Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i OSM Distributed Model and Education
Please see https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:level SteveA ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i OSM Distributed Model and Education
Ground floor is one storey, etc. I think its the same in the UK for OSM its the number of storeys not the name. In the UK a two storey house has a ground floor and a first floor. In Canada its normally counted ground is the first floor and the storey above is the second. I have seen office blocks with Ground, First, second etc as well as Ground 2nd, 3rd etc. What beats me is a split level. Is it one, two or 1.5? Cheerio John On 6 February 2018 at 13:01, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > On 2018-02-02 06:06 PM, john whelan wrote: > > > > It would be useful if someone could produce a sample in R that takes a > > .osm file and counts the buildings. > > R might be rather overkill: > > grep "k='building'" file.osm | wc -l > > One might have to do some clever trickery around buildings that are > relations (those with courtyards), though. > > > A task from that would be to extend > > it to count the number of two storey (story) buildings. > > I wonder if OSM uses the UK concept of storey, where a two storey > building has three levels (ground floor, first floor, second floor)? Was > a huge confusion for me when I first moved to Canada: first floor means > one level up. > > Stewart > > ___ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format
Hi Stewart, Thanks for your comment. I'm relatively new to OSM, so I don't have all the history, so I appreciate you and others jumping in. I saw the discussion page when I started working on this. However, it is from 2012, so I'm not clear if this represents current state or not. People are still clearly adding contact:phone etc tags I can see contact:twitter/facebook/etc is way more popular than twitter/facebook alone. So if we use the non contact:* type, then these don't align with the majority. Or would you suggest phone/fax/website don't use contact: where as twitter/facebook do use that prefix? I personally don't have a strong opinion on which way to go, other than try to be consistent. I tried the iD editor... and it seems to have support for contact:*, but use "phone/fax/email/website" in the quick pick list. On 2018-02-06 01:10 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: On 2018-02-05 04:44 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: I don't know why people use phone=* vs contact:phone=* Because it's the default in most editors, and it's shorter. I'd prefer it over contact:phone, because that's a needless namespace. Also, this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:contact#Deprecate_this_tag_family Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format
On 2018-02-05 05:17 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > > use the letters instead of numbers "+1-555-GOT-BEER" I'd suggest mapping these to the numbers BUT international phone pads have a superset of what we use here (7 has Q and 9 has Z) and older phones may not be consistent with what we assume now. In the UK, ABC used to be on 2. cheers, Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format
On 2018-02-05 04:44 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote: > I don't know why people use phone=* vs contact:phone=* Because it's the default in most editors, and it's shorter. I'd prefer it over contact:phone, because that's a needless namespace. Also, this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:contact#Deprecate_this_tag_family Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i OSM Distributed Model and Education
On 2018-02-02 06:06 PM, john whelan wrote: > > It would be useful if someone could produce a sample in R that takes a > .osm file and counts the buildings. R might be rather overkill: grep "k='building'" file.osm | wc -l One might have to do some clever trickery around buildings that are relations (those with courtyards), though. > A task from that would be to extend > it to count the number of two storey (story) buildings. I wonder if OSM uses the UK concept of storey, where a two storey building has three levels (ground floor, first floor, second floor)? Was a huge confusion for me when I first moved to Canada: first floor means one level up. Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] using image recognition to create building foot prints.
On 2018-02-02 11:01 AM, Gravel, Pierre (NRCan/RNCan) wrote: > > I take the opportunity to ask you if you accept to give us a feedback on > these footprints before the official launch. > > If yes, It will be my pleasure to provide a pre-production data for > those who want to check them. > > It sounds good ? It sounds amazing, thanks. I'd be very happy to take a look at a sample from Toronto if one's available. I'd like to see how it compares with the not-yet-usable-in-OSM Toronto building data. cheers, Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] BC2020i OSM Distributed Model and Education
On 2018-01-30 10:49 AM, Jonathan Brown wrote: > > Does anyone know of OSM expertise that we could tap into for a mapathon > event in the Durham Region? Thanks. Well, us Toronto mappers aren't *that* far away. Let us know dates and scope. Stewart (was travelling, hence late reply) ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
