date:20130624

It's not just this mailing list. Go to openstreetmap.org and try to find a
page in Dutch (for the Belgian community -- besides how to map a). Or even
try to subscribe to this mailing list without any knowledge of English.
I'm thinking of a whole category of retired people, that love to walk,
bike, ..., but never had the opportunity to learn English (e.g. my father).
You'll never reach them.
Compare this with wikipedia, where you have a language switch on the front
page, the first step is already smaller.


regards

m


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jo  wrote:

> It would never have occurred to me to write a personal message to this
> obviously Flemish user in English. As far as the mailing list goes, as far
> as I'm concerned anyone can write messages in French or Dutch as well.
> Especially if the contents only concern one part of the country.
>
> Het zou nooit bij me zijn opgekomen om een persoonlijke boodschap in het
> Engels tot deze gebruiker te richten. Wat de mailing list betreft, daar
> vind ik het geen probleem om in het Nederlands of Frans te schrijven. Al
> helemaal als de boodschap slechts 1 landsgedeelte aangaat. Maar ik zie er
> wel tegenop om al m'n boodschappen te gaan vertalen. Er is ook nog Google
> translate. Verre van perfect als oplossing, dat besef ik ook wel.
>
> Jo
>
>
> 2013/6/25 Marc Gemis 
>
>> Ivo, ik geef je gelijk dat we sommige mappers afschrikken door alle/veel
>> communicatie in het Engels te doen.
>>
>> I'll agree that we might scare away some (potential) mappers by doing
>> most communication in English.
>>
>> m
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Ivo De Broeck 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Misschien een andere taal gebruiken, bv nederlands ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/6/24 Jo 
>>>
 Please be gentle when explaining him where he goes wrong :-) We need
 all the fresh blood, I mean mappers we can get...

 Jo

 2013/6/24 Glenn Plas 

>  The Eppegem cemetary is like 1200 meters from my doorstep, I never
> saw a battlefield reference on the cemetary.  Whats worse is , in his 
> other
> edits he's adding parking space where I've already done all the parking
> space around.  user has 5 edits on his name:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/fransvm
>
> I'm originally from Bonheiden, so I'll take a look there too after I
> see what has been done here.
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
> On 06/24/2013 09:37 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.
>
>  I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem
> (Zemst)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137
>
>  There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam -
> Keerbergen:
>
> http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT
>
>  Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries
> (something else) ?
> Can the tag (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield ) also
> be used for those purposes ?
>
>  regards
>
>  m
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>

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


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ivo De Broeck
>>> Valleilaan 13
>>> 3360 Korbeek-lo
>>> tel +32 16 43 84 93
>>>  gsm +32 486 17 61 13
>>> spanje
>>> tel +34 966 841 726
>>> gsm +34 603 661 778
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

It would never have occurred to me to write a personal message to this
obviously Flemish user in English. As far as the mailing list goes, as far
as I'm concerned anyone can write messages in French or Dutch as well.
Especially if the contents only concern one part of the country.

Het zou nooit bij me zijn opgekomen om een persoonlijke boodschap in het
Engels tot deze gebruiker te richten. Wat de mailing list betreft, daar
vind ik het geen probleem om in het Nederlands of Frans te schrijven. Al
helemaal als de boodschap slechts 1 landsgedeelte aangaat. Maar ik zie er
wel tegenop om al m'n boodschappen te gaan vertalen. Er is ook nog Google
translate. Verre van perfect als oplossing, dat besef ik ook wel.

Jo

2013/6/25 Marc Gemis 

> Ivo, ik geef je gelijk dat we sommige mappers afschrikken door alle/veel
> communicatie in het Engels te doen.
>
> I'll agree that we might scare away some (potential) mappers by doing most
> communication in English.
>
> m
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Ivo De Broeck wrote:
>
>> Misschien een andere taal gebruiken, bv nederlands ;-)
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/24 Jo 
>>
>>> Please be gentle when explaining him where he goes wrong :-) We need all
>>> the fresh blood, I mean mappers we can get...
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>> 2013/6/24 Glenn Plas 
>>>
  The Eppegem cemetary is like 1200 meters from my doorstep, I never
 saw a battlefield reference on the cemetary.  Whats worse is , in his other
 edits he's adding parking space where I've already done all the parking
 space around.  user has 5 edits on his name:

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

 I'm originally from Bonheiden, so I'll take a look there too after I
 see what has been done here.

