Re: [OSM-talk-be] Brussels and Belgium

[Julien Fastré]

Le 26/11/13 19:06, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I have always had a problem with
mapping the communities in the first place since they are about
the person and not the land.  But there are people that want to
map that.  And if we're going to map them than we should try to do
it as correctly as possible.
I do agree with Kurt: Communities are concerned with people, Regio with 
things related to the ground. It make sense to map Regio's: it's a 
territory, we may touch it, sense it. This is not the case with communities.


If some people want to map them, I think we should use different key 
than those existing now; they are not appropriated and we are, maybe, an 
unique case in the world.


Julien



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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Ben Abelshausen]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

> Need help ?  Depending on the target language that is  ;-)


Only some more FR translations.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Brussels and Belgium

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:57:05PM +0100, Wouter Hamelinck wrote:
> If you really want to use it as a geographical definition for the
> communities, why would you use the one from art127 and not the ones
> from articles 128 or 129? Especially 129 doesn't mention Brussels.

Please note that 129 is about languages.  It basicly doesn't allow
the communities to say what language should be used in Brussels
because it's bilingual.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I have always had a problem with
mapping the communities in the first place since they are about
the person and not the land.  But there are people that want to
map that.  And if we're going to map them than we should try to do
it as correctly as possible.


Kurt


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Glenn Plas]

On 26-11-13 16:47, Ben Abelshausen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Glenn Plas > wrote:


sort of moves on the osm.be 


Almost online, only a few more block of content need translation.


Need help ?  Depending on the target language that is  ;-)
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Brussels and Belgium

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:08:02PM +0100, Ben Laenen wrote:
> On Monday 25 November 2013 23:37:41 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > There should be a hole in the language area (which we don't have)
> > and the region
> > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53134), which seems
> > to be the case, and you can argue about the communitie
> > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53136)
> 
> You can't really argue, the constition is pretty clear that the Brussels-
> Capital-Region belongs to both French and Flemish Communities.

So the Dutch-speaking community is the Dutch language area with the hole
in it for Brussels, and then you add Brussels again and you end up
with that hole filled.  So you can map this as:
- Start with the language area which has the hole in it, and
  add Brussels to it.  So you start with the complete thing
  and substrct and add the same piece of land.
- Don't bother will all the adding and substracting, which 
  is like it's now.



Kurt


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

[OSM-talk-be] A different view on / usage of associatedStreet

[Marc Gemis]

In this thread
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/28479/using-multiple-associatedstreet-relations-for-one-streetsomeone
is using an associatedStreet relation to identity the road segment
that has to be used to get access to the property. He even invents names
for the associatedStreet.

This contradicts with what we want to achieve with the relation. (less &
shared data) Feel free to react on the help-forum.

regards

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Ben Abelshausen]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

> sort of moves on the osm.be
>

Almost online, only a few more block of content need translation.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Glenn Plas]

He might be the 'original author' but that doesn't mean he's the only 
one to react (or not).   I'm expecting more reactions from the current 
mappers from that area who keep an eye on this using tools like whodidit 
( http://zverik.osm.rambler.ru/whodidit/ )


And it's not about being offended by changes made on work of others (be 
it delete or change).   It's about making sure noone is triggered to 
'undo' the pending deletes.  So we might have to repeat-explain our 
moves to several parties.   It would be awesome to be able to put this 
sort of moves on the osm.be page and refer to that article in the 
changeset (url or source or note key for example.)


Glenn

On 26-11-13 16:27, Marc Gemis wrote:

zors1843 is on this mailing list, so he will get in touch


m


On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Ben Abelshausen 
mailto:ben.abelshau...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Ok then let's move them out of the way. Will start doing this this
evening.

I also think http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/zors1843 who is
great a landuse copied some of those practices. Does somebody know
him better or is there someone who already sent him messages?

Because when we move this to the border we should also maybe try
and prevent similar things being manually added here?

