date:20170307

Hi Brian, that's a wonderful news.
I am currently in a negotiation with the French transport agency STIF for
such a similar project in Paris.
Your use case gives me a good example and an extra argument. Your feedback
of this project is more than welcome ...
Regards

2017-02-03 18:57 GMT+01:00 Brian Prangle :

> We have an opportunity to work with the regional transport authority TfWM
> to update this imported data which is 8 years old and partially edited by
> OSM users. They have assigned 2 developers to work on this and I'm spending
> a half day each week working with them.
>
> We've agreed and discussed this in our mappa-mercia local OSM users group
> and also contacted a prolific local public transport OSM editor who's not
> part of  our group.
>
> In line with the automated edits policy there's a wikipage
> 
> with full details and this email informs the relevant specialist talk list
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
>


-- 

*Florian Lainez*
@overflorian 
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

[Talk-lt] Tarptautinę Moters Dieną - kovojam prieš FGM žemėlapių pagalba

2017-03-07 Per discussione Egle Marija Ramanauskaite

Ryt švenčiam Tarptautinę Moters Dieną ir žemėlapiuojam čia
, kviečiu prisijungt gyvai nuo 18
val. Technariume ,
arba, aišku, iš bet kur!
Daugiau čia:
http://blog.technariumas.lt/post/158108535556/we-are-having-a-mapathon-tomorrow-for-iwd-join-us

Linkėjimai,
Eglė

-- 
*Eglė Marija Ramanauskaitė*
Citizen Science Coordinator & PIO at Human Computation Institute

Writer at Technology.Org
 and Technologijos
.lt 
Master of *Molecular & Cellular Biology* and *Education Science*

  

*Follow my blog: All things #citizenscience & #biohacking
*
___
Talk-lt mailing list
Talk-lt@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lt

[Talk-lt] OSM ir valstybiniai duomenys

2017-03-07 Per discussione Tomas Straupis

Sveiki

  Belgijos OSM entuziastas Joost Schouppe paskutiniu metu domėjosi OSM
ir valstybinių duomenų draugyste. Jis pats organizavo Belgijos
valstybinių kelių duomenų palyginimą su OSM. Plačiau/konkrečiau apie
tai, kaip tai buvo daryta:
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/diary/39250

  Šiek tiek konkrečiai apie Lietuvą (toks labai neformalus pokalbis:-)
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/diary/40605

  Bendras Wiki puslapis apie OSM ir valstybinių institucijų bendradarbiavimą:
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_for_Government

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [Talk-ca] importing data requiring attribution

2017-03-07 Per discussione Alan Richards

For reference, here's the full email and response I got, in case it helps
others with similar requests:

Hi,
> I tried sending this through the feedback form on the Open Data site, but
> it was too long for the form and my shorter inquiry was never responded to.
> Given the upcoming HackOurCity and InnovationWeek, I'm hoping that this can
> be passed along to the appropriate people.
> Dear New West Open Data,
> Thank you for making open data available to the public.
> I am a resident of New Westminster, but also a contributor to the
> OpenStreetMap project [1], a collaborative open project to create a global
> geodata set freely usable by anyone [2].
> We respect the IP rights of others and I write to ask if we can use your
> data. OpenStreetMap (OSM) uses the ODbL license [3]. The OGL-City of New
> Westminster is based upon the OGL-BC, which in turn is based upon the
> OGL-CA. As I understand, the OGL-CA has been deemed compatible with the
> ODbL, but the OGL-BC has slightly modified wording introducing an exemption
> for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (B.C.). Given
> the goals of most municipal Open Data projects, I imagine you would happy
> for the data to be used by OSM, but we would ask for a statement clearing
> the use.
> At the most simple, I would seek a statement like this:
> "Data available in the Orthophotography, Landuse, Address, Building
> Footprints, and Park Benches datasets location of the City of New
> Westminster's Open Data site under the following location:
> http://opendata.newwestcity.ca/datasets is released in accordance with
> the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of British
> Columbia."
> Such a statement was provided by the City of Vancouver for their own
> datasets for inclusion in OSM.
> An alternative statement that would work in a more general sense is the
> following:
> "The City of New Westminster has no objections to geodata derived in part
> from the Orthophotography, Landuse, Address, Building Footprints, and Park
> Benches datasets being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
> database and released under a free and open license".
> Alternatively, releasing the datasets under a Public Domain, CC0, PDDL, or
> ODbL license would satisfy our license requirements.
> I also ask that whatever statement you are prepared to make can be made
> public for information purposes.
> Below is a fact sheet. If you would like any more information, I will do
> my best to help or can ask our project's License Working Group to get in
> touch with you. I've also included a couple links to discussion on license
> compatibility in Nanaimo and Vancouver.
> Regards, Alan Richards (alarobric)
> Fact Sheet
> [1] The OpenStreetMap project currently has over 750,000 registered
> contributors worldwide. Our main website is http://www.openstreetmap.org
> [2] We are mandated to make our geodata available in perpetuity under a
> free and open licence. We are not allowed to use a commercial license, but
> commercial organisations are allowed to use our data under similar terms.
> [3] Our data is currently published under the Open Database License 1.0,
> http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
> [4] Most of our geodata is contributed by individuals. However, we are
> very grateful when able to incorporate or derive from other geo-data datasets
> where license terms are compatible.
> [5] We formally attribute all such sources at http://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Attribution, using any specific wording if you request. We also
> try to provide a link to this page with any extract of data from our
> database. However, for reasons of practicality, we do not require end-users
> to repeat such attribution since it runs into hundreds.
> [6] We also keep a public track of third party data use at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue and usually have a
> project page for each dataset, describing how we use it and whether there
> are any license restrictions to be aware of.
> [7] If you have any specific legal questions, the OpenStreetMap
> Foundation's License Working Group can be reached at
> le...@osmfoundation.org and will be glad to help.
> [8] Nanaimo licensing discussion: https://lists.
> openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-December/005974.html
> [9] Vancouver discussion: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/
> talk-ca/2014-February/006037.html




 Dear Mr. Richards,
> Thank you for your very clear email.  We really want to facilitate your
> and other open data users work.  We have therefore added a statement
> above our license that all data sets in the City’s open data collection
> are released in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection
> of Privacy Act of BC.  A link to the page is below.
> http://opendata.newwestcity.ca/licence
>
> Please let me know if you have further concerns or requests for data sets.
>
> Yours,
>
> *Jacque Killawee*  |  Records and Information Administrator
> *T*

Re: [Talk-ca] importing data requiring attribution

2017-03-07 Per discussione Alan Richards

>From what I've seen so far, the opinion seems to be that the OGL-BC devived
licenses like this one require a statement about the Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act. This was done for the City of Vancouver
license, and I've just recently recieved an update from the City of New
Westminster along the same lines. They were very happy to adjust it after I
contacted them though.

