[talk-ph] parcel lot details in Subic
The most common question by LGUs about OSM is whether it is possible to add parcel data into the db. I always said no primarily because of legal concerns and I think it would be very difficult to map. Unitl I saw this, https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/14.88074/120.20926 Note that the mapper is using only iD. -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] tracing individual rice paddies
A bund is also defined as an embankment to control the flow of water. And for reference, the English equivalent for the Tagalog term pilapil is dyke or dike [0] or bund [1]. I am withdrawing my suggestion for the dyke tag, and second Maning's tag man_made=bund as technically more appropriate in the context of Asian rice fields and paddies. If this motion is carried, let's not forget to document this somewhere [2][3]. [0] http://tl.w3dictionary.org/index.php?q=pilapil [1] http://www.binisaya.com/node/21search=rootword=pilapil [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbund [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions *Erwin Olario* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: erwin@ er...@ngnuity.net*n**gnu**IT**y**.**net* http://ngnuity.net/ | gov...@gmail.com » mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:18 PM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, truly awesome work by the Lubao MPDC staff especially Pepe. Just a bit of update from what I heard from Pepe and others. They were able to use the map in the preparation for Glenda. Right now, they are asking each barangay captain to identify key features in the map like (amenities, shops, name of rivers, sitios, etc) which they now add in the map. Tasking manager job is still not finished [0], and they appreciate everybody's review especially with validating the task. They are also having difficulty tagging some features (same as this original thread), I asked them to list them and send to this mailinglist so we can help them identify or create (if necessary) the best tag. Sorry for the digression, so what's the best tag now for paths along rice paddies? Should it be man_made=bund [1]? :) [0] http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/329 [1] http://www.mozda.net/mozda6.html On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Erwin Olario gov...@gmail.com wrote: On a related note, should we encourage mapping of individual rice paddies, similar to what's being done with fish ponds? Erwin Olario - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: er...@ngnuity.net | gov...@gmail.com » mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Erwin Olario gov...@gmail.com wrote: It's probably not being used as such but rice are flood crops and the wiki page for dyke states it as an embankment built to *restrict the flow of water or other liquids* , which in this applies to restricting the water within the paddies. Is there a more appropriate tag? Erwin Olario - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: er...@ngnuity.net | gov...@gmail.com » mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I think neither tag is appropriate. man_made=dyke doesn't seem to be appropriate since a dyke's purpose is to prevent flooding, and these rice paddy embankments do not do that. On Aug 11, 2014 5:32 AM, Erwin Olario gov...@gmail.com wrote: First of all, kudos to the volunteers working in the Lubao area[0] in Pampanga for the level of details they are adding to OpenStreetMap. I do wonder, however, if the appropriate tags are being used. In this case, paddy field levees are being tagged as highway=path, when in fact they are primarily used as embankments, not as paths. Many of us here in the mailing list would consider Lubao as a local showcase for OpenStreetMap and perhaps, like me, would like it to show what Philippine Mapping Convention is like in real life. I normally use the following tags for rice paddies: landuse=farmland crop=rice farm=flooded_crops What are your thoughts about tagging ways between paddies as man_made=dyke [1] over highway=path ? [0] http://osm.org/go/4zOPCCmZg-?m= [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddyke Erwin Olario - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: er...@ngnuity.net | gov...@gmail.com » mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___
[OSM-talk-be] Mailing list HOT FR
Bonjour, hallo! Je me permets de vous informer d'une nouvelle mailing liste dans la monde d'OpenStreetMap. La mailing liste HOT http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Teamest la liste qui permet d'échanger sur le thème d'OSM dans le cadre de l'humanitaire et du développement. La langue utilisée pour la liste général est l'anglais, ce qui limite la participation des francophones. Jusqu'à présent, pour informer les francophones sur ces thématiques et les projets en cours, des emails informatifs étaient parfois envoyés à un ensemble de listes talk francophones, ce qui n'est pas idéal dans la mesure où le même message est alors dupliqué dans chacun des historiques. Pour y remédier, une liste OSM hot-francophone vient d'être créée pour permettre aux contributeurs OSM francophones, quelle que soit leur nationalité, de pouvoir échanger en français sur l'humanitaire et le développement. Comme pour les listes talk-pays ou dev-quelquechose, elle ne vise pas à concurrencer la liste principale, mais à permettre les échanges au sein d'une communauté spécifique, et aura un dialogue continu avec la liste anglophone existante. Les hispanophones semblent intéressés pour disposer également d'une telle liste. Pour vous inscrire, c'est par ici : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot-francophone Bonne soirée, Jorieke ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
[OSM-talk] New mapping satellite
Announced in typical Register style: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/13/creepy_satellites_will_be_able_to_zoom_in_on_your_face/ I expect it'll be some time before images become available for OSM, though :-( And I'm not confusing resolution and accuracy! __John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New mapping satellite
On Wednesday 13 August 2014, John Sturdy wrote: Announced in typical Register style: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/13/creepy_satellites_will_be_abl e_to_zoom_in_on_your_face/ Mapbox has some more detailed explanations: https://www.mapbox.com/blog/worldview-3-launch/ including an positional accuracy number (3.5 meter) which is of course just a claim at the moment and is likely for points exactly in nadir position. Note the resolution number is a bit like the Megapixels in digital cameras, it does not say much about the actual ability to resolve details although in case of earth observation satellites pushing the nominal resolution much beyond the optical resolution abilities makes much less sense since it is very costly. In contrast to what the register article seems to imply these high resolution satellites are not systematically mapping the whole planet, they generally take images on demand for customers. Practically it will probably mean that in the long term more up-to-date imagery will become available but mostly in areas where there generally are already less up-to-date high resolution aerial images. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-br] Coletar fotos para o Mapillary de byke ou moto
Que legal :D Tenho que refazer aquela e outras postagens em outro lugar, alguns sites governamentais estão fora do ar no período eleitoral. Adorei essas ideias para baixo custo http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/malenki/diary/23409, principalmente o *rack* de madeira. http://f.zz.de/posts/201404181623.mapillary__diy_stretview/ Por falar em Mapillary, gostei também das melhorias com as visualizações de imagens, em especial quando se tem imagens de diferentes ângulos de um mesmo lugar, mesmo em diferentes datas ou sequências... ou de uma sequência panorâmica. Foto - http://goo.gl/Fx2dR9 *Edil Queiroz de Araujo* Monitor e Projetista *Acessa SP* - *Prefeitura Municipal de Ribeirão Grande* Projeto Monitor Virtual http://rede.acessasp.sp.gov.br/projeto/monitor-virtual RGM - Região Georreferenciada em Mapas http://projetorgm.com.br/ ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
[Talk-br] Notas falsas
Encontraram o aplicativo que gera notas erradas. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-August/070434.html Não disseram quem ainda. ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Notas falsas
Estou entendendo que não era SPAM e que os autores do software bugado se empenharão na reparação. Fica o aprendizado de que a API de Notas está muito frágil, no sentido de possibilitar degradação intencional ou não intencional. Em tempo: o site do Mapillary teve a interface atualizada e eu levarei todos esses problemas em consideração se eu for disponibilizar nova versão funcional do plugin (userscript Greasemonkey) que cria Notas OSM para fotos Mapillary. Talvez seja vez para uma extensão Firefox com usuários autenticados ou coisa que o valha. Alexandre ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Coletar fotos para o Mapillary de byke ou moto
Essa madeira é de um tipo relativamente barato. Também é fácil de trabalhar. Eu sei que o modelo específico http://f.zz.de/posts/201404181623.mapillary__diy_stretview/ é pouquíssimo útil de uma forma direta. Mas ele embute várias ideias interessante. As ferramentas e insumos necessários podem ser algo simples para alguns de nós: - madeira - parafusos - chave de fenda - inteligência para planos de corte e gabaritos - um arco de serra ou um serrote - uma serra tico-tico - uma furadeira e brocas - broca serra-copo Alexandre Magno Em 13 de agosto de 2014 09:01, Edil Queiroz de Araujo edil...@gmail.com escreveu: Adorei essas ideias para baixo custo http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/malenki/diary/23409, principalmente o *rack* de madeira. http://f.zz.de/posts/201404181623.mapillary__diy_stretview/ ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Notas falsas
A interpretação de tal política pode ser um problema. A API de Notas possibilita a criação de uma Nota através de chamada muito simples e pouco criteriosa http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6#Create_a_new_note:_Create:_POST_.2Fapi.2F0.6.2Fnotes. Onde está o literal e o contexto de tal política? O software bugado pode ter *mostrado uma coisa* a uma revisor humano *e feito outra*. Em 13 de agosto de 2014 18:36, Gabriel Teixeira gabrieldiegoteixe...@gmail.com escreveu: Vale lembrar também que por política do OSM não é permitido enviar alterações geradas automaticamente direto para o servidor sem revisão por uma pessoa. Se alguém tivesse olhado essas notas antes de enviar obviamente teria filtrado elas. Just my 2 cents. Em 13/08/2014 15:46, Alexandre Magno Brito de Medeiros alexandre@gmail.com escreveu: Estou entendendo que não era SPAM e que os autores do software bugado se empenharão na reparação. Fica o aprendizado de que a API de Notas está muito frágil, no sentido de possibilitar degradação intencional ou não intencional. Em tempo: o site do Mapillary teve a interface atualizada e eu levarei todos esses problemas em consideração se eu for disponibilizar nova versão funcional do plugin (userscript Greasemonkey) que cria Notas OSM para fotos Mapillary. Talvez seja vez para uma extensão Firefox com usuários autenticados ou coisa que o valha. ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Caminhos sazonais
