[talk-ph] parcel lot details in Subic

2014-08-13 Thread maning sambale
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

2014-08-13 Thread Erwin Olario
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

2014-08-13 Thread Jorieke Vyncke
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

2014-08-13 Thread John Sturdy
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

2014-08-13 Thread Christoph Hormann
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

2014-08-13 Thread Edil Queiroz de Araujo
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

2014-08-13 Thread Erick de Oliveira Leal
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

2014-08-13 Thread Alexandre Magno Brito de Medeiros
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

2014-08-13 Thread Alexandre Magno Brito de Medeiros
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

2014-08-13 Thread Alexandre Magno Brito de Medeiros
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

2014-08-13 Thread Alexandre Magno Brito de Medeiros
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

2014-08-13 Thread John Packer
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

2014-08-13 Thread Tarcisio Oliveira

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

2014-08-13 Thread Márcio Aguiar Ribeiro
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

2014-08-13 Thread John Packer
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

2014-08-13 Thread Gabriel Teixeira
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

2014-08-13 Thread Alexandre Magno Brito de Medeiros
*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

2014-08-13 Thread Jóhannes Birgir Jensson

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

2014-08-13 Thread wn reader

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

2014-08-13 Thread Martin Vonwald
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

2014-08-13 Thread Falk Zscheile
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

2014-08-13 Thread Martin Vonwald
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

2014-08-13 Thread Tom Pfeifer

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

2014-08-13 Thread Martin Vonwald
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

2014-08-13 Thread Tobias Knerr
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

2014-08-13 Thread Marco_T
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 Thread Simone Cortesi
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

2014-08-13 Thread Simone Cortesi
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

2014-08-13 Thread Fabrizio Tambussa
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

2014-08-13 Thread Andy Robinson
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

2014-08-13 Thread Matías Taborda Barroso
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

2014-08-13 Thread Patricio Soriano
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

2014-08-13 Thread Matías Taborda Barroso
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

2014-08-13 Thread Patricio Soriano
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

2014-08-13 Thread Federico Pértile
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

2014-08-13 Thread Alexandre Neto
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

2014-08-13 Thread Alexandre Neto
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?

2014-08-13 Thread Marián Kyral
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?

2014-08-13 Thread Petr Vejsada
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?

2014-08-13 Thread Petr Vejsada
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

2014-08-13 Thread Pavel Kwiecien
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

2014-08-13 Thread Marián Kyral


-- 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?

2014-08-13 Thread Marián Kyral


-- 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?

2014-08-13 Thread Petr Vejsada
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?

2014-08-13 Thread Marián Kyral
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?

2014-08-13 Thread Marián Kyral
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?

2014-08-13 Thread Petr Vejsada
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

2014-08-13 Thread xkomczax
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...

2014-08-13 Thread Nicolas Dumoulin
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...

2014-08-13 Thread Samy Mezani

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...

2014-08-13 Thread Philippe Verdy
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...

2014-08-13 Thread PierreV
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...

2014-08-13 Thread Jean-Baptiste Holcroft
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

2014-08-13 Thread Colin Smale
 

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

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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

2014-08-13 Thread David Woolley

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

2014-08-13 Thread Tom Hughes

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

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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

2014-08-13 Thread Dan S
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

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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

2014-08-13 Thread Ed Loach
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

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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

2014-08-13 Thread Matt Williams
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

2014-08-13 Thread Philip Barnes
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

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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

2014-08-13 Thread Philip Barnes
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)

2014-08-13 Thread SomeoneElse

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

2014-08-13 Thread Philip Barnes
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

2014-08-13 Thread Will Phillips

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

2014-08-13 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
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

2014-08-13 Thread Will Phillips
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

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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)

2014-08-13 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
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

2014-08-13 Thread Tom Hughes

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

2014-08-13 Thread Philip Barnes
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

2014-08-13 Thread Simon Blake
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

2014-08-13 Thread SK53
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

2014-08-13 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
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)

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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)

2014-08-13 Thread Andy Robinson
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)

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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

2014-08-13 Thread Philip Barnes
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

2014-08-13 Thread Andy Allan
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

2014-08-13 Thread Andy Street
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

2014-08-13 Thread John Baker
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

2014-08-13 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
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

2014-08-13 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
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

2014-08-13 Thread David Woolley

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)

2014-08-13 Thread David Woolley

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

2014-08-13 Thread Lester Caine
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