"Data available in the blah blah blah datasets location of the City of New
Westminster's Open Data site under the following location: http://opendata.
newwestcity.ca/datasets is released in accordance with the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act of British Columbia."




On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> On 2017-03-05 09:44 PM, Brent Fraser wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >   I've had a request to improve the stream and trail data around Gibsons
> > BC using data from the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD
> > http://www.scrd.ca/data-download).  Their license
> > (http://www.scrd.ca/scrd_disclaimer) permits this
>
> In addition to James's link, you'd need to have the SCRD licence
> approved by the Licensing Working Group. Takes a couple of months. I see
> a glaring error in the text: they copypasta'd North Van's licence, but
> didn't find and replace properly, leaving the attribution as “Contains
> information licensed under the Open Government Licence - North Vancouver.”
>
>  Stewart
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13

2017-03-07 Per discussione Ellefsen, Bjenk (STATCAN)

Kevin and Denis, and others, 

Thank you all for the amazing answers to my question. 

It all makes sense. Later we could talk about writing up an approach to get 
there iteratively, I think we all agree it is needed at some point.

Bjenk

-Original Message-
From: talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org] 
Sent: March-07-17 1:52 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 109, Issue 13

Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Municipal boundaries (kevinfarrugia)
   2. Re: Municipal boundaries (Denis Carriere)
   3. Re: Municipal boundaries (Adam Martin)

--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 13:38:00 -0500
From: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com>
To: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com>, James <james2...@gmail.com>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
Message-ID: <vdtwscp5e6030w9hxadr2rqj.1488911880...@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally (at 
least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries. 
In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and how 
boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are definitely 
important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need for extremely 
redundant addr tags that are used for cities.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com> 
Date: 2017-03-07  1:21 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: James <james2...@gmail.com> Cc: 
Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] 
Municipal boundaries 
And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance 
they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are 
just StatsCan creations.
I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into 
OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's a 
sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have been 
rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:

>

> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather

than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they

don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:

   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have

    invented.

   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without

    permission.

   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for

    themselves if your data is correct.

   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to

    others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world

  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map>

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart
------ next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20170307/68f24873/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:50:03 -0500
From: Denis Carriere <carriere.de...@gmail.com>
To: kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
Message-ID:
<cam4+tg2lftfu9qs_m7i0kruq8rwrd_t4q_2s_mkc69xfscl...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

+1 Kevin again :)

Boundaries are a MUST if ever you want better geocoding.

We just need to deconflict the boundaries that are different from StatsCan
& the local municipalities (these boundaries should be "authoritative" if
they exist).

Remember, not all townships have a full GIS team working for them, there's
going to be many areas in Can

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione Denis Carriere

+1 Kevin again :)

Boundaries are a MUST if ever you want better geocoding.

We just need to deconflict the boundaries that are different from StatsCan
& the local municipalities (these boundaries should be "authoritative" if
they exist).

Remember, not all townships have a full GIS team working for them, there's
going to be many areas in Canada that StatsCan does have the "best" data.

*~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM, kevinfarrugia 
wrote:

> Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally
> (at least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries.
>
> In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and
> how boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are
> definitely important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need
> for extremely redundant addr tags that are used for cities.
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
>  Original message 
> From: "J.P. Kirby" 
> Date: 2017-03-07 1:21 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: James 
> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for
> instance they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at
> all and are just StatsCan creations.
>
> I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added
> into OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James  wrote:
>
> CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually
> there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but
> they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in
> reality
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
>> >
>> > … Any more thoughts?
>>
>> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
>> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
>> don't belong in OSM.
>>
>>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
>> invented.
>>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
>> permission.
>>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
>> themselves if your data is correct.
>>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
>> others how to re-use the data
>>
>>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>>
>>  — How We Map 
>>
>> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>>
>>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione kevinfarrugia

Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally (at 
least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries. 
In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and how 
boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are definitely 
important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need for extremely 
redundant addr tags that are used for cities.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: "J.P. Kirby"  
Date: 2017-03-07  1:21 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: James  Cc: 
Talk-CA OpenStreetMap  Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] 
Municipal boundaries 
And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance 
they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are 
just StatsCan creations.
I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into 
OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James  wrote:

CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's a 
sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have been 
rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:

>

> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather

than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they

don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:

   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have

    invented.

   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without

    permission.

   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for

    themselves if your data is correct.

   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to

    others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world

  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map 

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Well noted. Maybe we could start a project out of it a later time with everyone 
in this thread. It will require research and preparation.

B

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Denis Carriere  wrote:
> 
> I just want to re-enforce the comment that Kevin Farrugia made.
> 
> Boundaries are one of the most complex features to add in OpenStreetMap. They 
> usually consist of relations that share borders with roads/rivers/other 
> boundaries.
> 
> If ever there is an import of boundaries, the users doing the import have to 
> be VERY experienced with using relations and understand how they work.
> 
> This goes way beyond adding simple building footprints :)
> 
> I'm sure this can be accomplished with the group of people who replied to 
> this thread.
> 
> Documentation is key for this type of work.
> 
> ~~
> Denis Carriere
> GIS Software & Systems Specialist
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen  
>> wrote:
>> James, it looks to me those differences are the result of a simplification 
>> applied on the processing side.
>> 
>> And I also agree that good enough is usually more problems down the road. We 
>> should adopt a standard. The only one I know of for the country is the SGC 
>> and Paul is pointing out to an example of how Provinces have defined 
>> boundaries.
>> 
>> We probably should look at a standard though if we wish to produce OSM 
>> analysis that is consistent and reproducible. The problem I foresee with the 
>> use of different and variable boundaries is that it will make OSM data use 
>> inconsistent and not accurate.
>> 
>> What I understand form our discussion is that I should do more research on 
>> what provinces are using and document this before doing anything and report 
>> here. Thanks everyone for the feedback! Any more thoughts?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>> Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have 
>>> their own license(usually CC-BY)
>>> 
>>> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/
>>> 
 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James  wrote:
 We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want 
 better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
 
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey  
> wrote:
> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of 
> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government, 
> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes 
> disagree with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if 
> available).
> 
> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will 
> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is 
> "good enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality, 
> provincial data will always be preferable.
> 
> e.g. 
> https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
> 
> P
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:
>> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open 
>> data portal:
>> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>> 
>> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions 
>>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal 
>>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  
>>> http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>> 
>>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is 
>>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the 
>>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When 
>>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is 
>>> it referring to?
>>> 
>>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the 
>>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>> 
 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
 Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a 
 generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
 
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
>  wrote:
> Bjenk,
> 
>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching 
> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with 
> the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our 
> county boundaries included

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione J.P. Kirby

And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance 
they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are 
just StatsCan creations.

