but one which comes to mind is one crossing
 the
River Derwent at Duffield. This is marked on the definitive map and the
name of a track "Save Penny Lane" suggests the purpose of the ford. Dave
Venables went & did a couple of surveys to find if anything existed but
drew a blank. Not long afterwards I had the good fortune to meet someone
concerned with the Millenium Meadow to the S of the site of the crossing
and apparently the ford was washed out long ago (if memory serves me right
late 1800s).

It's always worth looking at other sources of information. For instance,
the first OS 7th series with overprinted PRoW data appeared in the late
1960s, and these maps are now out of copyright so maybe usable (as Robert
says it may be a little more complex as the PRoW data copyrights may rest
with the Highway Authority & I dont know if local government copyright
follows the same rules as for central government). Even some 1st edition
Landranger issued in 1974 may be usable as most were photo-enlarged
versions of the 7th series. Looking at existing allowable sources (NLS maps
within editors) I find it interesting that there is no sign of a path or
track here on OS 7th series, NLS 1:10,560 and 1st edition 1:25k. It is
marked on the GSGS 1:25k which will have been compiled from older 6 inch
mapping. This suggests that the bridleway ceased to be used before around
1940. One possibility is that it has been added to the definitive map
fairly recently as part of a lost paths initiative.

Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces
(particularly after my experience

in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources
to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs,
etc.) when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from
the regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path
blighting a walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed
to the HA and get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal
knowledge about the PRoW.

Jerry

PS. As an aside does anyone know if there is an article in the Charles
Close Society journal about how PRoW data were added to the 7th series?

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:15, ael via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
>
>  I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
>  walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
>  presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
>  were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
>  no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
>  dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
>  map.
>
>  OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
>  As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
>  and added a note.
>
>  ael
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field


On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:

but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the PROW 
route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new buildings, 
or rivers).


IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph 
taken thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.


Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.


Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it 
doesn't mean it's been declared disused.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)


On 08/12/2020 12:42, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:

Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on
what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's
no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map
is my only source for this information. Even if I walk it and use my GPS
recording, the source of the path is ultimately the definitive map? How
does that work?



https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg

There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement.

FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive 
map'. It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a  
definitive statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many 
authorities add a caveat clarifying that it's not the authoritative 
document.


DaveF
R.jpg
https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:37, Dave F  wrote:
> On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
> >  wrote:
> >> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
> >> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the 
> >> Wiltshire Definitive Map.
> > Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
> > Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
> > for use in OSM.
>
> Do you have evidence of this being the case? Has someone from OS (or
> anyone outside OSM) stated that?

Since the Definitive Maps are someone else's work, without a licence /
permission, we aren't allowed to make use of them in OSM. So the
question is usually moot. I'm not aware of any instances of a
Surveying Authority granting a re-use licence for its definitive maps.

But, generally speaking, the base-map will contain a OS copyright
notice, and OS have historically claimed derived data rights over
anything drawn on top of their base-maps. This would mean that local
authorities aren't able to authorise any re-use. That's changed
slightly in the last few years, with OS's "Presumption to Publish"
policy. But this makes it clear that it's only the derived data on its
own (and not the basemaps) that third-parties are able to licence. See
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/licensing-agreements/presumption-to-publish-form
and in particular point 5: "For example, you can’t use OS licensed
data as a background picture to give your data better real-world
context." The upshot of this is that Councils are able to allow re-use
of their Rights of Way data if it's separated from the OS base-map
(e.g. as a stand-alone GIS file), but not the Definitive Maps
themselves.

I guess if a council is still using a very old OS base-map that has
since gone out of copyright, things might be different. But you'd
still need an explicit licence from the council if their depictions of
the Rights of Way were still in copyright. And there's a question
about the status of derived data rights on derivations made while the
base-maps were still in copyright.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Thanks. I'll go back and have a closer look. It was part of a long ride so
I didn't do much checking at the time.

Mark

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:30 Dave F via Talk-GB, 
wrote:

>
>
> On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
> > track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
> > just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no
> physical
> > evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've
> seen
> > in other cases on OSM.
>
> Welcome to OSM.
>
> If I come across a non obvious path I attempt to look around for a worn
> way, especially through boundaries. Aerial imagery suggests the edge of
> the field is used. Please check on the ground first to confirm it's
> still used.
> http://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.12946/-1.79511/bing
>
> I would mark the way as the definitive map alignment & add a note
> describing the direction that's actually used.
>
> It may be words in a book, but definitive statements are physical evidence.
>
> As the access tag is to describe legal use, I'd remove it in this case.
>
> Both bicycle & walking on a bridleway are designated.
>
> The surface tag is a useful addition for paths.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
>
>
> Dave F
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on
what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's
no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map
is my only source for this information. Even if I walk it and use my GPS
recording, the source of the path is ultimately the definitive map? How
does that work?