No Seridó http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serid%C3%B3 também tem muito disso. Em em muitos outros lugares. E existem balsas e praias que só possuem trânsito com determinado estado de maré. Em 13 de agosto de 2014 20:02, Márcio Aguiar Ribeiro aguiar.mar...@gmail.com escreveu: Pessoal, como devo proceder no mapeamento de caminho que não tem periodo certo para existir? Por exemplo: vejam essa localização http://binged.it/1psMMcC. No sertão de Alagoas é muito comum aparecerem caminhos na época de seca do rio. Mas quando o rio está cheio esse caminho fica intransitável já que não há pontes. Existem inúmeros exemplos desses caminhos em diversos rios que cortam o sertão de Alagoas. E agora? Marcio Aguiar Ribeiro ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Caminhos sazonais
Parece que já existe uma chave para isto: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal Em 13 de agosto de 2014 20:02, Márcio Aguiar Ribeiro aguiar.mar...@gmail.com escreveu: Pessoal, como devo proceder no mapeamento de caminho que não tem periodo certo para existir? Por exemplo: vejam essa localização http://binged.it/1psMMcC. No sertão de Alagoas é muito comum aparecerem caminhos na época de seca do rio. Mas quando o rio está cheio esse caminho fica intransitável já que não há pontes. Existem inúmeros exemplos desses caminhos em diversos rios que cortam o sertão de Alagoas. E agora? Marcio Aguiar Ribeiro ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Caminhos sazonais
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:intermittent [Possible extension to non water ways] On 13-08-2014 20:14, Alexandre Magno Brito de Medeiros wrote: No Seridó http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serid%C3%B3 também tem muito disso. Em em muitos outros lugares. E existem balsas e praias que só possuem trânsito com determinado estado de maré. Em 13 de agosto de 2014 20:02, Márcio Aguiar Ribeiro aguiar.mar...@gmail.com mailto:aguiar.mar...@gmail.com escreveu: Pessoal, como devo proceder no mapeamento de caminho que não tem periodo certo para existir? Por exemplo: vejam essa localização http://binged.it/1psMMcC. No sertão de Alagoas é muito comum aparecerem caminhos na época de seca do rio. Mas quando o rio está cheio esse caminho fica intransitável já que não há pontes. Existem inúmeros exemplos desses caminhos em diversos rios que cortam o sertão de Alagoas. E agora? Marcio Aguiar Ribeiro ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Caminhos sazonais
Eu achei isso aqui também. Não sei se aplica: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford Marcio Aguiar Ribeiro 2014-08-13 20:42 GMT-03:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com: Parece que já existe uma chave para isto: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal Em 13 de agosto de 2014 20:02, Márcio Aguiar Ribeiro aguiar.mar...@gmail.com escreveu: Pessoal, como devo proceder no mapeamento de caminho que não tem periodo certo para existir? Por exemplo: vejam essa localização http://binged.it/1psMMcC. No sertão de Alagoas é muito comum aparecerem caminhos na época de seca do rio. Mas quando o rio está cheio esse caminho fica intransitável já que não há pontes. Existem inúmeros exemplos desses caminhos em diversos rios que cortam o sertão de Alagoas. E agora? Marcio Aguiar Ribeiro ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Caminhos sazonais
Pelo que eu entendi, a chave intermittent=* é utilizada somente em fontes, rios, etc. A chave ford=* tem a ver com áreas de uma via em que pode ter um rio passando na mesma altura da via, ao mesmo tempo. Em 13 de agosto de 2014 20:44, Márcio Aguiar Ribeiro aguiar.mar...@gmail.com escreveu: Eu achei isso aqui também. Não sei se aplica: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford Marcio Aguiar Ribeiro 2014-08-13 20:42 GMT-03:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com: Parece que já existe uma chave para isto: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal Em 13 de agosto de 2014 20:02, Márcio Aguiar Ribeiro aguiar.mar...@gmail.com escreveu: Pessoal, como devo proceder no mapeamento de caminho que não tem periodo certo para existir? Por exemplo: vejam essa localização http://binged.it/1psMMcC. No sertão de Alagoas é muito comum aparecerem caminhos na época de seca do rio. Mas quando o rio está cheio esse caminho fica intransitável já que não há pontes. Existem inúmeros exemplos desses caminhos em diversos rios que cortam o sertão de Alagoas. E agora? Marcio Aguiar Ribeiro ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Notas falsas
Eu não lembro agora a página exata mas vi isso quando estava procurando sobre aplicativos de criação de mapas na wiki em inglês. Acho que tinha a ver com as pessoas que criam scripts para gerar mapas osm diretamente de mapas oficiais digitais. Se eu achar de novo eu envio a referência. De qualquer maneira isso é o bom senso. Gabriel Em 13/08/2014 20:11, Alexandre Magno Brito de Medeiros alexandre@gmail.com escreveu: A interpretação de tal política pode ser um problema. A API de Notas possibilita a criação de uma Nota através de chamada muito simples e pouco criteriosa http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6#Create_a_new_note:_Create:_POST_.2Fapi.2F0.6.2Fnotes. Onde está o literal e o contexto de tal política? O software bugado pode ter *mostrado uma coisa* a uma revisor humano *e feito outra*. Em 13 de agosto de 2014 18:36, Gabriel Teixeira gabrieldiegoteixe...@gmail.com escreveu: Vale lembrar também que por política do OSM não é permitido enviar alterações geradas automaticamente direto para o servidor sem revisão por uma pessoa. Se alguém tivesse olhado essas notas antes de enviar obviamente teria filtrado elas. Just my 2 cents. Em 13/08/2014 15:46, Alexandre Magno Brito de Medeiros alexandre@gmail.com escreveu: Estou entendendo que não era SPAM e que os autores do software bugado se empenharão na reparação. Fica o aprendizado de que a API de Notas está muito frágil, no sentido de possibilitar degradação intencional ou não intencional. Em tempo: o site do Mapillary teve a interface atualizada e eu levarei todos esses problemas em consideração se eu for disponibilizar nova versão funcional do plugin (userscript Greasemonkey) que cria Notas OSM para fotos Mapillary. Talvez seja vez para uma extensão Firefox com usuários autenticados ou coisa que o valha. ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
[Talk-br] Mapillary está dando um abraço forte no OpenStreetMap
*Era: Re: [Talk-br] Coletar fotos para o Mapillary de byke ou moto* Hoje à noite teve mais atualização de interface, com as seguintes novidades: Link para a imagem: i.imgur.com/1CmvKmx.png - Controle remoto do JOSM - Controle remoto para o ID - sobre isso eu já abri a *issue* #280 https://github.com/mapillary/mapillary_issues/issues/280 Quanto ao JOSM, a dica de zoom é a seguinte: assim que ele abrir e carregar os dados por ação do controle remoto, não mexa em qualquer coisa antes de aplicar o zoom suficiente pressionando a tecla *+*. Será um zoom centralizado bem em cima do local da foto! Alexandre Magno Em 13 de agosto de 2014 09:01, Edil Queiroz de Araujo edil...@gmail.com escreveu: Por falar em Mapillary, gostei também das melhorias com as visualizações de imagens, em especial quando se tem imagens de diferentes ângulos de um mesmo lugar, mesmo em diferentes datas ou sequências... ou de uma sequência panorâmica. Foto - http://goo.gl/Fx2dR9 ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-is] Tenging stíga og rútun fyrir gangandi og hjólandi
Sýnist að það séu 46 manneskjur og einn botti (archive) á póstlistanum. Ég var ekki búinn að skoða þetta á wiki. Það væri frábært að fá hjólaleiðahópinn í gang, ef það væri hægt að setjast niður með hjólafólki (eru ekki samtök hjólafólks nýstofnuð) og fara yfir hvernig almennt mat allra er á hvað teljist stofnbrautir í hjólaleiðum og svo hvað eru hliðarbrautir (göngustígar sem tengja saman og þess háttar). Ef að slíkur hjólahópur getur náð lendingu þá er frekar einfalt að koma því á kortið. Þann 13.8.2014 16:29, skrifaði Arni Davidsson: Þurfum við ekki að uppfæra þetta skjal með nýjustu upplýsingum: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Iceland/Cycleways Hjólaleiðahópur Hliðskjálfs hefur ekkert starfað ennþá. Hverjir mundu vilja vera með í honum? Mig mundi langa til að hafa fund í byrjun september og fara yfir álitaefni og stilla saman strengi svo við séum á sömu blaðsíðu og gerum hlutina á svipaðan hátt. Þá væri hægt að uppfæra wiki skjalið með nákvæmari leiðbeiningum í kjölfarið. Sem sagt hverjir vilja vera með? p.s. Hversu margir eru áskrifendur á talk.is http://talk.is?? kveðja Árni 2014-08-12 19:33 GMT+00:00 Jóhannes Birgir Jensson j...@betra.is mailto:j...@betra.is: Já ég held, að svo stöddu, að þetta sé besta lausnin. Pössum auðvitað upp á að allir sértækir hjólastígar séu merktir inn sérstaklega. http://cycle.travel/map er nýtt dæmi með rútun, þeir hafa ekki sett Ísland inn en það ætti að vera auðvelt - ég ætlaði að hafa samband aftur við þá þegar höfuðborgarsvæðið væri orðið aðeins betra. Var að prófa hvernig rútunin virkar hjá þeim með því að velja tvo staði á kortinu, fór fyrstu beygjurnar á hjólastíg, svo vísað á umferðargötu, aftur á hjólastíg, götu og endaði á hjólastíg. --Jói Þann 12.8.2014 15:31, skrifaði Arni Davidsson: Takk fyrir þetta. Er lausnin þá að láta hjólaleiðir liggja um vegi og um sérstaka hjólastíga en ef slíkar leiðir eru ekki finnanlegar þá er sett bicycle=yes á foot path líka til að tengja? Ég sendi póst á Ride the city og spurði hversu oft þeir uppfæra gögnin. Er hægt að benda á önnur Open street map kort sem uppfæra oftar en Ride the city og hafa svipaða notkunarmöguleika. http://openrouteservice.org/?lang=en er eitt en er ekki alveg jafn liðlegt að færa upphafs- og endastað. kveðja Árni 2014-08-11 19:25 GMT+00:00 Jóhannes Birgir Jensson j...@betra.is mailto:j...@betra.is: Ég er búinn að vera að gera skurk í þessu og þegar RideTheCity uppfærir sig sést að mikið af gangstéttum hverfa sem hjólastígar. Ég er líka búinn að vera að reyna að skilgreina sérstaka hjólaleiðir (Relation Cycle Route) og afraksturinn sést betur á OpenCycleMap sem uppfærir kortið vikulega frá OSM. Nýjar leiðir frá mér þarna eru Kópavogsstígur, Kársnesstígur og svo Elliðaárdalsstígarnir. http://opencyclemap.org/?zoom=12lat=64.12851lon=-21.89742layers=B Ég áleit sem svo að best sé að taka bicycle=yes af öllum foot path og svo bætum við þeim á það sem við teldum vera hjólastíga, ekki gangstéttir nema þær geta hins vegar verið hluti hjólaleiða. Þeir sem muna hvernig OpenCycleMap leit út áður muna kannski að það var eiginlega allt í bláum strikum á öllum gangstéttum sem flækti málin frekar en einfaldaði. Nú síðast var ég að skoða tólið sem Strava var að búa til fyrir OSM, þar sem þeir nota hlaupa- og hjólagögnin til að hjálpa OSM að nálgast betur leiðir. Það verður enginn svikinn af þessum fyrirlestri og tólið sem þeir benda á þar svínvirkar, ég var að prófa það. http://stateofthemap.us/session/slide/ Ég sakna svo leiða sem þekkjast sem á meðal hjólreiðamanna, til dæmis rakst ég á feril frá fyrrum vinnufélaga sem fór Jaðarinn sagði hann. Það er mýgrútur af tækifærum þarna til að laga og það eru til fleiri tól en RideTheCity sem virðast eitthvað rólegir í að updeita. Þann 11.8.2014 16:26, skrifaði Arni Davidsson: Sæl Á að skrifa hér á ensku frekar en íslensku? Ég byrja allavega á íslensku. Það hefur áður verið minnst á að leiðavalið (routing) fyrir gangandi og hjólandi sé ekki að ganga sem skyldi í Open street map. Ástæðan er að hluta til innfærsla á gögnum yfir stíga frá sveitarfélögunum því í þeim gögnum virðast stígar oft ekki tengdir yfir götur né við götu. Þannig virkar leiðavalið ekki vegna þess að stígar eru einfaldlega ekki tengdir. Það er fyrirsjáanlegt að það er talsverð vinna að tengja stígana. Sjá t.d. það sem gerist hér að neðan í ridethecity og hvernig gögnin líta út í openstreetmap og í borgarvefsjá: http://is.ridethecity.com/#3655489