I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into 
OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James  wrote:
> 
> CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's 
> a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have 
> been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
>> >
>> > … Any more thoughts?
>> 
>> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
>> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
>> don't belong in OSM.
>> 
>>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
>> invented.
>>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
>> permission.
>>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
>> themselves if your data is correct.
>>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
>> others how to re-use the data
>> 
>>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>> 
>>  — How We Map 
>> 
>> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>> 
>>  Stewart
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione kevinfarrugia

Hey Stewart,
CSDs are legal boundaries - I.e. the legal boundary of a lower tier 
municipality.
CSD = city/town/township

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: "Stewart C. Russell"  
Date: 2017-03-07  1:05 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: 
Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries 
On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> 
> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
    invented.
   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
    permission.
   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
    themselves if your data is correct.
   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
    others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map 

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually
there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but
they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in
reality

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> >
> > … Any more thoughts?
>
> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
> don't belong in OSM.
>
>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
> invented.
>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
> permission.
>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
> themselves if your data is correct.
>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
> others how to re-use the data
>
>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>
>  — How We Map 
>
> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione Stewart C. Russell

On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> 
> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
invented.
   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
permission.
   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
themselves if your data is correct.
   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map 

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart

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

[OSM-talk-be] national mapathon

2017-03-07 Per discussione joost schouppe

Hi,

As you know, we will be helping out the organization of the 2nd National
Mapathon, Saturday March 25th, in Mons, Namur, Liege, Louvain-la-Neuve,
Bruxelles, Brussel, Gent and Leuven.

While we have a volunteer at most places, we could still use your help. The
more experienced mappers can walk around and look what people are doing,
the better. Several of our current core members got involved or more active
through this mapathon. So see this as a chance to grow the mapping
community, not just a chance to help Missing Maps and MSF.

Also please spread the word through your networks and have them subscribe
through nationalmapathon.eventbrite.com . With two weeks left, we only have
50 subscriptions!

Even if you can't make it to one of the venues, remote help, especially for
validation would be extremely welcome.

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

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

Re: [Talk-es] Reunión mensual OSM-es

2017-03-07 Per discussione Gonzalo Pesquero Serrano

Hola a todos,

Hoy no voy a poder estar presente en la reunión mensual, así que os escribo 
este correo con las acciones llevadas a cabo en el grupo de trabajo de la 
importación de los edificios del Catastro que se acordó crear en la reunión 
anterior:

- Se ha creado una sala en Riot [1] para la coordinación de esta importación, a 
la que estáis todos invitados.
- Se están editando una página en la Wiki [2] con un borrador de propuesta de 
importación de cara a presentarla (espero que en breve) a esta lista para su 
discusión y acuerdo, para posteriormente presentarla en la lista de importación 
para su autorización.
- En esta página ya se ha incluido la descripción de los conjuntos de datos a 
importar, el orden de los pasos a seguir, un análisis previo del conjunto de 
datos de origen y una propuesta de conversión a elementos y etiquetas de OSM.
- Se ha consensuado en ese grupo realizar pruebas preliminares de conversión de 
datos (sin subir nada a OSM, solo en local) para analizar la calidad de los 
datos y posibles problemas durante la importación.
- A día de hoy se están realizando dicha pruebas de conversión de datos.
- Todavía queda por definir cómo se va a coordinar la importación, cómo se va a 
realizar la fusión con los datos existentes, etc.

Un saludo a todos,

Gonzalo Pesquero

[1] https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osm-es-importacion-catastro:matrix.org

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Catastro_espa%C3%B1ol/Importaci%C3%B3n_de_edificios

  From: Santiago Crespo 
 To: Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap  
 Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 12:11 AM
 Subject: [Talk-es] Reunión mensual OSM-es
   
Hola,

Recordad que mañana martes a las 22:00 celebramos la reunión mensual en
riot [1]

Estáis a tiempo de añadir los puntos que queráis tratar:

https://osm.org/wiki/ES:Orden_del_día_siguiente_reunión_OSM-ES

El acta de la anterior:

https://osm.org/wiki/ES:Acta_20170207

Saludos,
Santiago Crespo

[1] https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osm-es-reuniones:matrix.org

___
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-cz] spolecna konference osgeo, wikimedia, osm

2017-03-07 Per discussione Martin Landa

Ahoj,

Dne 7. března 2017 11:04 Jáchym Čepický  napsal(a):
> obracím se tak nějak do pléna, co byste řekli na společnou konfernci našich
> 3 organizací/skupin? Témata máme do vysoké míry společná, jinde ve světě to
> funguje, mohla by to být zajímavá a vzájemně obohacující akce

+1

Ma

-- 
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Traffic jam historical Open data ?

2017-03-07 Per discussione joost schouppe

Verkeerscentrum.be has data on traffic, at least for the motorways (and
some extra). There even seems to be some open data (looks like it's focused
on the present though):

http://opendata.vlaanderen.be/dataset/minuutwaarden-verkeersmetingen-vlaanderen
http://opendata.vlaanderen.be/dataset/otap-feed-verkeerscentrum-vlaanderen-full-version
http://opendata.vlaanderen.be/dataset/datex2-feed-verkeerscentrum-vlaanderen
http://opendata.vlaanderen.be/dataset/datex2-feed-verkeerscentrum-vlaanderen-full-version

Maybe you could get some info out of these "open data pdf's" too:

http://opendata.vlaanderen.be/dataset/rapport-verkeersindicatoren-hoofdwegennet-vlaanderen-2015

There is also some fancy user interface to extract traffic info by segment:

http://opendata.vlaanderen.be/dataset/verkeersindicatoren-verkeerscentrum-vlaanderen



2017-03-07 10:55 GMT+01:00 Ben Abelshausen :