 Glenn

 On 06/24/2013 09:37 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

 I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.

  I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem (Zemst)
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137

  There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam -
 Keerbergen:

 http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT

  Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries
 (something else) ?
 Can the tag (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield ) also
 be used for those purposes ?

  regards

  m

 ___
 Talk-be mailing 
 listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

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

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ivo De Broeck
>> Valleilaan 13
>> 3360 Korbeek-lo
>> tel +32 16 43 84 93
>>  gsm +32 486 17 61 13
>> spanje
>> tel +34 966 841 726
>> gsm +34 603 661 778
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

2013-06-24 Thread Georges De Gruyter

... They should forbid people to edit with potlatch...
They = the openstreetmap police ? ;-)

Vrees dat het niet enkel van Potlatch afhangt of mappers al dan niet fouten
maken

Georges


2013/6/24 Glenn Plas 

>  I really tried but he sure pissed me off.  I fixed everything he did
> wrong, he's thinking: Hey, it's a military cemetary (it is ...) so lets add
> a node smack in the middle and call it: historic=battlefield.  He uses
> amenity=kindergarten to mark leisure=playground.
>
> He also deleted information on a building ( amenity=doctor ) I personally
> added.  He also managed to disconnect ways in order to add 1 footway.
> Also parking nodes, placed over parking ways (which I put there ages ago).
> So he's not even looking at what is there.  Luckily he only did 5
> changesets.
>
> So clearly a beginner.  They should forbid people to edit with potlatch.
>
> I actually already fixed 2 of his mistakes few days ago in my .be overhaul
> on the designation key, which is totally cleaned up now.
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
> On 06/24/2013 10:00 PM, Jo wrote:
>
> Please be gentle when explaining him where he goes wrong :-) We need all
> the fresh blood, I mean mappers we can get...
>
> Jo
>
> 2013/6/24 Glenn Plas 
>
>>  The Eppegem cemetary is like 1200 meters from my doorstep, I never saw
>> a battlefield reference on the cemetary.  Whats worse is , in his other
>> edits he's adding parking space where I've already done all the parking
>> space around.  user has 5 edits on his name:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/fransvm
>>
>> I'm originally from Bonheiden, so I'll take a look there too after I see
>> what has been done here.
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/24/2013 09:37 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>>
>>  I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.
>>
>>  I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem (Zemst)
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137
>>
>>  There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam -
>> Keerbergen:
>>
>> http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT
>>
>>  Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries
>> (something else) ?
>> Can the tag (
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield ) also be
>> used for those purposes ?
>>
>>  regards
>>
>>  m
>>
>>
>>  ___
>> Talk-be mailing 
>> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

Ivo, ik geef je gelijk dat we sommige mappers afschrikken door alle/veel
communicatie in het Engels te doen.

I'll agree that we might scare away some (potential) mappers by doing most
communication in English.

m


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Ivo De Broeck wrote:

> Misschien een andere taal gebruiken, bv nederlands ;-)
>
>
> 2013/6/24 Jo 
>
>> Please be gentle when explaining him where he goes wrong :-) We need all
>> the fresh blood, I mean mappers we can get...
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> 2013/6/24 Glenn Plas 
>>
>>>  The Eppegem cemetary is like 1200 meters from my doorstep, I never saw
>>> a battlefield reference on the cemetary.  Whats worse is , in his other
>>> edits he's adding parking space where I've already done all the parking
>>> space around.  user has 5 edits on his name:
>>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/fransvm
>>>
>>> I'm originally from Bonheiden, so I'll take a look there too after I see
>>> what has been done here.
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/24/2013 09:37 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.
>>>
>>>  I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem (Zemst)
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137
>>>
>>>  There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam -
>>> Keerbergen:
>>>
>>> http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT
>>>
>>>  Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries
>>> (something else) ?
>>> Can the tag (
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield ) also be
>>> used for those purposes ?
>>>
>>>  regards
>>>
>>>  m
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing 
>>> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ivo De Broeck
> Valleilaan 13
> 3360 Korbeek-lo
> tel +32 16 43 84 93
>  gsm +32 486 17 61 13
> spanje
> tel +34 966 841 726
> gsm +34 603 661 778
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

For "bomputten" one could use historic=bomb_crater, but only when it has
some historic value (e.g. when it's marked with an information board).