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,
/talk-be



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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Ben Abelshausen]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> zors1843 is on this mailing list, so he will get in touch
>

ok! :-) zors? :-)

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Marc Gemis]

zors1843 is on this mailing list, so he will get in touch


m


On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Ben Abelshausen
wrote:

> Ok then let's move them out of the way. Will start doing this this evening.
>
> I also think http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/zors1843 who is great a
> landuse copied some of those practices. Does somebody know him better or is
> there someone who already sent him messages?
>
> Because when we move this to the border we should also maybe try and
> prevent similar things being manually added here?
>
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Best regards,
>
> Ben Abelshausen
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM, eMerzh  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> the CLC* things , you don't have to worry, just remove the belgian part /
>> or at least move it near the border...
>> It's an "old" import and the datas are not precise at all, if i'm correct
>> they were exctracted automatically by aerial photography (not by osm )
>> And i think in the import process they did not check for intersecting
>> landuse in belgium (only in france)
>>
>> So i already moved a lot of them arround in the south border of belgium
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Glenn Plas wrote:
>>
>>>  On 26-11-13 14:22, Ben Abelshausen wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Glenn Plas wrote:
>>>
 that's not even accurate for our side of the border.  omfg.   This
 constitutes a huge amount of work to create this beast, and I wonder why
 one would hurt himself like that..  Now, how to go about removing this
 totally useless relation.

>>>
>>>   Removing the belgian parts will require deletions on the relations,
>>> and you can bet someone has that zone under watch , so we will eventually
>>> trigger a reaction from them.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I would suggest not to remove it but just to move it's boundary to the
>>> french border. I think this is the result of a french landcover import.
>>>
>>>   It is, the changeset comment says it's coming from an import.  (but
>>> then they violated the 'dedicated account' point by doing this via a real
>>> user account )
>>>
>>>
>>>  Jo might know this, he also follows the fr-list I think.
>>>
>>>
>>> We should ask them why they use a relation in the first place.
>>>
>>> Things like this are the reason you need a human to review automated
>>> imports before the push.   common sense is hard to program ;-)
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Brussels and Belgium

[Wouter Hamelinck]

> Article 127 defines the Dutch-speaking community as covering the
> Dutch language area plus the Bilingual Brussels-Capital area, and
> the French-speaking community as covering the French language area
> and Bilingual Brussels-Capital area.  So the Bilingual
> Brussels-Capital is covered by 2 communities.

That's not what my copy of the constitution says. In my version that
article defines where the community has something to say. For Brussels
it says that institutions that should be considered part of a
community should follow the decrees of that community.
For instance, a Dutch-speaking school should follow the decrees of the
Flemish Community, while a French speaking school should follow those
of the French community. It does NOT define a geographic extent of the
communities (André is correct that they don't have a geographical
definition). It only limits the geographical region of competence for
the communities but does not imply that everything in that region (in
particular in the Brussels part of the geographical region) belongs to
a certain community.

If you really want to use it as a geographical definition for the
communities, why would you use the one from art127 and not the ones
from articles 128 or 129? Especially 129 doesn't mention Brussels.

wouter

-- 
"Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei."
   - Thor Heyerdahl

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Ben Abelshausen]

Ok then let's move them out of the way. Will start doing this this evening.

I also think http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/zors1843 who is great a
landuse copied some of those practices. Does somebody know him better or is
there someone who already sent him messages?

Because when we move this to the border we should also maybe try and
prevent similar things being manually added here?