> Hi,
>
> This is one of the big missing links in open-data when using OSM for
> routing and traffic analysis, historical travel times. There was some data
> released by BeMobile during the dynacity project a while back but that was
> only for Ghent. I don't think we will see an open data source for this in
> short term because it's not collected by the government, it's expensive to
> collect, and it gives companies a competive advantage. There are some
> companies that realized that pooling their resources is the only way to fix
> this, that lead to this project:
>
> http://opentraffic.io/
>
> I think they will be starting to release something this year but I don't
> know how much data what coverage they will have or if they will cover data
> going back in time.
>
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Best regards,
>
> Ben Abelshausen
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 8:50 PM,  wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah sure, welcome in the belgian imbroglio :-( Anyway, I’m especially
>> interested in Brussels, guess why :-)
>>
>> Nevertheless there are sources at the federal level - not open though.
>>
>> > On 06 Mar 2017, at 19:31, Wannes Soenen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Problem is traffic is a regional regulation. You'd need a flemish,
>> walloon and brussels source
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6 mrt. 2017 19:02 +0100, Matthieu Gaillet ,
>> wrote:
>> >> Hey open data specialists,
>> >>
>> >> Not exactly osm-related, but does anyone know a Belgian source of open
>> data regarding traffic jams in Belgium ? I'm looking for historical data
>> (like how many kilometre jams in a given region at a given time)
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for helping,
>> >>
>> >> Matthieu G. (en mode mobile)
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Talk-be mailing list
>> >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>> > ___
>> > Talk-be mailing list
>> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione Denis Carriere

I just want to re-enforce the comment that Kevin Farrugia made.

Boundaries are one of the most complex features to add in OpenStreetMap.
They usually consist of relations that share borders with
roads/rivers/other boundaries.

If ever there is an import of boundaries, the users doing the import have
to be VERY experienced with using relations and understand how they work.

This goes way beyond adding simple building footprints :)

I'm sure this can be accomplished with the group of people who replied to
this thread.

Documentation is key for this type of work.

*~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
wrote:

> James, it looks to me those differences are the result of a simplification
> applied on the processing side.
>
> And I also agree that good enough is usually more problems down the road.
> We should adopt a standard. The only one I know of for the country is the
> SGC and Paul is pointing out to an example of how Provinces have defined
> boundaries.
>
> We probably should look at a standard though if we wish to produce OSM
> analysis that is consistent and reproducible. The problem I foresee with
> the use of different and variable boundaries is that it will make OSM data
> use inconsistent and not accurate.
>
> What I understand form our discussion is that I should do more research on
> what provinces are using and document this before doing anything and report
> here. Thanks everyone for the feedback! Any more thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:11 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have
>> their own license(usually CC-BY)
>>
>> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we
>>> want better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source
 of complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial
 government, though each municipality will generally know theirs (and
 sometimes disagree with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial
 file if available).

 Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
 attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
 enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
 provincial data will always be preferable.

 e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities
 -legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc

 P


 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:

> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their
> open data portal:
> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>
> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <
> bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census
>> Divisions are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are 
>> municipal
>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>
>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or
>> is not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>> referring to?
>>
>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
>>> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Bjenk,

   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not
 matching with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of 
 was
 with the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our 
 county
 boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a 
 municipality
 from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there 
 is
 not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries 
 can be
 downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD 
 data.

 Bernie.

Re: [Talk-cz] spolecna konference osgeo, wikimedia, osm

Nemám nic proti. Pokud mi termín nebude s ničím kolidovat, tak rád dorazím.
Minimálně poznat pár lidí z wikipedie a pokusit se domluvit na nějaké
případné spolupráci by nebylo k zahození.

Marián

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Jirka Sedláček 
Komu: FreeGeoCZ , OpenStreetMap Czech Republic , wm...@wikimedia.org, Jáchym Čepický 
Datum: 7. 3. 2017 16:30:41
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] spolecna konference osgeo, wikimedia, osm
"

Jáchyme,

za mě klidně - jen se obávám, že dost možná nenajdeme stejné publikum.
Primárně asi z hlediska odbornosti - vaše osgeo a částečně i OSM témata jsou
podle mě poměrně výrazně odborný pro “běžné” wikipedisty a příznivce 
Wikipedie.




Ale jinak jsem rozhodně pro, myslím, že v mnohém se prolínáme a rozhodně by
to mohlo fungovat na nějaké bázi.




J. 



-- 
Jirka Sedláček



Dne 7. března 2017 v 11:05:06, Jáchym Čepický (jachym.cepi...@gmail.com
(mailto:jachym.cepi...@gmail.com)) napsal/a:
"



Ahoj,

obracím se tak nějak do pléna, co byste řekli na společnou konfernci
našich 3 organizací/skupin? Témata máme do vysoké míry společná, jinde
ve světě to funguje, mohla by to být zajímavá a vzájemně obohacující akce

Jachym

P.S. Vůbec netuším, na jakém kanále by se o tom dalo mluvit. Slack?
Mail? Jiný? Píšu prostě na mě známé adresy.
--
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepi...@gmail.com(mailto:jachym.cepi...@gmail.com)
twitter: @jachymc

___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org(mailto:Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org)
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
(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-ca] Municipal boundaries

James, it looks to me those differences are the result of a simplification
applied on the processing side.

And I also agree that good enough is usually more problems down the road.
We should adopt a standard. The only one I know of for the country is the
SGC and Paul is pointing out to an example of how Provinces have defined
boundaries.

We probably should look at a standard though if we wish to produce OSM
analysis that is consistent and reproducible. The problem I foresee with
the use of different and variable boundaries is that it will make OSM data
use inconsistent and not accurate.

What I understand form our discussion is that I should do more research on
what provinces are using and document this before doing anything and report
here. Thanks everyone for the feedback! Any more thoughts?





On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:11 AM, James  wrote:

> Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have
> their own license(usually CC-BY)
>
> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want
>> better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
>>> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
>>> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
>>> with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).
>>>
>>> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
>>> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
>>> enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
>>> provincial data will always be preferable.
>>>
>>> e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities
>>> -legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:
>>>
 In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their
 open data portal:
 http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png

 The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds

 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <
 bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census
> Divisions are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are 
> municipal
> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>
> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
> referring to?
>
> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
>> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bjenk,
>>>
>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not
>>> matching with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was
>>> with the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our 
>>> county
>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a 
>>> municipality
>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there 
>>> is
>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries 
>>> can be
>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>>
>>> Bernie.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>
>>> Bjenk
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>

Re: [Talk-cz] spolecna konference osgeo, wikimedia, osm

2017-03-07 Per discussione Jirka Sedláček

Jáchyme,
za mě klidně - jen se obávám, že dost možná nenajdeme stejné publikum.
Primárně asi z hlediska odbornosti - vaše osgeo a částečně i OSM témata
jsou podle mě poměrně výrazně odborný pro “běžné” wikipedisty a příznivce
Wikipedie.