Mark

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:19 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
>  wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> Wiltshire Definitive Map.
>
> I see that you've put source="Wiltshire Definitive Map" in the
> tagging. Do you have permission to use information from the Definitive
> Map in OpenStreetMap? Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
> Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
> for use in OSM.
>
> Digitised Public Rights of Way data (without the base-map background)
> is another matter though, and it is possible to get permission to use
> these. But we need an explicit statement / licence from each Council.
> Generally this will be permission to use the data under the Open
> Government Licence, and we would then need to document this with the
> specified attribution statement at
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils
> . Wiltshire is not currently listed there, although there is an FOI
> request in progress to get the data and permission to use it:
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_9
> .
>
> I maintain a table of which authorities we have PRoW data for and what
> licence it can be used under at
> https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/ . Any updates and corrections
> to this would be most welcome.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field




On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
 wrote:

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the 
Wiltshire Definitive Map.

Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
for use in OSM.



Do you have evidence of this being the case? Has someone from OS (or 
anyone outside OSM) stated that?



Dave F



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden nathan case

As a public right of way, the highway exists by law - regardless of any 
evidence on the ground or lack thereof.

I suggest not removing the section, but instead setting as disused:highway. 
This is what I tend to do when the PROW route is clearly inaccessible from 
aerial imagery (e.g. due to new buildings, or rivers). 

Of course, as has also been mentioned, if you do come across situations like 
this on a ground survey - then please do report to your local authority, who 
have a legal obligation to clear any obstacles or re-route the path.

-Original Message-
From: ael via Talk-GB 
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:01 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the 
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to 
> have been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person 
> and I can't see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close 
> to a concrete

 I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to  walk or 
ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was  presumably once a 
ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there  were large trees blocking 
access on the river bank, and absolutely  no sign of a ford in the river 
itself. Crossing there looked potentially  dangerous. These had been added by 
armchair mappers from a definitive  map.

 OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
 As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river  and added 
a note.

 ael

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

I'm with you Phil but the locked gate is on a track parallel (50 yards
perhaps) to where the bridleway should be. They're both shown on the
definitive map so that's probably a legally blocked access. I would have
thought that the farmer would have preferred me using it though than for me
to exercise my legal right to traipse through their crops as per Martin's
suggestion.

I'd read back through previous discussions on here where the OSM path does
not follow the definitive map and was surprised to read that what you find
on the ground, in person, is what should be documented as opposed to what's
actually legal. I know of a few instances where the established path runs
around field boundaries or nearby tracks and OSM is at odds to the
definitive map.

I'll aim to head back out there and have a more concerted look when I can.

Mark

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 10:37 Philip Barnes,  wrote:

> Firstly, before worrying about mapping is to report the illegal
> obsruction,  i.e. the locked gate to the highway authority so that action
> can be taken to get the problem resolved.
>
> In my experience they like a photo of the problem.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On Tuesday, 8 December 2020, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
> > track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
> > just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no
> physical
> > evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've
> seen
> > in other cases on OSM.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)




On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
in other cases on OSM.


Welcome to OSM.

If I come across a non obvious path I attempt to look around for a worn 
way, especially through boundaries. Aerial imagery suggests the edge of 
the field is used. Please check on the ground first to confirm it's 
still used.

http://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.12946/-1.79511/bing

I would mark the way as the definitive map alignment & add a note 
describing the direction that's actually used.


It may be words in a book, but definitive statements are physical evidence.

As the access tag is to describe legal use, I'd remove it in this case.

Both bicycle & walking on a bridleway are designated.

The surface tag is a useful addition for paths.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface


Dave F


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> Wiltshire Definitive Map.

I see that you've put source="Wiltshire Definitive Map" in the
tagging. Do you have permission to use information from the Definitive
Map in OpenStreetMap? Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
for use in OSM.

Digitised Public Rights of Way data (without the base-map background)
is another matter though, and it is possible to get permission to use
these. But we need an explicit statement / licence from each Council.
Generally this will be permission to use the data under the Open
Government Licence, and we would then need to document this with the
specified attribution statement at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils
. Wiltshire is not currently listed there, although there is an FOI
request in progress to get the data and permission to use it:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_9
.

I maintain a table of which authorities we have PRoW data for and what
licence it can be used under at
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/ . Any updates and corrections
to this would be most welcome.