[Talk-de] Wochennotiz Nr. 212 5.8.–12.8.2014
Hallo, die Wochennotiz Nr. 212 mit allen wichtigen Neuigkeiten aus der OpenStreetMap Welt ist da: http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2014/08/wochennotiz-nr-212/ Viel Spaß beim Lesen! ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressdaten in POI nodes
Hi! Am 12. August 2014 17:44 schrieb Christian H. Bruhn br...@arcor.de: In Lübeck haben wir eine building-Relation erstellt, die als outline-member die Gebäudehülle mit den Adressinfos enthält und die einzelnen POIs als contains-member (z.B. [1]) ohne Adressangaben. Warum sollte man in einer Geo-DB jene Knoten, welche sich alle innerhalb einer bestimmten Fläche befinden, extra noch in eine Relation geben? Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressdaten in POI nodes
Am 13. August 2014 09:14 schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Am 12. August 2014 17:44 schrieb Christian H. Bruhn br...@arcor.de: In Lübeck haben wir eine building-Relation erstellt, die als outline-member die Gebäudehülle mit den Adressinfos enthält und die einzelnen POIs als contains-member (z.B. [1]) ohne Adressangaben. Warum sollte man in einer Geo-DB jene Knoten, welche sich alle innerhalb einer bestimmten Fläche befinden, extra noch in eine Relation geben? Weil es nicht zwingend ist, dass etwas innerhalb eines Polygons auch eine Beziehung zum Polygon hat. Aber davon abgesehen bin ich kein Freund dieser Relationslösung sondern bevorzuge jedem Node seine eigene Adresse :-) Gruß Falk ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressdaten in POI nodes
Am 13. August 2014 10:08 schrieb Falk Zscheile falk.zsche...@gmail.com: Weil es nicht zwingend ist, dass etwas innerhalb eines Polygons auch eine Beziehung zum Polygon hat. Doch. Die Beziehung ist: es befindet sich innerhalb des Polygons ;-) Was genau ist nochmal die Aussage der contains-Member? ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressdaten in POI nodes
Martin Vonwald wrote, on 2014-08-13 10:43: Am 13. August 2014 10:08 schrieb Falk Zscheile falk.zsche...@gmail.com: Weil es nicht zwingend ist, dass etwas innerhalb eines Polygons auch eine Beziehung zum Polygon hat. Doch. Die Beziehung ist: es befindet sich innerhalb des Polygons ;-) Was genau ist nochmal die Aussage der contains-Member? Da die Datenbank nur flächige Koordinaten kennt, können Objekte, die sich z.B. unterirdisch befinden, innerhalb eines Polygons gezeichnet sein, ohne eine Beziehung dazu zu haben. Städte haben viel unterirdische Infrastruktur. Der Imbiss im U-Bahnhof hat keine Beziehung zu dem Gebäude und insbesondere der Addresse im Haus obendrüber. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressdaten in POI nodes
Am 13. August 2014 11:52 schrieb Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org: Martin Vonwald wrote, on 2014-08-13 10:43: Am 13. August 2014 10:08 schrieb Falk Zscheile falk.zsche...@gmail.com: Weil es nicht zwingend ist, dass etwas innerhalb eines Polygons auch eine Beziehung zum Polygon hat. Doch. Die Beziehung ist: es befindet sich innerhalb des Polygons ;-) Was genau ist nochmal die Aussage der contains-Member? Da die Datenbank nur flächige Koordinaten kennt, können Objekte, die sich z.B. unterirdisch befinden, innerhalb eines Polygons gezeichnet sein, ohne eine Beziehung dazu zu haben. Dann sollten sie aber einen abweichenden level/layer-Tag haben. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressdaten in POI nodes
Am 13.08.2014 11:52, schrieb Tom Pfeifer: Städte haben viel unterirdische Infrastruktur. Der Imbiss im U-Bahnhof hat keine Beziehung zu dem Gebäude und insbesondere der Addresse im Haus obendrüber. Das sind aber dann eben auch die einzigen Fälle, in denen eine Relation in Frage kommt. Bei eindeutigen Situationen sollte man davon ausgehen, dass POI innerhalb eines Gebäudeumrisses sich auch in der Realität in diesem Gebäude befinden. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-it] Toponomastica e specifiche ISTAT
Ciao a tutti, ultimamente sto' sistemando la toponomastica inserita in OSM aiutandomi un po' con i dati Regionali FVG (un sentito grazie a marco bra per i files civi_no_match che ci ha messo a disposizione) e un po' con conoscenza locale. Purtroppo il lavoro e' lungo e ci si arena spesso a causa di un apostrofo o una maiuscola/minuscola all'interno di un cognome... Segnalo che molti comuni (in generale, in tutta Italia, basta sgoggolare delibera toponomastica istat) stanno emettendo Delibere per adeguare lo stradario comunale alle varie circolari ISTAT che trovate qui: http://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/wps/content/Nsilib/Nsi/Home/CosaDeviFare/Consultare+dati+catastali+e+ipotecari/Scambio+dati+catastali+e+cartografici+con+enti+o+PA/Portale+per+i+Comuni/Servizi+portale+dei+comuni/toponomastica/ in particolare quella del 06 maggio 2014 che da precise indicazioni su come debbano essere riportati i nomi di persona, le abbreviazioni, i titoli onorifici etc Cio' comporta, purtroppo, che alcune informazioni riportate sul luogo (es. cartello con strada s. martino) possano essere superate da un provvedimento esecutivo comunale (es. STRADA DI SAN MARTINO). La circolare non ci viene incontro per la gestione delle maiuscole/minuscole ma qui: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Maiuscolo_e_minuscolo ci sono alcuni riferimenti a pubblicazioni dell'Accademia della Crusca e alle RICA (Regole italiane di Catalogazione per Autore) molto interessanti. Sarebbe utile avviare una discussione per integrare/aggiornare il wiki con istruzioni precise in merito al tag name. Penso che avere dati OSM allineati, oltre che dare autorevolezza alla mappa, agevolerebbe non poco i futuri import dei civici qualora disponibili. Saluti. -- Marco_T -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Toponomastica-e-specifiche-ISTAT-tp5814460.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Toponomastica e specifiche ISTAT
2014-08-13 19:31 GMT+02:00 Marco_T toto...@libero.it: Cio' comporta, purtroppo, che alcune informazioni riportate sul luogo (es. cartello con strada s. martino) possano essere superate da un provvedimento esecutivo comunale (es. STRADA DI SAN MARTINO). divertente. scopri che dopo 10 anni che inserisci in OSM i nomi completi di nome e cognome contrariamente a quanto espresso nella cartellonistica, alla fine, avevi ragione tu e percio'...in un certo senso...è il comune ad adeguarsi ad OSM. -- -S ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
[Talk-it] estratti comunali openstreetmap
Ciao, Fabrizio sbiri Tambussa ha iniziato a rendere disponibili gli estratti comunali, provinciali e regionali di tutta italia dei dati OpenStreetMap. L'intento è quello di renderli disponibili aggiornati ogni 24 ore, a partire dal dump giornaliero OSM. attualmente sono forniti in formato originale OSM, PBF e SHP. Si è scelto, inoltre, di renderli disponibili in formato rettangolare, in maniera da permettere, a chi ne avesse la necessità, di calcolare una zona di buffer, a partire dal file di confine incluso nel file stesso. a breve, oltre a rendere l'estratto quotidiano, inseriremo alcuni file di supporto, con ricette per l'estrazione dei dati e l'elenco dei contributors per il file stesso, oltre a fornire una versione compatibile in maniera nativa con il software di statistica R. Con questa pre-release, cerchiamo consigli si cosa aggiungere al file e cosa migliorare del processo di generazione. http://osm-toolserver-italia.wmflabs.org/estratti/ Simone. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] estratti comunali openstreetmap
Il giorno 13 agosto 2014 20:05, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com ha scritto: Ciao, Fabrizio sbiri Tambussa ha iniziato a rendere disponibili gli estratti comunali, provinciali e regionali di tutta italia dei dati OpenStreetMap. Le province per ora non le estraggo. L'intento è quello di renderli disponibili aggiornati ogni 24 ore, a partire dal dump giornaliero OSM. attualmente sono forniti in formato originale OSM, PBF e SHP. Si è scelto, inoltre, di renderli disponibili in formato rettangolare, in maniera da permettere, a chi ne avesse la necessità, di calcolare una zona di buffer, a partire dal file di confine incluso nel file stesso. Qualcuno potrebbe storcere il naso per gli estratti rettangolari: e' stata fatta una scelta dalla quale si puo' estrarre il file relativo al comune ritagliando il confine presente nel file. L'operazione inversa con un file ritagliato sul confine non si puo' fare. http://osm-toolserver-italia.wmflabs.org/estratti/ Per gli amanti dei dettagli tecnici: 1) estraggo i boundary=administrative con una query overpass; suddivido i boundary in regionali o comunali. Per ognuno prendo il nome e id della relation 2) con questi dati calcolo il bounding box di ogni confine e lo metto in dei file CSV 3) a partire dall'estratto PBF dell'Italia estraggo i ritagli regionali in PBF, poi ne converto una copia: - in osm.zip con osmconvert --complete-ways --complex-ways .. per preservare le ways che superano il bbox - in formato SHP con osm2shape 3) lo stesso procedimento lo applico ai comuni, partendo ad estrarre il bbox comunale dal PBF regionale Dentro gli zip metto un file README italiano/inglese (scritto da Simone) in cui elenco i nomi di tutti gli utenti contributori per quel bbox. Devo ancora zippare i PBF per includere i README... Si e' scelto di utilizzare il formato ZIP al posto del piu' performante bz2 per rendere piu' fruibili i file generati. Per ora mi sembra tutto. Saluti Sbiribizio ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Coventry changes - new user
A new user has made some edits on the new development in Wood End, Coventry. It probably needs someone to drop by and do a new survey to clean up between new and construction roads as currently both are present following the new edit. http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24706794 Cheers Andy ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-es] Correcto etiquetado resultados de Catastro. Addr:housenumber