Ale jinak jsem rozhodně pro, myslím, že v mnohém se prolínáme a rozhodně by
to mohlo fungovat na nějaké bázi.

J.

-- 
Jirka Sedláček

Dne 7. března 2017 v 11:05:06, Jáchym Čepický (jachym.cepi...@gmail.com)
napsal/a:

Ahoj,

obracím se tak nějak do pléna, co byste řekli na společnou konfernci
našich 3 organizací/skupin? Témata máme do vysoké míry společná, jinde
ve světě to funguje, mohla by to být zajímavá a vzájemně obohacující akce

Jachym

P.S. Vůbec netuším, na jakém kanále by se o tom dalo mluvit. Slack?
Mail? Jiný? Píšu prostě na mě známé adresy.
-- 
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepi...@gmail.com
twitter: @jachymc

___
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

[OSM-ja] OSM国際会議SotM2017発表者募集中！（4月2日締め切り）

2017-03-07 Per discussione insidekiwi555

ikiyaです。

8月に会津若松市で開催されるOSM国際会議SotM 2017の発表者募集が始まっています。
OSMに関わるテーマ（技術、活動、アプリなど）を幅広く募集しています。

発表する言語（英語、日本語）や発表時間枠（20分、5分）などを選ぶことが可能です。
発表申し込みの後、選考審査があり正式に発表が決まります。

国際会議なので毎年200件前後のエントリーがあり、発表選考もしっかり行われます。
主催側はより多くの方に発表していただけるよう発表枠を組む予定です。
発表要旨は1000字以内となっていますが、審査通過の為には具体的に内容を書かれることを
お勧めします。

※申し込み締め切りは4月2日(日）です。

OSM国際年次会議「State of the Map 2017」
主催：OpenStretMap Foundation
開催期間：8月18日(金）〜 20日(日）
会場：会津若松市文化センター（福島県会津若松市）


（申し込みフォーム）
https://docs.google.com/a/osmf.jp/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfRMwL2ggH374BbEdgU_cVVLTpuszmyCLBDg0sqTXxRSOZUug/viewform

「Propose your session for State of the Map 2017!」
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/02/16/propose-your-session-to-state-of-the-map-2017/___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have
their own license(usually CC-BY)

https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James  wrote:

> We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want
> better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey 
> wrote:
>
>> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
>> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
>> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
>> with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).
>>
>> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
>> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
>> enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
>> provincial data will always be preferable.
>>
>> e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities
>> -legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
>>> data portal:
>>> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>>>
>>> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen >> > wrote:
>>>
 Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
 are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
 boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
 ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro

 Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
 not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
 CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
 referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
 referring to?

 Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
 classification used if its not the CSDs.

 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:

> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bjenk,
>>
>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can 
>> be
>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>
>> Bernie.
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>
>> Bjenk
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Charger imagerie en local sur JOSM

2017-03-07 Per discussione Philippe Verdy

Lance JOSM avec une VM Java 64 bits (si ton PC est 64 bits et a plus de 4Go
de RAM). Si tu as les deus installations 32 bits et 64 bits, la version 32
bits ne sert plus qu'aux navigateurs pour les plugins java et la plupart
des sites n'utilisent plus du tout ces plugins (tu peux la désinstaller et
ne garder que la version 64 bits).

Malheureusement quand les deux versions de Java sont installées, la version
par défaut associée aux .jar ou aux .jnlp est la version 32 bits et tu
manqueras de mémoire très vite. De plus toute mise à jour de Java 32 bits
en plus de celle de Java 64 bits réinstalle la version 32 bits par défaut,
même si tu as changé le chemin dans le panneau de config Java pour indiquer
le chemin de la JVM 64 bits dans "C:\Program files\..." alias "Programmes",
et non "C:\Program files (x32)\..."

En 64 bits il n'y a aucun problème (et ça va beaucoup plus vite, le garbage
collector est beaucoup moins sollicité, et l'allocateur de mémoire et la
gestion des caches et de la compilation native est bien plus efficace).

Personnellement j'ai supprimé cette installation 32 bits de Java qui ne me
sert plus à rien et je ne lance JOSM qu'avec son petit JNLP et non en
téléchargeant un JAR statique (ce qui le tient à jour automatiquement en
téléchargeant les JARs à jour dans un cache local (L'utilisation d'un JAR
nécessite une mise à jour manuelle).

Pour installer la version 64 bits, ne pas utiliser le site "download java"
d'Oracle qui te propose la version correspondant à ton navigateur: si ton
navigateur est 32 bits et même si ton OS est 64 bits, c'est la version 32
bits qui est proposée (et testée sur la page avec une vieille "applet").
Malheureusement Oracle se refuse encore à adapter son composant
d'intégration de plugins 32 bits en instanciant à partir de celui ci une VM
64 bits: le composant d'intégration n'en est pas capable (alors que Flash
le fait très bien pour sa propre VM qui est dans un process séparé de celui
du navigateur et même du process de rendu graphique pour les plugins du
navigateur web), et ni Microsoft, ni Google, ni Mozilla ne veulent le faire.

Les "applets web" java sont encore basés uniquement sur la vieille API
obsolète d'intégration NPAPI au lieu des nouvelles API proposées par
Chrome, IE, Edge (et si Mozilla supporte encore NPAPI dans Firefox, cete
API n'erst plus recommandée du tout): qui utilise encore ces applets (non
conformes aux normes HTML en plus)? Je n'utilise plus Java que pour les
applis hébergées sur serveur, ou pour le développement Android, ou pour les
applis locales, les applets c'est fini (et avec Javascript+CSS+DOM HTML5 on
n'en a plus besoin du tout dans un navitateur) et les applets sont
égalemetn incompatibles avec tous les mobiles. Bref exit cette version 32
bits chez moi.