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

Ben Abelshausen


On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM, eMerzh  wrote:

> Hi,
> the CLC* things , you don't have to worry, just remove the belgian part /
> or at least move it near the border...
> It's an "old" import and the datas are not precise at all, if i'm correct
> they were exctracted automatically by aerial photography (not by osm )
> And i think in the import process they did not check for intersecting
> landuse in belgium (only in france)
>
> So i already moved a lot of them arround in the south border of belgium
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:
>
>>  On 26-11-13 14:22, Ben Abelshausen wrote:
>>
>>  On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Glenn Plas wrote:
>>
>>> that's not even accurate for our side of the border.  omfg.   This
>>> constitutes a huge amount of work to create this beast, and I wonder why
>>> one would hurt himself like that..  Now, how to go about removing this
>>> totally useless relation.
>>>
>>
>>   Removing the belgian parts will require deletions on the relations,
>> and you can bet someone has that zone under watch , so we will eventually
>> trigger a reaction from them.
>>
>>
>>  I would suggest not to remove it but just to move it's boundary to the
>> french border. I think this is the result of a french landcover import.
>>
>>   It is, the changeset comment says it's coming from an import.  (but
>> then they violated the 'dedicated account' point by doing this via a real
>> user account )
>>
>>
>>  Jo might know this, he also follows the fr-list I think.
>>
>>
>> We should ask them why they use a relation in the first place.
>>
>> Things like this are the reason you need a human to review automated
>> imports before the push.   common sense is hard to program ;-)
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[eMerzh]

Hi,
the CLC* things , you don't have to worry, just remove the belgian part /
or at least move it near the border...
It's an "old" import and the datas are not precise at all, if i'm correct
they were exctracted automatically by aerial photography (not by osm )
And i think in the import process they did not check for intersecting
landuse in belgium (only in france)

So i already moved a lot of them arround in the south border of belgium



On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

>  On 26-11-13 14:22, Ben Abelshausen wrote:
>
>  On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Glenn Plas wrote:
>
>> that's not even accurate for our side of the border.  omfg.   This
>> constitutes a huge amount of work to create this beast, and I wonder why
>> one would hurt himself like that..  Now, how to go about removing this
>> totally useless relation.
>>
>
>   Removing the belgian parts will require deletions on the relations, and
> you can bet someone has that zone under watch , so we will eventually
> trigger a reaction from them.
>
>
>  I would suggest not to remove it but just to move it's boundary to the
> french border. I think this is the result of a french landcover import.
>
>   It is, the changeset comment says it's coming from an import.  (but
> then they violated the 'dedicated account' point by doing this via a real
> user account )
>
>
>  Jo might know this, he also follows the fr-list I think.
>
>
> We should ask them why they use a relation in the first place.
>
> Things like this are the reason you need a human to review automated
> imports before the push.   common sense is hard to program ;-)
>
> Glenn
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Ben Laenen]

On Tuesday 26 November 2013 14:16:18 Glenn Plas wrote:
> On 26-11-13 12:19, Ben Abelshausen wrote:
> > This relation is also a bit over the top. This is supposed to be
> > 'landuse' but doesn't make sense.
> 
> a bit ?  That is way over the top imho.  I would expect this to be
> stopped by customs at the border   It took OSM a half minute to
> display that map here.
> 
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1067268

That one is part of the Corine land cover import in France. They did ask back 
then on our mailing list whether they had to cut it at the Belgian border or 
not, but since we had nothing at all, and there was no other source (no Bing 
imagery yet for example), there was no objection. There was also talk about 
whether we could import Corine land cover for Belgium as well, but that never 
happened.

Didn't think they would make polygons spanning such huge areas though :-)

Ben


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Ben Abelshausen]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

> common sense is hard to program ;-)


common sense is hard :-)

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Glenn Plas]

On 26-11-13 14:22, Ben Abelshausen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Glenn Plas > wrote:


that's not even accurate for our side of the border.  omfg.   This
constitutes a huge amount of work to create this beast, and I
wonder why one would hurt himself like that.. Now, how to go about
removing this totally useless relation.


Removing the belgian parts will require deletions on the relations, and 
you can bet someone has that zone under watch , so we will eventually 
trigger a reaction from them.


I would suggest not to remove it but just to move it's boundary to the 
french border. I think this is the result of a french landcover import.


It is, the changeset comment says it's coming from an import.  (but then 
they violated the 'dedicated account' point by doing this via a real 
user account )



Jo might know this, he also follows the fr-list I think.