Hola. Poquito a poco me quiero poner a importar los datos de varias pequeñas poblaciones que conozco bien y he realizado la conversión con Cat2osm2. Tal como se ha dicho en infinidad de ocasiones, los datos de catastro en cuestión de nombres de calles y números de policia dejan mucho que desear, pero mi duda es otra. He visto en varias importaciones, Santander, Medina de Pomar, etc, que los compañeros eliminan el polígono landuse=residential y se asocian los datos de nombre de calles y addr:housenumber al poligono principal building=residential. Siguiendo el manual sobre limpieza y normalización [1], se dice de asignar el número de policia adecuado al poligono más representativo del edificio, pero lo que veo, es que de esta manera, perdemos se pierde el dato de la referencia catastral del poligono landuse. Por otro lado, en diversas pruebas haciendo las cosas de distintas formas, he visto que (y ya se que no hay que trabajar para el renderizador) si se asigna el número al polígono landuse y no al building, ese no se representa en el mapa. En defnitiva, que seria mejor, copiar las etiquetas del landuse y asignarlas al poligono principal, para así no perder la referencia catastral.? Borrar el landuse y asignar los addr al building, sin registro catastral?. Como lo estais haciendo por otros lares?. Que fue antes, el huevo o la gallina?.. Saludos. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limpieza_y_normalizaci%C3%B3n_de_datos_catastrales ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
[Talk-es] Catastro Córdoba
Hola a todos Ahora que está aquí el verano y hay algo más de tiempo, espero poder empezar a trabajar con lo datos de catastro para el municipio de Córdoba. He añadido mi usuario a la lista de los municipios de Córdoba [1] pero me he dado cuenta de que no existe el usuario OSM catastro para la provincia. Si no hay nadie que esté interesado me ofrezco para ello y veremos qué tal anda el invento. Mi usuario osm es pasoriano [2] y el correo, por si es necesario, es pasori...@gmail.com Un saludo a todos [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spanish_Cadastre/results/C%C3%B3rdoba#C [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pasoriano ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
Re: [Talk-es] Catastro Córdoba
Hola. En principio el responsable de asignar las cuentas de importacion (import_cordoba en este caso) era Jaime pero he visto que esto ha cambiado y ahora es Celso Gonzalez, usuario osm PerroVerd [1]. Supongo que deberías ponerte en contacto con el para que cree la cuenta de importacion y te haga responsable :). Saludos. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:PerroVerd El 13 de agosto de 2014, 19:50, Patricio Soriano pasori...@gmail.com escribió: Hola a todos Ahora que está aquí el verano y hay algo más de tiempo, espero poder empezar a trabajar con lo datos de catastro para el municipio de Córdoba. He añadido mi usuario a la lista de los municipios de Córdoba [1] pero me he dado cuenta de que no existe el usuario OSM catastro para la provincia. Si no hay nadie que esté interesado me ofrezco para ello y veremos qué tal anda el invento. Mi usuario osm es pasoriano [2] y el correo, por si es necesario, es pasori...@gmail.com Un saludo a todos [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spanish_Cadastre/results/C%C3%B3rdoba#C [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pasoriano ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
Re: [Talk-es] Catastro Córdoba
Gracias Matías. Me pondré en contacto con Celso por correo. El 13 de agosto de 2014, 20:43, Matías Taborda Barroso taborda.barr...@gmail.com escribió: Hola. En principio el responsable de asignar las cuentas de importacion (import_cordoba en este caso) era Jaime pero he visto que esto ha cambiado y ahora es Celso Gonzalez, usuario osm PerroVerd [1]. Supongo que deberías ponerte en contacto con el para que cree la cuenta de importacion y te haga responsable :). Saludos. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:PerroVerd El 13 de agosto de 2014, 19:50, Patricio Soriano pasori...@gmail.com escribió: Hola a todos Ahora que está aquí el verano y hay algo más de tiempo, espero poder empezar a trabajar con lo datos de catastro para el municipio de Córdoba. He añadido mi usuario a la lista de los municipios de Córdoba [1] pero me he dado cuenta de que no existe el usuario OSM catastro para la provincia. Si no hay nadie que esté interesado me ofrezco para ello y veremos qué tal anda el invento. Mi usuario osm es pasoriano [2] y el correo, por si es necesario, es pasori...@gmail.com Un saludo a todos [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spanish_Cadastre/results/C%C3%B3rdoba#C [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pasoriano ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
Re: [Talk-ar] Empezando
Gracias por desasnarme. Yo particularmente entendí que no iban a tener la alturas porque los mapas OSM de Garmin estuvieron mucho tiempo sin tenerlas, algo que uno puede entender como básico pasaron varios meses hasta que me dieron una respuesta posta (varias veces me dijeron que andaban y no era así), como entendí que era ingeniería reversa parecía técnicamente muy complejo de resolver. Ahora no tengo GPS Garmin, en realidad nunca lo tuve, lo que tenía era el Nokia que venía con un software de Garmin. Cuando me pasé a Android seguí buscando mapas de Garmin por inercia, después descubrí OsmAnd y chau Garmin. Igual el dato lo valoro mucho porque era una traba importante contar a alguien con GPS Garmin lo bueno que son los mapas de OSM si no tenían las alturas. ¿Funcionan con relaciones o solo con segmentos de interpolación? El día lunes, 11 de agosto de 2014 21:45, Martin Andres Gomez Gimenez mggime...@i-nis.com.ar escribió: El lun, 11-08-2014 a las 11:31 -0700, Federico Pértile escribió: Salvo que me haya quedado desactualizado el problema de los mapas Garmin basados en OSM es que no tienen altura de calles y no está previsto que lo tengan. Hola Federico! Lamento decirte que has quedado muy desactualizado. Las alturas en los mapas para Garmin funcionan y muy bien. No se quién hizo correr la versión de que nunca funcionarían las alturas, ya que los desarrolladores de Mkgmap han trabajado muy duro para hacer que funcione. El ruteo y los tiempos de arribo también funcionan bien, pero dependen (al igual que las alturas) que el la región geográfica esté correctamente relevada y si es posible bien detallada. Recomiendo que pruebes el mapa que compilo en un Garmin y después me contas. Seguramente encontrarás errore, los cuales estaría bueno que los reportaras en el foro para poder corregirlos. Saludos, -- Martin Andres Gomez Gimenez web: http://www.i-nis.com.ar e-mail: mggime...@i-nis.com.ar Jabber: mggime...@i-nis.com.ar Celular: (+54911) 5837-5521 Usuario Linux: #306000 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 0x52C123F7 Key fingerprint = 9155 6573 EE6D 1D80 5E2B 6F5B F14A AF1E 52C1 23F7 ___ Talk-ar mailing list Talk-ar@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ar___ Talk-ar mailing list Talk-ar@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ar
Re: [Talk-pt] OSM 10 anos - Extractos de Portugal
Parabéns pela iniciativa, estou certo que irá dar muito jeito. Os dados são actualizados de quanto em quanto tempo? Obrigado. Alexandre Neto Em 13/08/2014 00:25, Marcos Oliveira marcosoliveira.2...@gmail.com escreveu: Olá Geocrafter, obrigado pela contribuição! Contudo estou curioso, onde é que fostes buscar a informação sobre os limites dos municípios? No dia 12 de Agosto de 2014 às 23:45, The Geocrafter geocrafter@gmail.com escreveu: Viva lista, Com alguns dias de atraso, aqui vai o meu contributo http://thegeocrafter.github.io/osmpt.html para os 10 anos do OSM @PT. Best Regards, Cumprimentos, The Geocrafter http://thegeocrafter.github.io/ ___ Talk-pt mailing list Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt -- Um Abraço, Marcos Oliveira ___ Talk-pt mailing list Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt ___ Talk-pt mailing list Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
Re: [Talk-pt] OSM 10 anos - Extractos de Portugal
Sim pode ser uma excelente ajuda. Embora seja preciso que as CM (ou os técnicos) queiram. Considera colocar o site no planet.osm: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Planet.osm#Downloading Cumprimentos, Alexandre Neto 2014-08-13 8:57 GMT+01:00 The Geocrafter geocrafter@gmail.com: Viva, @Marcos - Os limites são os da CAOP actual, com uma ligeira generalização para diminuir o tamanho final. @Alexandre - Os dados são actualizados (mais ou menos) semanalmente. Ainda não tenho o processo automatizado em servidor...podem consultar as diff files aqui https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6381vh8dfcl8nyr/AABHqDoRkx4iJUhSdOnES3W2a/OSMPT . Espero que este contributo facilite a migração das CM's ao OSM, para nos vermos livres dos horríveis base layers que a generalidade dos websig camarários nos 'presenteiam'. Best Regards, Cumprimentos, The Geocrafter http://thegeocrafter.github.io/ No dia 13 de Agosto de 2014 às 07:52, Alexandre Neto senhor.n...@gmail.com escreveu: Parabéns pela iniciativa, estou certo que irá dar muito jeito. Os dados são actualizados de quanto em quanto tempo? Obrigado. Alexandre Neto Em 13/08/2014 00:25, Marcos Oliveira marcosoliveira.2...@gmail.com escreveu: Olá Geocrafter, obrigado pela contribuição! Contudo estou curioso, onde é que fostes buscar a informação sobre os limites dos municípios? No dia 12 de Agosto de 2014 às 23:45, The Geocrafter geocrafter@gmail.com escreveu: Viva lista, Com alguns dias de atraso, aqui vai o meu contributo http://thegeocrafter.github.io/osmpt.html para os 10 anos do OSM @PT. Best Regards, Cumprimentos, The Geocrafter http://thegeocrafter.github.io/ ___ Talk-pt mailing list Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt -- Um Abraço, Marcos Oliveira ___ Talk-pt mailing list Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt ___ Talk-pt mailing list Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt ___ Talk-pt mailing list Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt ___ Talk-pt mailing list Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
[Talk-cz] WMS vrstva vrstevnic do JOSM?
Ahoj, existuje někde WMS vrstva s vrstevnicemi, kterou bych si mohl přidat do JOSM? Občas by se mi hodilo vidět satelitní snímky ve třetím rozměru. Něco jsem našel na UHUL, ale ten sám o sobě funguje hodně pomalu, případně vůbec. A vůbec netuším, jak to mají přesné. Není někde něco lepšího? Díky. Marián ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] WMS vrstva vrstevnic do JOSM?
Ahoj, Ahoj, existuje někde WMS vrstva s vrstevnicemi, kterou bych si mohl přidat do JOSM? Občas by se mi hodilo vidět satelitní snímky ve třetím rozměru. Něco jsem našel na UHUL, ale ten sám o sobě funguje hodně pomalu, případně vůbec. A vůbec netuším, jak to mají přesné. Není někde něco lepšího? říkám si, co teď budu dělat. Jedna z myšlenek byla naučit se Mapserver a tohle by asi bylo dobré cvičení, stejně jako všechna ta RUIAN data. Mapserver mám už pár měsíců zkompilovaný, takže teď se na to jen podívat ;-). Vrstevnice v DB mám ( FYI gis.cz_contours). Hodil by se mi nějaký rychlokurz Mapserveru ;-) -- Petr ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] WMS vrstva vrstevnic do JOSM?