Une fois que tu as désinstallé la version 32 bits, va dans le panneau de
config de Java et augmente la mémoire maximale dans les paramètres de VM.
sur mon PC je n'ai aucun problème avec une VM pouvant monter à 12 Go (et je
peux encore monter plus en cas de besoin, mon OS 64 bits utilisera si
nécessaire la mémoire paginée ou le fichier d'échange ce qui va beaucoup
plus vite que le garbage collector très agressif et trop souvent bloquant
de Java et qui tourne très mal en 32 bits).

Le 7 mars 2017 à 10:04, Violaine Doutreleau  a
écrit :

> Bonjour à tous,
>
> J'ai un problème d'utilisation des plugins ImportImagePlugin ou PicLayer
> pour charger de l'imagerie satellite dans JOSM. L'imagerie autorise la
> contribution OSM (sous licence NextView), mais en local.
>
> Donc j'essaie d'importer selon l'une ou l'autre méthode mais JOSM me dit
> que j'ai pas assez de mémoire. Pourtant j'ai réduit la taille de l'imagerie
> à 15Mo et augmenté la mémoire RAM de JOSM dispo à 2048Mo... J'ai surement
> raté quelque chose (du moins j'espère), car sinon je vais devoir mapper
> sous QGis. Pour avoir déjà tenté sur une micro portion de l'imagerie c'est
> pas franchement simple pour rebasculer ensuite les données dans OSM...
>
> Vous auriez des conseils / solutions?
>
> C'est en plus sur un projet particulièrement urgent de cartographie de la
> ville de Goma en RDC (les données OSM seront exploitées à partir de
> vendredi..), j'en profite pour solliciter votre aide si vous avez un peu de
> temps disponible. Le projet de carto est là : http://tasks.hotosm.org/
> project/2608
>
> Merci,
>
> A bientôt!
>
> Violaine
>
> --
>
>
> Violaine Doutreleau
> [image: Email:]v_doutrel...@cartong.org 
> [image: Phone:] +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82
> [image: Mobile:] +33 (0)6 95 02 42 44
> [image: Skype:] doutreleau.violaine
> [image: CartONG] Humanitarian mapping and information management
> [image: Website:] cartong.org | [image: Twitter:] @assocCartONG
>  | [image: Address:] Chambéry, France | Lon:
> 05°55'24'' | Lat: 45°30'20''
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] NOUVEAU Bus contributor - Appli arrêts de bus

Merci, l'essentiel pour l'instant, c'est qu'il n'y ai pas de blocage pour
contribuer.
Est-ce pareil pour vous autres ?

Le 7 mars 2017 à 13:44, PanierAvide  a écrit :

> Merci. Je viens de tester assez rapidement, ça s'utilise bien, c'est assez
> ergonomique et le petit tutoriel contextualisé permet de prendre assez vite
> l'interface en main. Comme tu l'annonces c'est une première étape, mais
> j'ai hâte de voir ce que ça va donner quand seront gérés les parcours des
> bus ;-)
>
> Cordialement,
>
> Adrien.
>
> Le 07/03/2017 à 12:41, Florian LAINEZ a écrit :
>
> Voici le lien pour téléchargement direct :
> *https://github.com/jawg/osm-contributor/releases/download/v3.0.3/Bus_Contributor_v1.0.apk
> *
> L'application devrait être téléchargée automatiquement. Toutes les
> futures versions seront disponibles ici : https://github.com/jawg/osm-c
> ontributor/releases/
>
> Le 7 mars 2017 à 11:19, Vincent Bergeot  a écrit :
>
>> Le 07/03/2017 à 10:24, PanierAvide a écrit :
>>
>>> Est-ce qu'il y a quelque part un lien direct vers l'APK (pour les gens
>>> qui n'auraient pas d'accès au Google Play) ?
>>>
>>
>> +1 :)
>>
>> Merci pour ce projet !
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vincent Bergeot
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Florian Lainez*
> @overflorian 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing 
> listTalk-fr@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>


-- 

*Florian Lainez*
@overflorian 
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want
better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey 
wrote:

> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
> with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).
>
> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
> enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
> provincial data will always be preferable.
>
> e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-
> defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
>
> P
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
>> data portal:
>> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>>
>> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>>
>>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>>> referring to?
>>>
>>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>>
 Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
 generalization of an area vs the actual city limits

 On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
 berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bjenk,
>
>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can 
> be
> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>
> Bernie.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> Hello,
>
> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>
> Bjenk
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


 --
 外に遊びに行こう！

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione Paul Ramsey

Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).

Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
provincial data will always be preferable.

e.g.
https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc

P

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James  wrote:

> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
> data portal:
> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>
> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>
>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>> referring to?
>>
>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors >> > wrote:
>>>
 Bjenk,

   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
 with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
 county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
 boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
 from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
 not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
 downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.

 Bernie.

 Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
 *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
 *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
 *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

 Hello,

 Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
 seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
 start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
 important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

 Bjenk

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

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione Begin Daniel

Bjenk, I was on the same impression that CSD did (used to) not always match 
municipal limits because of their objective (census) since in some case it 
would not make sense to do so for statistical purpose…

Daniel

From: Bjenk Ellefsen [mailto:bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 March, 2017 09:20
To: James
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions are 
higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal boundaries (in 
OSM, level 8).  
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is not in 
the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the CSDs. At least, 
as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When referring to actual city 
limits, which geographical classification is it referring to?
Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the classification 
used if its not the CSDs.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James 
> wrote:
Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a generalization 
of an area vs the actual city limits

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
> wrote:
Bjenk,

  In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching with our 
administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the county 
boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county boundaries included 
some significant deviations to prevent a municipality from being bisected by a 
county boundary. Please be careful that there is not a similar issue with the 
CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be downloaded from the GeoNB Data 
Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.

Bernie.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
From: Bjenk Ellefsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Hello,
Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen that 
many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start adding some 
boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to make 
extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
Bjenk

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

--
外に遊びに行こう！

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

Re: [Talk-it] Centri revisone autoveicoli

2017-03-07 Per discussione francesco gargano

ok , grazie Martin

2017-03-07 15:32 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> dovrebbe essere
> amenity=vehicle_inspection
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aamenity%3Dvehicle_inspection
>
> Ciao,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-cz] OSM pivo Praha 1.3.2017

2017-03-07 Per discussione Miroslav Suchy

Dne 7.3.2017 v 11:45 Pavel Machek napsal(a):
> On Tue 2017-03-07 11:14:56, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
>> Dne 7.3.2017 v 10:42 Pavel Machek napsal(a):
>>> Na druhou stranu to neni nic proti nicemu. Jako problem bych videl
>>> spis to "opravdove 3D".
>>
>> No nam staci 2D plus vyska. Slovaci to resili na foru pred rokem.
>> A kus Dobsinske zmapovali:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6135381#map=17/48.86366/20.31226
>> nejvetsi opruz je davat ke kazdemu uzlu
>>   ele=*
>> coz u teto jeskyne maji jenom u nekterych prvku.
> 
> Tak to ele= je presne to co z toho dela 3D :-). Jenze to nebude
> jednoduchy editovat, a nebude to jednoduchy zobrazit vcetne vysky.