I'm still under the impression that historic=battlefield  is not meant for
each individual bunker or bomb. The typical example in Belgium would be
Waterloo. The trenches in the Westhoek would also fall in this category.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

>
>
>>>  There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam -
>>> Keerbergen:
>>>
>>> http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT
>>>
>>>
>>>
> concerning these, I think this user is correct, that's the area I grew up
> in and it's packed with bunkers, the locations seem ok tool  I'm pretty
> sure some of these where battlefields.  There are places we called
> 'bomputten' , they have water in it now and are a primary place for aquatic
> life,  so I would say battlefield , most of those places definitely are,
> but as for the fact if they are historic, I'm not too sure.
>
> Glenn
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield





There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden -
Rijmenam - Keerbergen:

http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT




concerning these, I think this user is correct, that's the area I grew 
up in and it's packed with bunkers, the locations seem ok tool I'm 
pretty sure some of these where battlefields.  There are places we 
called 'bomputten' , they have water in it now and are a primary place 
for aquatic life,  so I would say battlefield , most of those places 
definitely are, but as for the fact if they are historic, I'm not too sure.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] amenity on relation of widespread nodes



Indeed, I aggree.  Dropping the amenity would probably be enough I think.

If you take it a step further, I don't even see where amenity is allowed 
on a relation checking the wiki (bear in mind I made 2 of those myself 
which I'm reconsidering right now)
So stricto senso, it's not allowed, furthermore an amenity is a 
"interesting place I would want to go to",  so it needs to stay 
concentrated to a local area.


You're right about the network relation too Marc,  That's probably what 
they need.


Glenn


On 06/24/2013 09:16 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
The wiki clearly describes that the relation=network should be used to 
combine routes (walking, bus, ...) together. see 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network

This "network" groups together single nodes. That's outside the scope.

From a database design viewpoint, I understand that one wants to 
"normalize" common attributes in a separate table. However, this is 
not the way most things are done in OSM. We do not create a network of 
Shell-tankstations, McDonalds restaurants or BMW-dealers.


I would contact the mapper and ask him on which basis he thinks that 
we should create relations like this.


regards

m





On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Glenn Plas > wrote:


Hi everyone,

Been looking at this relation today :  271476  ( see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/271476 )

It has an amenity set, but these points are widely spread out,  I
think this goes against the intended idea behind amenity's.

Any comments ?

Glenn

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




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


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

I really tried but he sure pissed me off. I fixed everything he did
wrong, he's thinking: Hey, it's a military cemetary (it is ...) so lets
add a node smack in the middle and call it: historic=battlefield. He
uses amenity=kindergarten to mark leisure=playground.

He also deleted information on a building ( amenity=doctor ) I
personally added. He also managed to disconnect ways in order to add 1
footway. Also parking nodes, placed over parking ways (which I put
there ages ago). So he's not even looking at what is there. Luckily he
only did 5 changesets.

So clearly a beginner. They should forbid people to edit with potlatch.

I actually already fixed 2 of his mistakes few days ago in my .be
overhaul on the designation key, which is totally cleaned up now.

Glenn

On 06/24/2013 10:00 PM, Jo wrote:
Please be gentle when explaining him where he goes wrong :-) We need
all the fresh blood, I mean mappers we can get...

2013/6/24 Glenn Plas >

The Eppegem cemetary is like 1200 meters from my doorstep, I never
saw a battlefield reference on the cemetary. Whats worse is , in
his other edits he's adding parking space where I've already done
all the parking space around. user has 5 edits on his name:

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

I'm originally from Bonheiden, so I'll take a look there too after
I see what has been done here.