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:08:12PM +0200, Petr Vejsada wrote: Hodil by se mi nějaký rychlokurz Mapserveru ;-) ... nebo můžu udělat TMS téměř hned. -- Petr ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
[Talk-cz] kde lidé jezdí na kole
Ahoj, pokud si v JOSM zapnete mapy Strava cycling heatmap nebo Strava running heatmap, tak uvidíte, kde lidé jezdí na kole / běhají. Určitě tak najdete cesty, které ještě nejsou zmapované. Zdraví Pavel Kwiecien ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] kde lidé jezdí na kole
-- Původní zpráva -- Od: Pavel Kwiecien pavel.kwiec...@seznam.cz Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org Datum: 13. 8. 2014 14:25:46 Předmět: [Talk-cz] kde lidé jezdí na kole Ahoj, pokud si v JOSM zapnete mapy Strava cycling heatmap nebo Strava running heatmap, tak uvidíte, kde lidé jezdí na kole / běhají. Určitě tak najdete cesty, které ještě nejsou zmapované. Díky za tip. Mně teď docela stačí polní cesty, které na mne vykouknou po naklikání polí z LPIS ;-) Marián___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] WMS vrstva vrstevnic do JOSM?
-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Pavel Kwiecien pavel.kwiec...@seznam.cz
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 13. 8. 2014 14:00:06
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] WMS vrstva vrstevnic do JOSM?
Ahoj, v JOSM mám uložené tyto vrstevnice:
wms:http://geoweb.hft-stuttgart.de/cgi-bin/mapserv?map=/var/www/SRTM/test.
mapFORMAT=image/gifVERSION=1.1.1SERVICE=WMSREQUEST=GetMapLAYERS=
Contourlinien10STYLES=SRS={proj}WIDTH={width}HEIGHT={height}BBOX={bbox}
Díky. Ještě by se hodilo mít tam nějaké popisky, ale to bych už asi chtěl
moc ;-)
Marián
Zdraví Pavel Kwiecien
-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Marián Kyral mky...@email.cz
Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 13. 8. 2014 13:07:45
Předmět: [Talk-cz] WMS vrstva vrstevnic do JOSM?
Ahoj,
existuje někde WMS vrstva s vrstevnicemi, kterou bych si mohl přidat do
JOSM? Občas by se mi hodilo vidět satelitní snímky ve třetím rozměru.
Něco jsem našel na UHUL, ale ten sám o sobě funguje hodně pomalu, případně
vůbec. A vůbec netuším, jak to mají přesné. Není někde něco lepšího?
Díky.
Marián
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz;
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz;___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
[Talk-cz] Ničení adres tracerem?
Ahoj, objevil jsem území v Kralupech, kde v OSM nejsou žádné adresy, ačkoli by měly být. Jedná se o cesty (budovy), které mají ref:ruian:addr, ale vlastní addr:* jaxi ne. Seznam na http://pedro.poloha.net/osm/zmizeleadresy.txt Kromě jednotlivostí i v jiných městech, kde ovšem adresa nechybí, a Neratovic, kde adresa asi také nechybí, se tento jev vyskytuje jen v Kralupech nad Vltavou (nezkoumal jsem všech 811 případů). Dalším znakem je, že budovy upravoval nick psychoman tracerem až po importu. Zajímavé, že v Neratovicích sice je budova s ref:ruian:addr bez ničeho, ale vlastní adresa je pak na bodu, kdežto v Kralupech žádný bod není - adresy nejsou. Adresy v Kralupech opravím, ale jak zabránit opakování? Je tu pschonmann? Pokud budou Kralupy v OSM už opraveny, takještě pár dní bude jev k vidění na http://mapapi.poloha.net -- Petr, p...@propsychology.cz p t ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Ničení adres tracerem?
Ahoj, když tak nad tím uvažuji, tak to bude potřeba opravit. Tracer kopíruje jen tagy building a ruian. Ostatních si nevšímá, takže zůstanou na staré budově, kterou pak následně smaže :-( To mi nějak nedošlo. Marián -- Původní zpráva -- Od: Petr Vejsada o...@propsychology.cz Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org Datum: 13. 8. 2014 19:08:37 Předmět: [Talk-cz] Ničení adres tracerem? Ahoj, objevil jsem území v Kralupech, kde v OSM nejsou žádné adresy, ačkoli by měly být. Jedná se o cesty (budovy), které mají ref:ruian:addr, ale vlastní addr:* jaxi ne. Seznam na http://pedro.poloha.net/osm/zmizeleadresy.txt Kromě jednotlivostí i v jiných městech, kde ovšem adresa nechybí, a Neratovic, kde adresa asi také nechybí, se tento jev vyskytuje jen v Kralupech nad Vltavou (nezkoumal jsem všech 811 případů). Dalším znakem je, že budovy upravoval nick psychoman tracerem až po importu. Zajímavé, že v Neratovicích sice je budova s ref:ruian:addr bez ničeho, ale vlastní adresa je pak na bodu, kdežto v Kralupech žádný bod není - adresy nejsou. Adresy v Kralupech opravím, ale jak zabránit opakování? Je tu pschonmann? Pokud budou Kralupy v OSM už opraveny, takještě pár dní bude jev k vidění na http://mapapi.poloha.net -- Petr, p...@propsychology.cz p t ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz;___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Ničení adres tracerem?
Beru zpět, já vlastně kopíruji tagy z nové budovy na tu starou :-D Marián -- Původní zpráva -- Od: Marián Kyral mky...@email.cz Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic talk-cz@openstreetmap.org Datum: 13. 8. 2014 19:27:03 Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Ničení adres tracerem? Ahoj, když tak nad tím uvažuji, tak to bude potřeba opravit. Tracer kopíruje jen tagy building a ruian. Ostatních si nevšímá, takže zůstanou na staré budově, kterou pak následně smaže :-( To mi nějak nedošlo. Marián -- Původní zpráva -- Od: Petr Vejsada o...@propsychology.cz Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org Datum: 13. 8. 2014 19:08:37 Předmět: [Talk-cz] Ničení adres tracerem? Ahoj, objevil jsem území v Kralupech, kde v OSM nejsou žádné adresy, ačkoli by měly být. Jedná se o cesty (budovy), které mají ref:ruian:addr, ale vlastní addr:* jaxi ne. Seznam na http://pedro.poloha.net/osm/zmizeleadresy.txt Kromě jednotlivostí i v jiných městech, kde ovšem adresa nechybí, a Neratovic, kde adresa asi také nechybí, se tento jev vyskytuje jen v Kralupech nad Vltavou (nezkoumal jsem všech 811 případů). Dalším znakem je, že budovy upravoval nick psychoman tracerem až po importu. Zajímavé, že v Neratovicích sice je budova s ref:ruian:addr bez ničeho, ale vlastní adresa je pak na bodu, kdežto v Kralupech žádný bod není - adresy nejsou. Adresy v Kralupech opravím, ale jak zabránit opakování? Je tu pschonmann? Pokud budou Kralupy v OSM už opraveny, takještě pár dní bude jev k vidění na http://mapapi.poloha.net -- Petr, p...@propsychology.cz p t ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz; ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz;___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Ničení adres tracerem?
Ahoj, Dne St 13. srpna 2014 19:33:30, Marián Kyral napsal(a): Beru zpět, já vlastně kopíruji tagy z nové budovy na tu starou :-D jo, vypadá to, že to udělal jen v tom jednom changesetu záměrně. Tedy ne záměrně ničit, ale záměrně odstranil ty adresy z budov v domnění, že jsou duplicitní s adresními body. Marián -- Původní zpráva -- Od: Marián Kyral mky...@email.cz Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic talk-cz@openstreetmap.org Datum: 13. 8. 2014 19:27:03 Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Ničení adres tracerem? Ahoj, když tak nad tím uvažuji, tak to bude potřeba opravit. Tracer kopíruje jen tagy building a ruian. Ostatních si nevšímá, takže zůstanou na staré budově, kterou pak následně smaže :-( To mi nějak nedošlo. Marián -- Původní zpráva -- Od: Petr Vejsada o...@propsychology.cz Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org Datum: 13. 8. 2014 19:08:37 Předmět: [Talk-cz] Ničení adres tracerem? Ahoj, objevil jsem území v Kralupech, kde v OSM nejsou žádné adresy, ačkoli by měly být. Jedná se o cesty (budovy), které mají ref:ruian:addr, ale vlastní addr:* jaxi ne. Seznam na http://pedro.poloha.net/osm/zmizeleadresy.txt Kromě jednotlivostí i v jiných městech, kde ovšem adresa nechybí, a Neratovic, kde adresa asi také nechybí, se tento jev vyskytuje jen v Kralupech nad Vltavou (nezkoumal jsem všech 811 případů). Dalším znakem je, že budovy upravoval nick psychoman tracerem až po importu. Zajímavé, že v Neratovicích sice je budova s ref:ruian:addr bez ničeho, ale vlastní adresa je pak na bodu, kdežto v Kralupech žádný bod není - adresy nejsou. Adresy v Kralupech opravím, ale jak zabránit opakování? Je tu pschonmann? Pokud budou Kralupy v OSM už opraveny, takještě pár dní bude jev k vidění na http://mapapi.poloha.net -- Petr, p...@propsychology.cz p t ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz; ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz; ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
[Talk-cz] aktualizace chráněných území
Zdravím, chtěl jsem se zeptat na aktualizaci chráněných území EEA - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/EEA:Nationally_designated_areas_import . Psal jsem si s uživatelem Kozuch, který import před dvěma lety prováděl a ten na aktualizaci nemá vůbec čas. Zmínil ale, že by bylo vhodné provést propojení s wikipedií - dnes téměř každá chráněná oblast má svoji vlastní stránku na cs.wikipedii. Na samotnou aktualizaci si rozhodně netroufám, ale mohl bych pomoct s nějakým poloautomatickým importem wiki stránek. Zároveň bych prosil toho, kdo bude případnou aktualizaci provádět, zda-li by bylo možné zachovat i zaniklá chráněná území (předřadit jim tag disused nebospíš abandon), neboť informace o tom kde bývalo chráněné území je stále cenné (viz třeba ta wikipedie, kde jsou stránky i o těch již zaniklých). xkomczax ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] OSM (MapQuest) sur le Géoportail de l'IGN...
Le mardi 12 août 2014 23:35:11 Vincent de Château-Thierry a écrit : Le 12/08/2014 22:35, Christian Quest a écrit : Info pas encore passée ici, mais que je vous laisse savourer en consultant: http://geoportail.fr/url/7FF1IT http://geoportail.fr/url/7FF1IT Chouette symbole :) Carrément ! Ils marquent des points là :-) Bravo aux gens qui ont poussé ça à l'IGN et ailleurs. -- Nicolas Dumoulin http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NicolasDumoulin ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] OSM (MapQuest) sur le Géoportail de l'IGN...