Ja pod 3D rozumim spise tohle:
https://www.google.cz/search?q=3d+model+of+cave
:)

Mirek


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Sorry the image didnt copy properly:
http://i.imgur.com/QwdQDzS.png

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:31 AM, James  wrote:

> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
> data portal:
> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>
> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>
>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>> referring to?
>>
>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>>
>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors >> > wrote:
>>>
 Bjenk,

   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
 with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
 county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
 boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
 from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
 not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
 downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.

 Bernie.

 Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
 *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
 *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
 *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

 Hello,

 Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
 seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
 start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
 important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

 Bjenk

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

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>

-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-it] Centri revisone autoveicoli

2017-03-07 Per discussione Martin Koppenhoefer

dovrebbe essere
amenity=vehicle_inspection

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aamenity%3Dvehicle_inspection

Ciao,
Martin
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
data portal:
http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png

The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
wrote:

> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/
> subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>
> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is not
> in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the CSDs. At
> least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When referring to
> actual city limits, which geographical classification is it referring to?
>
> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bjenk,
>>>
>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>>
>>> Bernie.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>
>>> Bjenk
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-it] Importazione alla cieca dei civici di Modena

2017-03-07 Per discussione Martin Koppenhoefer

Segnalo che ho scritto nel mio ultimo changeset comment che abbiamo chiesto
i mappatori di zona per un loro parere riguardante la bontà dei dati per
decidere su un'evventuale revert, e lui mi ha giustamente risposto che
aspetta con le correzioni finché abbiamo deciso.

Ciao,
Martin
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-it] Centri revisone autoveicoli

2017-03-07 Per discussione francesco gargano

Son confuso su quale tag usare per i suddetti centri autorizzati di
revisione autovetture
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions are
higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal boundaries
(in OSM, level 8).
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro

Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is not
in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the CSDs. At
least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When referring to
actual city limits, which geographical classification is it referring to?

Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
classification used if its not the CSDs.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James  wrote:

> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
> wrote:
>
>> Bjenk,
>>
>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>
>> Bernie.
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
>> that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
>> adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
>> make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>
>> Bjenk
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione Kevin Farrugia

Morning Bjenk,

Just a heads up - municipal boundaries are best of they aren't just
straight up imported because they're usually done as relations.  For
example, we generally add roads into the boundary relationship rather than
overlapping boundary and roads.  Here's one I did before:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4198907 as well as the municipalities
within it (CSD).

For those that don't know the StatsCan lexicon, in Ontario they relate as:
-Census Subdivision (CSD) is a single tier municipality or lower tier
municipality.
-Census Division (CD) is a upper tier municipality (county, region,
district) or a single tier municipality.

Hope that helps out,
Kevin


On Mar 7, 2017 8:51 AM, "Bjenk Ellefsen"  wrote:

Hello,

Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

Bjenk

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
generalization of an area vs the actual city limits

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
wrote:

> Bjenk,
>
>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching with
> our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the county
> boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county boundaries
> included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality from being
> bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is not a
> similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>
> Bernie.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> Hello,
>
> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
> that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
> adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
> make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>
> Bjenk
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

2017-03-07 Per discussione Bernie Connors

  Bjenk,      In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data. Bernie. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.From: Bjenk EllefsenSent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AMTo: talk-ca@openstreetmap.orgSubject: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundariesHello, Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.Bjenk


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Depends what boundaries you are talking about: City limits(admin_level=8)
there are a few(usually main cities) as for neighbourhoods (admin_level=9)
they are a rarity.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
> that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
> adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
> make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>
> Bjenk
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-cz] nezobrazující se fotografie rozcestníků

2017-03-07 Per discussione Milan Cerny

Všechny fotky jsou tady https://api.openstreetmap.cz/img/guidepost/?C=M;O=D
Odhaduji, že co není v seznamu není nikde, ale možná je to jinak. Teď je tam 
10973 fotek, v datech 11467. Něco je asi promazáno a něco bude asi opravdu 
chybět.
Občas se stane, že jsou dva záznamy k jedné fotce, např. 7141, 7583 mají 
stejnou fotku. bylo to tuším kvůli nějakému problému s místem na serveru.

Milan

__
> Od: Zdeněk Pražák 
> Komu: 
> Datum: 07.03.2017 13:34
> Předmět: [Talk-cz] nezobrazující se fotografie rozcestníků
>
>při kontrole mnou nahraných fotek rozcestníků jsem zjistil, že u rozcestníků
>  s ID v rozmezí 7408 - 7796 se nezobrazují fotografie.
>
>chtěl jsem se zeptat, zda je lze nějak obnovit, nebo zda je mám nahrát znovu
>Pražák
>
>--
>
>___
>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-de] emergency access points

2017-03-07 Per discussione Walter Nordmann


Und nu sind sie wieder weg. :(


Am 06.03.2017 um 19:08 schrieb Walter Nordmann:


Sind wieder alle da. bitte 1x reload machen.

Ist irgend ein komisches Problem mit dem Geoserver, der die hier 
angezeigten WMS-Layer liefert. Und irgendwie hat der sich bei einigen 
Layern verschluckt,




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

[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Hello,

Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

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

[Talk-us] SF Building Height Import Mapathon (March 14, 2017) @ Mapbox SF

2017-03-07 Per discussione maning sambale

Hi,

We are doing a mapathon for the SF building height import at Mapbox SF office.
Details about the event here:
https://www.meetup.com/Maptime-SF/events/232888163/

Brandon Liu will lead this event.  If your in town, please join.

-- 
cheers,
maning sambale

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

Re: [Talk-it] Importazione alla cieca dei civici di Modena

2017-03-07 Per discussione Paolo Monegato


Il 06/03/2017 18:17, Federico Cortese ha scritto:

2017-03-06 17:42 GMT+01:00 Paolo Monegato :

Il 06/03/2017 14:54, Federico Cortese ha scritto:

3) Nella pagina dell'import nessuna area è stata assegnata ad un
utente, nonostante l'apposita colonna della tabella "preso in carico
da". Questo significa che l'import non era nemmeno iniziato? ;)

O che non hanno aggiornato la pagina sul wiki...