Glenn

On 06/24/2013 09:37 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.

I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem
(Zemst)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137

There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam -
Keerbergen:

http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT

Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries
(something else) ?
Can the tag
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield )
also be used for those purposes ?

regards

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

2013-06-24 Thread Kurt Roeckx

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:37:46PM +0200, Marc Gemis wrote:
> I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.
> 
> I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem (Zemst)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137
> 
> There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam - Keerbergen:
> http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT
> 
> Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries (something
> else) ?

They're ussually bunkers.  I always fix them when I see them.


Kurt


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

2013-06-24 Thread Ivo De Broeck

Misschien een andere taal gebruiken, bv nederlands ;-)


2013/6/24 Jo 

> Please be gentle when explaining him where he goes wrong :-) We need all
> the fresh blood, I mean mappers we can get...
>
> Jo
>
> 2013/6/24 Glenn Plas 
>
>>  The Eppegem cemetary is like 1200 meters from my doorstep, I never saw
>> a battlefield reference on the cemetary.  Whats worse is , in his other
>> edits he's adding parking space where I've already done all the parking
>> space around.  user has 5 edits on his name:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/fransvm
>>
>> I'm originally from Bonheiden, so I'll take a look there too after I see
>> what has been done here.
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/24/2013 09:37 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>>
>> I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.
>>
>>  I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem (Zemst)
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137
>>
>>  There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam -
>> Keerbergen:
>>
>> http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT
>>
>>  Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries
>> (something else) ?
>> Can the tag (
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield ) also be
>> used for those purposes ?
>>
>>  regards
>>
>>  m
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing 
>> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>


-- 
Ivo De Broeck
Valleilaan 13
3360 Korbeek-lo
tel +32 16 43 84 93
gsm +32 486 17 61 13
spanje
tel +34 966 841 726
gsm +34 603 661 778
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

Please be gentle when explaining him where he goes wrong :-) We need all
the fresh blood, I mean mappers we can get...

Jo

2013/6/24 Glenn Plas 

>  The Eppegem cemetary is like 1200 meters from my doorstep, I never saw a
> battlefield reference on the cemetary.  Whats worse is , in his other edits
> he's adding parking space where I've already done all the parking space
> around.  user has 5 edits on his name:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/fransvm
>
> I'm originally from Bonheiden, so I'll take a look there too after I see
> what has been done here.
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
> On 06/24/2013 09:37 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.
>
>  I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem (Zemst)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137
>
>  There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam -
> Keerbergen:
>
> http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT
>
>  Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries (something
> else) ?
> Can the tag (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield) 
> also be used for those purposes ?
>
>  regards
>
>  m
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

The Eppegem cemetary is like 1200 meters from my doorstep, I never saw a 
battlefield reference on the cemetary.  Whats worse is , in his other 
edits he's adding parking space where I've already done all the parking 
space around.  user has 5 edits on his name:


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

I'm originally from Bonheiden, so I'll take a look there too after I see 
what has been done here.


Glenn


On 06/24/2013 09:37 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:

I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.

I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem (Zemst)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137

There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam - 
Keerbergen:

http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT

Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries 
(something else) ?
Can the tag 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield ) also 
be used for those purposes ?


regards

m


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] amenity on relation of widespread nodes

I looked at his other edits and I get the impression he's from Switzerland.
Maybe things are done differently there.

Jo

2013/6/24 Marc Gemis 

> The wiki clearly describes that the relation=network should be used to
> combine routes (walking, bus, ...) together. see
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network
> This "network" groups together single nodes. That's outside the scope.
>
> From a database design viewpoint, I understand that one wants to
> "normalize" common attributes in a separate table. However, this is not the
> way most things are done in OSM. We do not create a network of
> Shell-tankstations, McDonalds restaurants or BMW-dealers.
>
> I would contact the mapper and ask him on which basis he thinks that we
> should create relations like this.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:
>
>>  Hi everyone,
>>
>> Been looking at this relation today :  271476  ( see
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/271476 )
>>
>> It has an amenity set, but these points are widely spread out,  I think
>> this goes against the intended idea behind amenity's.
>>
>> Any comments ?
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] historic=battlefield

I'm interested in the usage of historic=battlefield.