Le 13/08/2014 08:54, Nicolas Dumoulin a écrit : Ils marquent des points là Je ne sais pas s'ils marquent des points car la navigation est toujours aussi lente et lourde par rapport aux sites d'OSM, MapQuest, etc. Que c'est pénible de revenir à chaque fois sur le globe quand on change la transparence des couches... Samy ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] OSM (MapQuest) sur le Géoportail de l'IGN...
Là je suis d'accord, pour le rendu carto web il est grand temps que le Géoportail arrête son truc propriétaire et utilise un framework ouvert qui marche beaucoup mieux et qui permettra toujours de greffer les couches sélectionnables. Que c'est pénible à utiliser ! Mais pour être honnètete, je peux aussi dire que c'est tout de même mieux que ce que cela a été dans le passé, ils ont du travailler pour pouvoir intégrer des cartos venant de tiers. En revanche rien à dire sur les mentions légales de droit d'auteur; licences, attributions... Le 13 août 2014 09:52, Samy Mezani samy.mez...@wanadoo.fr a écrit : Le 13/08/2014 08:54, Nicolas Dumoulin a écrit : Ils marquent des points là Je ne sais pas s'ils marquent des points car la navigation est toujours aussi lente et lourde par rapport aux sites d'OSM, MapQuest, etc. Que c'est pénible de revenir à chaque fois sur le globe quand on change la transparence des couches... Samy ___ 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: [OSM-talk-fr] OSM (MapQuest) sur le Géoportail de l'IGN...
Génial... par exemple on peut enfin visualiser la couche parcelles cadastreIGN superposée aux données IGN... ou l'occupation des sols RPG -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-MapQuest-sur-le-Geoportail-de-l-IGN-tp5814352p581.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] OSM (MapQuest) sur le Géoportail de l'IGN...
Il n'existerait pas en layer wms ce calque cadastre ? Le 13 août 2014 16:58, PierreV belett...@hotmail.fr a écrit : Génial... par exemple on peut enfin visualiser la couche parcelles cadastreIGN superposée aux données IGN... ou l'occupation des sols RPG -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-MapQuest-sur-le-Geoportail-de-l-IGN-tp5814352p581.html Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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-GB] C roads again
This sounds very sensible. Can/should it be extrapolated to cover other cases where the signposting (or lack of it) of a road number contradicts the official version? I am thinking specifically of B-roads which are still officially classified as such, and indeed frequently rendered as secondary (not just by OSM), where the road number was removed from the signs years ago (probably to discourage traffic)? Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.4083/0.2956 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.409452,0.298958,3a,75y,234.44h,78.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-0NCD5FN6g3rpCZLcqhXQA!2e0?hl=en Highcross Road and Whitehill Road are both shown as B255, because that is what they officially are. On-the-ground evidence is that they are more tertiary (Whitehill Road) and nasty windy country lane unclassified (Highcross Road) and there is no sign of B255 on any sign. Should we put B255 into official_ref here? --colin On 2014-08-13 00:58, Ed Loach wrote: After previous discussions I've already changed the C road references that I mapped (from roadworks signs) to official_ref, so your suggestion seems sensible. I feel ref should be reserved for (permanently?) signposted references. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1] Links: -- [1] 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] C roads again
On 13/08/14 01:22, Robert Norris wrote: However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary. Ditto. But it's a bit like the 'name' problem where a few roads have locally known names, but these are not displayed on signs :( Need recording but not necessarily displaying. On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe others don't find the problem. It refuses to use the B4632 ( used to be the A46! ) going north from here, and I can't trace why. Roads south are a similar problem, but these a good quality 'C' roads. Should they be 'upgraded' to secondary or should the distinction be removed in OSMAND for UK roads? If I can't trust local routing why should I at a new destination and we are talking a several mile detour here which can add 30mins to the journey. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
On 12/08/14 23:08, Rob Nickerson wrote: 6, The Hollies, Birmingham Road, Town, Cases I've seen are maisonettes and parades of shops. I've used: housenumber: 5 street: The Hollies, Birmingham Road but that is more to ensure the data is captured than because it really seems right to me. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13/08/14 07:37, Lester Caine wrote: On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe others don't find the problem. It refuses to use the B4632 ( used to be the A46! ) going north from here, and I can't trace why. Roads south are a similar problem, but these a good quality 'C' roads. Should they be 'upgraded' to secondary or should the distinction be removed in OSMAND for UK roads? If I can't trust local routing why should I at a new destination and we are talking a several mile detour here which can add 30mins to the journey. If you don't like the routing decisions an app makes then talk to it's author or use a different one - certainly don't try and hack the data to make it do what you want. Aside from anything else it might affect other apps routing decisions in entirely different ways. There is a well defined meaning to trunk/primary/secondary for UK roads so please use it. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
On 12/08/14 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote: So... how do people tag UK addresses? The standard for representing addresses in Britain is BS7666, which comprises: * Primary addressable object name (PAON), * Secondary addressable object name (SAON), * street, * postcode, * locality (if available), * town, * county This combination of PAON and SAON allows them to do easily capture addresses such as: It STILL irritates me that in some places every building gets the full list of entries. In which ever country of the world. In the UK the 'addressable object' data + postcode is all that is required since the rest can be cloned from the postcode - or some other unique ID for the related object. The structure should support this method of working and then editors could pull up matching data where necessary. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
2014-08-12 23:18 GMT+01:00 Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com: On 12/08/2014 22:46, Derick Rethans wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Tom Hughes wrote: On 12/08/14 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote: Example 1 Flat 2 8 Something Road, Town, ... addr:flatnumber=2 I actually have used addr:flat here before (and addr:unit for slightly related things in like parades). cheers, Derick I have occasionally used addr:flat when tagging the entrance to a single flat, but usually use addr:flats. I did use addr:flatnumber originally but changed to addr:flats as that seems to have become more widely accepted. For what it's worth, there is a wiki page for addr:flats at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:flats The information there seems correct to me, although I might add that flat numbers can sometimes be letters or even names. I have tagged real examples like: addr:flats = 1-5;The Garden Flat;The Penthouse This one is news to me. It seems a bit quirky to use addr:flats=3 to represent Flat 3 but if it's used then I'll use it. Do yall use it? (I think I've used addr:unit before, but never been sure) Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13/08/14 08:20, Tom Hughes wrote: On 13/08/14 07:37, Lester Caine wrote: On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe others don't find the problem. It refuses to use the B4632 ( used to be the A46! ) going north from here, and I can't trace why. Roads south are a similar problem, but these a good quality 'C' roads. Should they be 'upgraded' to secondary or should the distinction be removed in OSMAND for UK roads? If I can't trust local routing why should I at a new destination and we are talking a several mile detour here which can add 30mins to the journey. If you don't like the routing decisions an app makes then talk to it's author or use a different one - certainly don't try and hack the data to make it do what you want. Aside from anything else it might affect other apps routing decisions in entirely different ways. There is a well defined meaning to trunk/primary/secondary for UK roads so please use it. One can select different routers and they all give different results for much the same reason. The 'well defined meaning' is fine from a political point of view, but in rural areas it is failing when used as a means of identifying road quality for routing. I have a number of open posts on this which no one seems interested in discussing, but if you can provide an alternative to OSMAND which will work better I'd be more that willing to check it out. The old TomTom gets it right most of the time so this is just a matter of getting something right. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
Dan wrote: addr:flats = 1-5;The Garden Flat;The Penthouse This one is news to me. It seems a bit quirky to use addr:flats=3 to represent Flat 3 but if it's used then I'll use it. Do yall use it? (I think I've used addr:unit before, but never been sure) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aaddr%3Aflats shows it is used almost 25000 times globally. The addr:unit wiki description seems to be more about blocks inside a building rather than specific flat numbers. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
On 13/08/14 08:58, David Woolley wrote: On 13/08/14 08:29, Lester Caine wrote: rest can be cloned from the postcode - or some other unique ID for the related object. Only if you have purchased access to the PAF or National Gazeteer. Capture of the former, on OSM, is patchy, and of the latter is non-existent, or virtually so. That data will be available, but it does not stop using the method to add it to the OSM data currently. If you are adding 50 house numbers you end up using the copy function to add a vast amount of data where one only needs a small subset of that in practice! A lot of postcodes are currently missing and it would be nice simply to import the raw missing stuff, but it does not prevent good practice generally? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 01:22, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but not that I'm aware of any explicitly. Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell. Near where I used to live there's an explicit C-ref signposted. You can see it on Street View at https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.904271,-1.021604,3a,53.7y,41.45h,81.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdOSZUFI5BkWGJB-Pw4RU-A!2e0 I mapped the road as tertiary but haven't yet added the ref to the way. However, I am planning on doing so next time I'm in the area and can check the sign is still there. I think that this is a case where it is useful to have the ref recorded and shown on the map. Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 07:37 +0100, Lester Caine wrote: On 13/08/14 01:22, Robert Norris wrote: However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary. Ditto. But it's a bit like the 'name' problem where a few roads have locally known names, but these are not displayed on signs :( Need recording but not necessarily displaying. I think thats an important point, there are many such roads in Shropshire too. There needs to be a way of navigating to an address on these roads, but we do need a method of indicating to the end user that there is no sign, partly to tell routers to not say turn left into x road, but also to give confidence to someone that they really are in the right place when they haven't seen a sign. name:unmarked maybe an option. On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe others don't find the problem. It refuses to use the B4632 ( used to be the A46! ) going north from here, and I can't trace why. Roads south are a similar problem, but these a good quality 'C' roads. Should they be 'upgraded' to secondary or should the distinction be removed in OSMAND for UK roads? If I can't trust local routing why should I at a new destination and we are talking a several mile detour here which can add 30mins to the journey. I do think this is a router problem, they really do overuse the highway type tag. Often I have found routing problems can be fixed by simply mapping the speed limits. Not tagging for the renderer/router, but ensuring it has more malformation to work to. The current fad of reducing speed limits on primary A roads will make this even more important. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13/08/14 10:02, Derick Rethans wrote: It's not only C roads. When looking at Nairn (because of a reported storm damage to a road) I noticed lots of U-references. Have a look at: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194703765 and surrounding area. I doubt those are on signs either, and should also go into official_ref. Slight aside again ... simply because I was checking the status of it ... Anybody know if these 'U' numbers marry up with something in the National Street Gazetteer? That has it's own unique ID - and just for the record, postcode is only a secondary element since there may be several postcodes for a single identified street. It's the NSG that is primary in defining road works locations these days. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 09:51 +0100, Matt Williams wrote: On 13 August 2014 01:22, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but not that I'm aware of any explicitly. Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell. Near where I used to live there's an explicit C-ref signposted. You can see it on Street View at https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.904271,-1.021604,3a,53.7y,41.45h,81.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdOSZUFI5BkWGJB-Pw4RU-A!2e0 I mapped the road as tertiary but haven't yet added the ref to the way. However, I am planning on doing so next time I'm in the area and can check the sign is still there. I think that this is a case where it is useful to have the ref recorded and shown on the map. Officially refs below B are not allowed on signs in the UK. But errors do happen. I remember on appearing in Leicestershire, but it disappeared very quickly. http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/signs.shtml Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Unsigned road names (was C roads again)