We should ask them why they use a relation in the first place.

Things like this are the reason you need a human to review automated 
imports before the push.   common sense is hard to program ;-)


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Ben Abelshausen]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

> that's not even accurate for our side of the border.  omfg.   This
> constitutes a huge amount of work to create this beast, and I wonder why
> one would hurt himself like that..  Now, how to go about removing this
> totally useless relation.
>

I would suggest not to remove it but just to move it's boundary to the
french border. I think this is the result of a french landcover import.

Jo might know this, he also follows the fr-list I think.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Glenn Plas]

On 26-11-13 12:19, Ben Abelshausen wrote:
This relation is also a bit over the top. This is supposed to be 
'landuse' but doesn't make sense.


a bit ?  That is way over the top imho.  I would expect this to be 
stopped by customs at the border   It took OSM a half minute to 
display that map here.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1067268

I think we should push this kind of thing back to the french border.


Totally aggree, especially this:


CLC:code = 211
CLC:id = FR-246825
CLC:year = 2006

that's not even accurate for our side of the border.  omfg.   This 
constitutes a huge amount of work to create this beast, and I wonder why 
one would hurt himself like that..  Now, how to go about removing this 
totally useless relation.


Glenn



Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

Ben Abelshausen

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Glenn Plas > wrote:


This can be done without using a relation. Multipolygons are
widely used for landuse but this is the first I see as a relation ...

If the relation would have extra meaning to it (e.g. name="De
trappistenstreek" ) it would have added value but as it stands,
this is just adding complexity without adding value.  But it's
allowed according to the wiki.

Glenn




On 26-11-13 10:24, Ben Abelshausen wrote:

What do you guys think about using multipolygons for landuse?
An example here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3338083
I don't see the point of having this kind of relation. Maybe I'm
missing something.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

Ben Abelshausen


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



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




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


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Brussels and Belgium

[Ben Laenen]

On Monday 25 November 2013 23:37:41 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> There should be a hole in the language area (which we don't have)
> and the region
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53134), which seems
> to be the case, and you can argue about the communitie
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53136)

You can't really argue, the constition is pretty clear that the Brussels-
Capital-Region belongs to both French and Flemish Communities. Brussels is 
even the capital from both communities.

Ben


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Ben Abelshausen]

This relation is also a bit over the top. This is supposed to be 'landuse'
but doesn't make sense.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1067268

I think we should push this kind of thing back to the french border.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

Ben Abelshausen

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Glenn Plas  wrote:

>  This can be done without using a relation.  Multipolygons are widely
> used for landuse but this is the first I see as a relation ...
>
> If the relation would have extra meaning to it (e.g. name="De
> trappistenstreek" ) it would have added value but as it stands, this is
> just adding complexity without adding value.  But it's allowed according to
> the wiki.
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
> On 26-11-13 10:24, Ben Abelshausen wrote:
>
>  What do you guys think about using multipolygons for landuse?
>
> An example here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3338083
>
> I don't see the point of having this kind of relation. Maybe I'm missing
> something.
>  Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Best regards,
>
> Ben Abelshausen
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Glenn Plas]

This can be done without using a relation.  Multipolygons are widely 
used for landuse but this is the first I see as a relation ...


If the relation would have extra meaning to it (e.g. name="De 
trappistenstreek" ) it would have added value but as it stands, this is 
just adding complexity without adding value.  But it's allowed according 
to the wiki.


Glenn



On 26-11-13 10:24, Ben Abelshausen wrote:

What do you guys think about using multipolygons for landuse?
An example here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3338083
I don't see the point of having this kind of relation. Maybe I'm 
missing something.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

Ben Abelshausen


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


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

[OSM-talk-be] Multipolygon relation for landuse (Farmland)?

[Ben Abelshausen]

What do you guys think about using multipolygons for landuse?

An example here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3338083

I don't see the point of having this kind of relation. Maybe I'm missing
something.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

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