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden ael via Talk-GB

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
> been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
> see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete

 I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
 walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
 presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
 were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
 no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
 dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
 map.

 OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
 As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
 and added a note.

 ael

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

[Talk-lv] OpenStreetMap is Having a Moment

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Mārtiņš Bruņenieks

Sveiki!

Noderīgi izlasīt par Facebook, Apple, Amazon un Microsoft ietekmi:

The most valuable companies in the world are treating OSM as critical
> infrastructure for some of the most-used software ever written
> What likely started as a conversation in a British pub between grad
> students in 2004 has spiraled out of control into an invaluable, strategic,
> voluntarily-maintained data asset the wealthiest companies in the world
> can’t afford to replicate
>

https://joemorrison.medium.com/openstreetmap-is-having-a-moment-dcc7eef1bb01

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Philip Barnes

Firstly, before worrying about mapping is to report the illegal obsruction,  
i.e. the locked gate to the highway authority so that action can be taken to 
get the problem resolved.

In my experience they like a photo of the problem.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 8 December 2020, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
> been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
> see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
> track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
> just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
> evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
> in other cases on OSM.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-at] PLZ und Ortsvorwahlen von Österreich

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden andreas wecer

Die Suche nach Ortsnamen sollte besser nicht case-sensitive sein. Um
einiges interessanter ist allerdings sowieso die umgekehrte Suche nach
PLZ/Vorwahl.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Martin Wynne


What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical evidence


You walk along them. There is then physical evidence, and you can map 
it. I've done that a lot.


Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Simon Still

Should be recorded as per the definitive map - lots like that across welsh 
hilltops etc.  I’ve used a gps to follow them in the fog before 

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479 
> ) which is detailed on the 
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have 
> been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't 
> see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete track, 
> however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also just now 
> added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical evidence 
> and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen in other 
> cases on OSM.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [talk-cz] [osm_sk] Re: SotM CZ+SK 2020

2020-12-08 Diskussionsfäden Tom Ka

Dokonce už dneska. Začínáme v 18:00 na adrese https://meet.fit.vutbr.cz/sotm.

Těšíme se na vás!

po 7. 12. 2020 v 20:55 odesílatel Marián Kyral  napsal:
>
> Ahoj,
> jen připomínám, je to už zítra ;-)
>
> Marián
>
> -- Původní e-mail --
> Od: Tom Ka 
> Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic , osm_sk 
> 
> Datum: 18. 11. 2020 9:48:15
> Předmět: [talk-cz] SotM CZ+SK 2020
>
> Ahoj, vzhledem k situaci kolem COVID-19 není možné letos uspořádat
> konferenci SotM CZ+SK a členskou schůzi spolku OSM ČR z.s. v klasické
> podobě. Proto se obojí bude pořádat online a to v Út 8.12.2020 od
> 18:00. Členská schůze spolku OpenStreetMap Česká republika, z.s. tedy
> proběhne v úterý 08.12.2020 v 18:00.
>
> Program členské schůze:
> - informace o provozu spolku za rok 2020
>
> V případě, že řádná členská schůze nebude usnášeníschopná, bude se
> konat náhradní členská schůze 08.12.2020 v 18:20 na stejném místě jako
> řádná členská schůze.
>
> SotM i členská schůze se budou konat online na adrese:
> https://meet.fit.vutbr.cz/sotm
>
> Stačí zadat do prohlížeče (ideálně Chrome nebo Firefox) a povolit
> mikrofon a kameru (na mobilu nebo NB dnes běžně dostupné). Není třeba
> nic instalovat ani žádná registrace. Po vstupu do místnosti prosíme
> ztlumte mikrofon. V případě technických dotazů nebo problémů se
> obracejte na tom.k.
>
> Aktuální informace a program se postupně objeví na webu:
> https://osmap.cz/sotm/2020
>
> Těšíme se na viděnou!
>
> Za SotM CZ+SK
> Petr Vozdecký, Marián Kyral, Tomáš Kašpárek
> s...@openstreetmap.cz
> https://osmap.cz/sotm/2020
>
> ___
> talk-cz mailing list
> talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>
> --
> Túto správu ste dostali, pretože v Skupinách Google ste odberateľom skupiny 
> "Openstreetmap Slovakia".
> V prípade, že chcete zrušiť odber tejto skupiny a prestať od nej prijímať 
> e-maily, zašlite e-mail na adresu osm_sk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> Ak chcete zobraziť túto diskusiu na webe, prejdite na adresu 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osm_sk/1DU.YJeW.5N9bgbbGuMd.1VpeYI%40seznam.cz.

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

[Talk-GB] Bridleway across field