On 13/08/2014 10:05, Philip Barnes wrote: On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 07:37 +0100, Lester Caine wrote: But it's a bit like the 'name' problem where a few roads have locally known names, but these are not displayed on signs :( Need recording but not necessarily displaying. I think thats an important point, there are many such roads in Shropshire too. There needs to be a way of navigating to an address on these roads, but we do need a method of indicating to the end user that there is no sign, partly to tell routers to not say turn left into x road, but also to give confidence to someone that they really are in the right place when they haven't seen a sign. name:unmarked maybe an option. I'm currently using name:signed=no for these ( http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/name:signed ) but am open to suggestion if there's a better tagging option. When creating maps for the car I drop names from name:signed=no to avoid receiving confusing verbal directions. I have also used ref:signed=no for places (like the Derby Ring Road http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278713952 ) where something is undeniably the road ref but isn't included on signs - personally that makes more sense to me than somehow trying to decide whether a ref should be a ref or official_ref** (but I'm aware that I'm in a minority on this!). Cheers, Andy ** FWIW prow_ref for footpaths and bridleways and bridge_ref for bridges do make sense to me (it's a different list in each case). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 01:22 +0100, Robert Norris wrote: Ignoring the source information for now, but I suspect it is very similar to rights of way information in that it is probably derived from OS maps. The following overpass query highlights the issue, Norfolk standing out as especially bad. This is just tertiary roads, there are issues with unclassified too. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4xS AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but not that I'm aware of any explicitly. Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell. Unfortunately a brief cross check with Google Streetview, for the very few tertiary roads with 'source:ref=survey' don't seem to bare much scrutiny. The visible signposts don't have a 'C' in them. The 'source:ref' bit is only on a short section of an otherwise longer road anyway, so possibly a road split editing leftover. Obviously source=survey tags it too imprecise to tell whether a ref was surveyed. However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary. e.g. using something like this: has-kv k=ref regv=^C/ In the above query will prevent altering too many things. Possibly only change things without source tags or with source=[nN][pP][eE], as a first iteration too. I will try to avoid these, however if a B road it tagged as tertiary is this not an error needing an on the ground survey? Am I wrong in assuming that all B roads should be tagged as secondary? other than this famous exception that is. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41891313#map=15/54.5039/-2.6589 Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
On 13/08/2014 09:11, Lester Caine wrote: On 13/08/14 08:58, David Woolley wrote: On 13/08/14 08:29, Lester Caine wrote: rest can be cloned from the postcode - or some other unique ID for the related object. Only if you have purchased access to the PAF or National Gazeteer. Capture of the former, on OSM, is patchy, and of the latter is non-existent, or virtually so. That data will be available, but it does not stop using the method to add it to the OSM data currently. If you are adding 50 house numbers you end up using the copy function to add a vast amount of data where one only needs a small subset of that in practice! A lot of postcodes are currently missing and it would be nice simply to import the raw missing stuff, but it does not prevent good practice generally? 1. OSM data should be structured so that it is friendly for the people who go out and survey it. Having address tags on every object is inefficient, but it's also easy for everyone to understand. The option of using associatedStreet relations exists if you want to do it more efficiently. Personally I have stopped using them for now, because I have found inexperienced mappers don't know they are there and just add the data again on the individual objects. 2. I don't agree that tagging only postcode and 'addressable object' is a good idea. To convert that into a full address requires access to a closed database. Surely the whole point about OSM is creating useful data that is open? At the moment we don't even have sufficient open data available to add an accurate postcode to every address. I hope more address data will be made available under an open licence in the future, but at the moment we have to work with what we have got. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 12 August 2014 20:08, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data. I know we should not tag for the renderer, but I think its ok to give the renderer a clue as to which are displayed on signs and which aren't. I guess I'm going to be in the minority, but I have to object to this proposed change. I don't really get what the problem is with showing the numbers on the shields on the default map. People using the map will quickly realise that they're not typically signed on the ground. Neither are quite a few names for rural roads outside villages -- but I don't see anyone saying we should replace the name=* tag with official_name=* as a result. So perhaps someone could clarify why it is a problem for them to be shown? To the contrary I actually find being able to see the numbers on the map incredibly useful. Two particular use cases: 1/ Official government notices about developments, road closures and diversions typically use the C-numbers to refer to the roads. Having a map style that displays them makes it much easier for the public to interpret the notices. Without such a map it would be much more difficult. 2/ In OSM mapping work, official documents for street names and Public Rights of Way released under the Open Government Licence will often refer to the C road numbers. Again having a map that shown them makes life much easier. When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of them not being displayed on the default style. But I think this is a renderer issue -- perhaps someone should submit a ticket to have ref=* not rendered on highway=unclassified if there is a name=* present. Or perhaps it's the reference numbers' use in routers that is the actual problem? I can understand this more, but I'd have thought that any decent routers will need to be aware of a lot of local conventions, so it's not too much to expect they should also de-prioritise UK C-road and U-road numbers in road descriptions. IMO, the ref=* tag should be used for the primary reference number of the object, regardless of whether or not it's indicated on the ground. Whether or not these numbers are displayed on the map as shields or used to name roads in routers is a matter for the render or router. If there's a need to state whether or not the reference number (or the official name for that matter) of a road is displayed on the ground (or indeed if something different is shown) then I'd prefer a different tag is used for that. (For example the ref:signed=no suggested/used by Andy elsewhere in this thread.) But I guess this view isn't going to be popular. So, if there is a consensus to go ahead with the mechanical edit to move the numbers off the ref key, then moving them to official_ref would seem like the least-worst thing to do. (I would, however, like to see official_ref used in the highway shields when ref=* is absent on highway=tertiary and above, so that the useful C numbers can still be displayed on the main map) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
I use addr:flats regularly. I've recently been mapping high density areas around the city centre where a high proportion of the residential addresses are flats, often in converted factories. Here it seems worthwhile to add flat numbers when they are displayed outside the building. Here's an example of a street where 12 buildings/entrances have been tagged with addresses, but that expands to 191 addresses if the flats are listed separately: http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=18lon=-1.14193lat=52.95324bgl=OSM,1,17s=%22Woolpack%20Lane%22st=AddressSearchJson I use addr:unit as well. I use that for retail/commercial/industrial units rather than residential. If I tag addr:flats=1-10 then I'd assume that refers to 10 separate addresses, whereas I would assume addr:unit=1-3 is a single address. That's undocumented and others may disagree. Cheers, Will ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
On 13/08/14 11:36, Will Phillips wrote: 2. I don't agree that tagging only postcode and 'addressable object' is a good idea. To convert that into a full address requires access to a closed database. Surely the whole point about OSM is creating useful data that is open? At the moment we don't even have sufficient open data available to add an accurate postcode to every address. I hope more address data will be made available under an open licence in the future, but at the moment we have to work with what we have got. But the point here is if postcode is made a standard part of tagging addresses then the open data holes will naturally be filled. Currently there are a number of third party sources which could be pressed into use to fill the gap, but it's making them normal use on the ground that will solve the problem ... We do have a lot of postcode data already available but it's perhaps surprising that many objects that have their own postcode are not currently included when that information is available in the original sources. I've just added Ragley Hall postcode but a number of the locations I look at Monday it was missing. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Licences for Highways and PRoW data (Was: C roads again)
On 12 August 2014 20:08, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: We have discussed this subject a couple of times and have, I think, concluded that displaying the ref (generally only known to local government people) on roads that are unsigned is not helpful to the end user. Ignoring the source information for now, but I suspect it is very similar to rights of way information in that it is probably derived from OS maps. This may be true for some data used by mappers who didn't carefully check the licence of their sources. However, data for both Highways and Public Rights of Way can in principle be available under suitable licences for use in OSM. For Public Rights of Way, OS have said they don't claim any rights in the written Definitive Statements, so all the rights rest with the authoring Council. If you can persuade them to let you reuse the document under a suitable licence (e.g. the OGL) then all is good. As far as street names and numbers are concerned, it is the council that is the official authority on these. They have to maintain a written List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense. Again if you can persuade the council to let you re-use this under a suitable licence, then all is good. For more information, see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html Both of the datasets mentioned above are written text, rather than maps or GIS data, so won't be as useful to OSM as the latter would be. But as Philip suggests, most mapping and GIS data from local councils is at least partly derived from OS. As a result it will normally only be available for re-use (if at all) under the OS OpenData Licence -- which LWG have said we can't use in OSM. See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13/08/14 11:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of them not being displayed on the default style. But I think this is a renderer issue -- perhaps someone should submit a ticket to have ref=* not rendered on highway=unclassified if there is a name=* present. You appear to be drawing some sort of distinction between C and U numbers here, and maybe that works for your authority, but I don't think it's in any way universal. As I understand it every authority has it's own numbering scheme for roads below B roads. Some just have one number space (C or U or whatever) and some have multiple levels like C, D and U. Personally I have no problems with the numbers being in the data but I don't think they should be included in everyday renderings - they are something that belong on specialist renderings for specialist uses of the sort you mentioned. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 12:01 +0100, Derick Rethans wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Lester Caine wrote: On 13/08/14 10:02, Derick Rethans wrote: It's not only C roads. When looking at Nairn (because of a reported storm damage to a road) I noticed lots of U-references. Have a look at: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194703765 and surrounding area. I doubt those are on signs either, and should also go into official_ref. Slight aside again ... simply because I was checking the status of it ... Anybody know if these 'U' numbers marry up with something in the National Street Gazetteer? That has it's own unique ID - and just for the record, postcode is only a secondary element since there may be several postcodes for a single identified street. It's the NSG that is primary in defining road works locations these days. From what I know, those U numbers map up with the list at http://www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/file/11641/list_of_adopted_roads_-_u_class The link mentioned for source:ref on the objects is now a 404. Try this, http://www.highland.gov.uk/info/20005/roads_and_pavements/99/roads_information Although no mention of copyright/permission to use in any of the documents. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 11:32, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Am I wrong in assuming that all B roads should be tagged as secondary? other than this famous exception that is. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41891313#map=15/54.5039/-2.6589 There's also https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4235365 near me - another B road (and a NSL dual carriageway, too) that leads to a motorway junction. Simon ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