I saw that someone added this to e.g. to a cemetery in Eppegem (Zemst)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2308368137

There are also a lot of those tags around Bonheiden - Rijmenam - Keerbergen:
http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=13&lat=51.00577&lon=4.56379&layers=BFT

Are these really battlefields or are they bunkers, cemeteries (something
else) ?
Can the tag (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbattlefield)
also be used for those purposes ?

regards

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] amenity on relation of widespread nodes

The wiki clearly describes that the relation=network should be used to
combine routes (walking, bus, ...) together. see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network
This "network" groups together single nodes. That's outside the scope.

>From a database design viewpoint, I understand that one wants to
"normalize" common attributes in a separate table. However, this is not the
way most things are done in OSM. We do not create a network of
Shell-tankstations, McDonalds restaurants or BMW-dealers.

I would contact the mapper and ask him on which basis he thinks that we
should create relations like this.

regards

m

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

>  Hi everyone,
>
> Been looking at this relation today :  271476  ( see
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/271476 )
>
> It has an amenity set, but these points are widely spread out,  I think
> this goes against the intended idea behind amenity's.
>
> Any comments ?
>
> Glenn
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] SNCF & OSM France - how about Belgium?

2013-06-24 Thread Ben Abelshausen

Hi,

My french is not that good but isn't this about mapping accessibility
features in trainstations and less about the public transport routing,
multimodal routing or anything related to that?

If you are asking about a project that would be a joint mapping effort i'm
not sure if this is something we are ready for here. I think we would be
talking about 10 to max 30 mappers that are on this mailing list and that
would maybe participate. I'm not sure something like this would work but I
could be wrong (and i hope i'm wrong).

At least our last meetup had 5 people, 3 of them I had never seem before.

If a decision is made to try something similar i will also try my very best
to participate and make this a success. I had a similar idea for another
project that is going on with OSM: The emergency services also use the map,
maybe something could also be done there to organize a joint-mapping effort.

We also don't have infrastructure similar to the french: a dedicated OSM-be
website, a place where users can get the latest osm-be news, how would we
announce an effort like this to people that are not on the list???

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

Ben Abelshausen
ben.abelshau...@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/xivk

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jo  wrote:

> Hi Pieter,
>
> We are interested in all that is geographic, this includes multimodal
> routing, so PT is certainly a part of that. (Not so much the schedules
> though, that needs to be handeld by the routing engine).
>
> You know I'm working hard on integrating the data of De Lijn and I was
> hoping to be able to do the same for TEC and MIVB/STIB, at some point, but
> I've been reading some of your publications and I understand they are not
> at all keen on opening up their data, to put it mildly. As far as MIVB/STIB
> goes, this seems weird, as they were the first to work together with Google.
>
> I think Ben Laenen has been drawing many railways. Would SNCB/NMBS be
> willing to share the locations of their stations and railroad tracks?
> Mostly the railroad tracks and the naming of the lines. I think we already
> have all the stations. The UrbIS data also contains all the railways in the
> region of Brussels.
>
> The data is in constant flux though. So it would be nice to get some sort
> of feed when stations are abolished/created anew.
>
> I think we would also be interested in a list of stations where trains
> call, but no tickets can be bought, or opening hours of the windows. Which
> stations have vending machines and their locations.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jo
>
> 2013/6/24 Pieter Colpaert 
>
>> Hi OSM BE,
>>
>> In France they are doing this:
>> http://openstreetmap.fr/partenariat-sncf-transilien
>>
>> Would it be interesting to do the same things for Belgium? I can get the
>> one who wants to get it forward in contact with SNCB
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Pieter
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] amenity on relation of widespread nodes


Hi everyone,

Been looking at this relation today :  271476  ( see 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/271476 )


It has an amenity set, but these points are widely spread out,  I think 
this goes against the intended idea behind amenity's.


Any comments ?

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] SNCF & OSM France - how about Belgium?