Postcodes simply do not solve address issues. They may mean that we can somehow handle any place where the Royal Mail delivers post (given privatisation possible Scottish independence, this could conceivable be rather fewer places than it is now). However, addresses have other purposes than mere postal delivery. There are large numbers of places - notably university, hospital and industrial campuses - which will have a single postcode and a single postal address, but large numbers of addressable locations. The two obvious uses are finding a place in person (whether using a map or a routing engine), and cadastral data. In addition there are many addresses where the postal street name is different from the street name where the property is located. One of the big advantages we have the Nottingham area address data is that we have surveyed enough addresses on the ground to have be in the position to identify the type and extent of exceptions to the typical urban address: see slide 5 in my presentation http://www.slideshare.net/SK53/2sacrowd-osm-oaf at the Open Addresses Symposium for some examples. Similar data is available from OSM for Cambridge, Tendring and Birmingham. Jerry On 13 August 2014 12:12, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: On 13/08/14 11:36, Will Phillips wrote: 2. I don't agree that tagging only postcode and 'addressable object' is a good idea. To convert that into a full address requires access to a closed database. Surely the whole point about OSM is creating useful data that is open? At the moment we don't even have sufficient open data available to add an accurate postcode to every address. I hope more address data will be made available under an open licence in the future, but at the moment we have to work with what we have got. But the point here is if postcode is made a standard part of tagging addresses then the open data holes will naturally be filled. Currently there are a number of third party sources which could be pressed into use to fill the gap, but it's making them normal use on the ground that will solve the problem ... We do have a lot of postcode data already available but it's perhaps surprising that many objects that have their own postcode are not currently included when that information is available in the original sources. I've just added Ragley Hall postcode but a number of the locations I look at Monday it was missing. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ 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] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 12:19, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 13/08/14 11:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of them not being displayed on the default style. But I think this is a renderer issue -- perhaps someone should submit a ticket to have ref=* not rendered on highway=unclassified if there is a name=* present. You appear to be drawing some sort of distinction between C and U numbers here, and maybe that works for your authority, but I don't think it's in any way universal. Yes that probably is tainted by the Local Authorities I'm most familiar with. Perhaps a better way of thinking about it would be in terms of the OSM classification. Where I talked about U-numbers, it might be better to read it is any reference numbers on roads that are not tagged as highway=tertiary or higher. And similarly C-numbers would be any reference numbers present on highway=tertiary tagged roads. Regardless of how the numbers are tagged, I would still maintain that the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference the map to official documents) outweighs the drawbacks (extra cluttering is minimal, and the fact that they're not signed on the ground in the UK should be easy to get used to). However, I think the extra drawback of increased cluttering tips the balance the other way on highway=unclassified, and others (residential, service, living_street, etc.). Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Licences for Highways and PRoW data (Was: C roads again)
On 13/08/14 12:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: As far as street names and numbers are concerned, it is the council that is the official authority on these. They have to maintain a written List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense. Again if you can persuade the council to let you re-use this under a suitable licence, then all is good. For more information, see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html Hasn't that been superseded these days? As part of the LLPG requirements (Local Land and Property Gazetteer) councils are now required to maintain the LSG Local Street Gazetteer and both of these then feed into the National version. The NSG is a believe part of 'The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991' https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/street-works-co-ordination for some light reading ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
On 13/08/14 12:38, SK53 wrote: Postcodes simply do not solve address issues. I'm not saying they do ... Only that there is no point adding 'University of Nottingham, University Park, NOTTINGHAM' to every single location on the campus when 'NG7 2RD' provides the same information? That there are also inconsistencies is probably to be expected since it's human beings that create the original data :) In which case THEN the attached data on the object is used as a higher priority to the linked versions. As I said, a street's identity in NSG has nothing to do with it's postcode and hopefully some time soon we will have open access to that information to mess things up again. The problem is that using this much more consistent id is not something humans will be comfortable with :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Licences for Highways and PRoW data (Was: C roads again)
The NSG is a closed shop run by the OS and other stakeholders for the management of street works. When the NSG was set up a few years ago I tried to get access and initially during their pilot I sort of did, but this was cut off when the system whet fully live and access limited to the LA's and the statutory undertakers. The reason access was denied was apparently for commercial reasons, in that the statutory undertakers did not want all and sundry to have information on their assets. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk] Sent: 13 August 2014 12:56 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Licences for Highways and PRoW data (Was: C roads again) On 13/08/14 12:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: As far as street names and numbers are concerned, it is the council that is the official authority on these. They have to maintain a written List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense. Again if you can persuade the council to let you re-use this under a suitable licence, then all is good. For more information, see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html Hasn't that been superseded these days? As part of the LLPG requirements (Local Land and Property Gazetteer) councils are now required to maintain the LSG Local Street Gazetteer and both of these then feed into the National version. The NSG is a believe part of 'The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991' https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/street-works-co-ordination for some light reading ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ 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] Licences for Highways and PRoW data (Was: C roads again)
On 13/08/14 15:40, Andy Robinson wrote: The NSG is a closed shop run by the OS and other stakeholders for the management of street works. When the NSG was set up a few years ago I tried to get access and initially during their pilot I sort of did, but this was cut off when the system whet fully live and access limited to the LA's and the statutory undertakers. The reason access was denied was apparently for commercial reasons, in that the statutory undertakers did not want all and sundry to have information on their assets. It does replace the List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense but I do seem to recall that since it is created as part of the NLGP process, there was a more recent discussion on it being opened as a base for the open address initiative? On 13/08/14 12:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: As far as street names and numbers are concerned, it is the council that is the official authority on these. They have to maintain a written List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense. Again if you can persuade the council to let you re-use this under a suitable licence, then all is good. For more information, see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html Hasn't that been superseded these days? As part of the LLPG requirements (Local Land and Property Gazetteer) councils are now required to maintain the LSG Local Street Gazetteer and both of these then feed into the National version. The NSG is a believe part of 'The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991' https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/street-works-co-ordination for some light reading ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796 Thanks Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: I would still maintain that the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference the map to official documents) outweighs the drawbacks (extra cluttering is minimal, and the fact that they're not signed on the ground in the UK should be easy to get used to). No, it really doesn't. The number times the average person needs to cross-reference the map to official documents in their lifetime tends to zero. On the other hand, the number of times people will look at an OSM map and get confused by road references not shown anywhere else that they will ever see - well, that's non-zero. Saying people will 'get used to' ignoring these official-use-only numbers is also doubly wrong - they shouldn't need to 'get used to' ignoring administrivial details, and in any case if OSM is full of unhelpful nonsense then they will more likely just stop using it entirely. Imagine an argument saying that we should show the Companies House registration numbers for all shops. Or the VOA Business rates reference numbers for shops. Or both. Now imagine yourself saying, with a straight face, 'oh, these are useful when you need to crossreference information with government sources. The fact that they aren't signed on the ground - and aren't otherwise useful to the general public - should be easy for you to get used to'. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:36:51 +0100 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? If you are changing ref = official_ref then you ought to change source:ref = source:official_ref as well. Other than that I didn't spot anything wrong from a cursory glance. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
Beware you should follow the mechanical edit policy for this. I would also change the wiki pages for this that currently state we should have the ref for c roads in ref. From: p...@trigpoint.me.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:36:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796 Thanks Phil (trigpoint) ___ 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] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 17:36, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796 Someone's already pointed out the need to change any source:ref tags at the same time, and that you need to follow the mechanical edit guidelines -- in particular, providing the documentation of the changes in the wiki. I think that the have precise details of the changes and the conditions under which they will be made should be reviewed on the mailing list before you go ahead. There are various questions to be answered such as which highway=* values are included, what happens to refs that aren't of the form [CDU][0-9]+, what happens if one of the target keys already exists, and is there any tagging in use to indicate that a C, D or U number is indeed signed on the ground that should be respected? More generally, I don't think less that 24 hours discussion before starting (even a test run for) such a significant country-wide change is really long enough to allow everyone who wants to comment to provide their thoughts. (Yes I know it's been discussed before, but those discussions didn't really come to any conclusion IIRC, and people could well be away on holiday at the moment.) In particular, I think it would be good look more closely at who has been adding these ref values, and contact any prolific mappers directly to get their thoughts. In particular, I think a lot of Norfolk was done by a single person (not me) who presumably thought the values were useful data to have. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On 13 August 2014 18:14, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: I would still maintain that the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference the map to official documents) outweighs the drawbacks (extra cluttering is minimal, and the fact that they're not signed on the ground in the UK should be easy to get used to). No, it really doesn't. The number times the average person needs to cross-reference the map to official documents in their lifetime tends to zero. On the other hand, the number of times people will look at an OSM map and get confused by road references not shown anywhere else that they will ever see - well, that's non-zero. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Certainly in my neck of the woods, there's been some major Highways Agency works going on, which have referred to an affected road only as the C616. Apart from OSM's main map, I'm not sure how else affected people would be able to find out which road it referred to. Imagine an argument saying that we should show the Companies House registration numbers for all shops. Or the VOA Business rates reference numbers for shops. Or both. Now imagine yourself saying, with a straight face, 'oh, these are useful when you need to crossreference information with government sources. The fact that they aren't signed on the ground - and aren't otherwise useful to the general public - should be easy for you to get used to'. Those are pretty poor examples I think, and not really equivalent at all -- in those cases any official sources would almost certainly include other information such as the business name and/or address as well as the reference number. Thus it wouldn't be necessary to have the number itself displayed to do any cross-referencing. In the case of C roads, often the number is the only name/reference given. Also any clutter from C roads is significantly less that what you'd get from additional references attached to shops. And I've already said that I think the clutter would tip the balance the other way for highway=unclassified, residential, etc. Out of interest, what would you advocate doing about minor road names that are officially assigned, but aren't signed anywhere on the ground? Should those be removed from the map to to avoid 'confusing' people too? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
On 13/08/14 11:36, Will Phillips wrote: 2. I don't agree that tagging only postcode and 'addressable object' is a good idea. To convert that into a full address requires access to a closed database. Surely the whole point about OSM is creating useful It's also a database which is incomplete; it doesn't include things like sub-stations, or garages at the back of, which are contained in the National Land and Property Gazetteer http://www.nlpg.org.uk/nlpg/welcome.htm. This is what defines the unique identifiers actually used by councils and the emergency services. This is another database that is being monetized. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Licences for Highways and PRoW data (Was: C roads again)
On 13/08/14 12:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: They have to maintain a written List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense. Councils also allocate addresses for streets not maintained at public expense (and it is my impression that many new residential streets, including most social housing, come into that category!) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses
On 13/08/14 17:06, Derick Rethans wrote: On 13/08/14 12:38, SK53 wrote: Postcodes simply do not solve address issues. I'm not saying they do ... Only that there is no point adding 'University of Nottingham, University Park, NOTTINGHAM' to every single location on the campus when 'NG7 2RD' provides the same information? Postal street name != Real street name Postal town != Real town So no, it doesn't. On the rare occasions where they are different then one would need new tags to identify the different names, but addr: should always be the correct postal address ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