Certo, era il significato del sorriso :)


Già, però se si fanno le pagine sul wiki sarebbe meglio tenerle 
aggiornate. Capisco però che spesso ciò viene visto come una seccatura, 
dato anche che quelle tabelle hanno un deficit di visibilità e di utilità...


Forse un incentivo potrebbe venire dal fatto che la stessa tabella venga 
usata anche per qualcosa di concreto ed utile che prenda i dati in essa 
contenuti per tenere traccia del progresso del lavoro. Parlo di una 
mappa che mostri in diversi colori lo status per comune (noi per il 
Veneto avevamo una cosa simile per l'import dell'edificato che prendeva 
i dati dalla tabella sul wiki e mostrava le zone coperte e quelle 
mancanti... non a caso quella è una pagina del wiki che viene aggiornata 
spesso e da diversi mapper).
Credo che se ci fosse questa mappa quella pagina wiki per l'import dei 
civici verrebbe aggiornata più spesso.


ciao
Paolo M

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Charger imagerie en local sur JOSM

2017-03-07 Per discussione Violaine Doutreleau


Coucou Christian,

En fait l’imagerie initiale est de 500 Mo... je suis en train de tester 
l'option de Stéphane (que j'avais un peu mise de côté à la base, pensant 
qu'il y avait plus simple). Je vous tiens au jus,


Merci à tous !

V


Le 07/03/2017 à 14:07, g...@laposte.net a écrit :

Salut,
Pourquoi ne pas découper ton image en quatre images plus petite, et 
faire travailler par secteur de carte !
Tes 4 fichiers image ne consommeront chacun que le quart de la memoire 
de l'image totale, et cela tournera peut-etre en n'en changeant qu'un 
a la fois pour travailler.



*De: *"Violaine Doutreleau" 
*À: *"Discussions sur OSM en français" 
*Envoyé: *Mardi 7 Mars 2017 10:04:01
*Objet: *[OSM-talk-fr] Charger imagerie en local sur JOSM

Bonjour à tous,

J'ai un problème d'utilisation des plugins ImportImagePlugin ou 
PicLayer pour charger de l'imagerie satellite dans JOSM. L'imagerie 
autorise la contribution OSM (sous licence NextView), mais en local.


Donc j'essaie d'importer selon l'une ou l'autre méthode mais JOSM me 
dit que j'ai pas assez de mémoire. Pourtant j'ai réduit la taille de 
l'imagerie à 15Mo et augmenté la mémoire RAM de JOSM dispo à 2048Mo... 
J'ai surement raté quelque chose (du moins j'espère), car sinon je 
vais devoir mapper sous QGis. Pour avoir déjà tenté sur une micro 
portion de l'imagerie c'est pas franchement simple pour rebasculer 
ensuite les données dans OSM...


Vous auriez des conseils / solutions?

C'est en plus sur un projet particulièrement urgent de cartographie de 
la ville de Goma en RDC (les données OSM seront exploitées à partir de 
vendredi..), j'en profite pour solliciter votre aide si vous avez un 
peu de temps disponible. Le projet de carto est là : 
http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/2608


Merci,

A bientôt!

Violaine


--

Violaine Doutreleau

Email:v_doutrel...@cartong.org 
Phone: +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82
Mobile: +33 (0)6 95 02 42 44
Skype: doutreleau.violaine  
CartONG Humanitarian mapping and information management
Website: cartong.org  | Twitter: @assocCartONG 
 | Address: Chambéry, France | Lon: 
05°55'24'' | Lat: 45°30'20''




___
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


--
Fwd: Re: Disponibilité de votre lieu pour un mapathon Missing Maps
*Violaine Doutreleau*
Coordinatrice Missing Maps
CartONG 


mobile : 06.95.02.42.44
skype : doutreleau.violaine


_P Help save paper - do you need to print this email?_


---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel 
antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Charger imagerie en local sur JOSM

2017-03-07 Per discussione gnrc

Salut, 
Pourquoi ne pas découper ton image en quatre images plus petite, et faire 
travailler par secteur de carte ! 
Tes 4 fichiers image ne consommeront chacun que le quart de la memoire de 
l'image totale, et cela tournera peut-etre en n'en changeant qu'un a la fois 
pour travailler. 

- Mail original -

De: "Violaine Doutreleau"  
À: "Discussions sur OSM en français"  
Envoyé: Mardi 7 Mars 2017 10:04:01 
Objet: [OSM-talk-fr] Charger imagerie en local sur JOSM 



Bonjour à tous, 

J'ai un problème d'utilisation des plugins ImportImagePlugin ou PicLayer pour 
charger de l'imagerie satellite dans JOSM. L'imagerie autorise la contribution 
OSM (sous licence NextView), mais en local. 


Donc j'essaie d'importer selon l'une ou l'autre méthode mais JOSM me dit que 
j'ai pas assez de mémoire. Pourtant j'ai réduit la taille de l'imagerie à 15Mo 
et augmenté la mémoire RAM de JOSM dispo à 2048Mo... J'ai surement raté quelque 
chose (du moins j'espère), car sinon je vais devoir mapper sous QGis. Pour 
avoir déjà tenté sur une micro portion de l'imagerie c'est pas franchement 
simple pour rebasculer ensuite les données dans OSM... 

Vous auriez des conseils / solutions? 

C'est en plus sur un projet particulièrement urgent de cartographie de la ville 
de Goma en RDC (les données OSM seront exploitées à partir de vendredi..), j'en 
profite pour solliciter votre aide si vous avez un peu de temps disponible. Le 
projet de carto est là : http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/2608 


Merci, 

A bientôt! 


Violaine 
-- 


Violaine Doutreleau 
v_doutreleau @cartong.org 
+33 (0)4 79 26 28 82 
+33 (0)6 95 02 42 44 
doutreleau.violaine 

Humanitarian mapping and information management 
cartong.org | @assocCartONG | Chambéry, France | Lon: 05°55'24'' | Lat: 
45°30'20'' 




___ 
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-ko] Fixing laguage-mixed name tag in Korean region

2017-03-07 Per discussione 최규성

References are the posts by Nrimbo, Max, Yongmin, Andrew and Robert.

Reviewing the recent up-to-date debates, I come to realize what the arguing
points are. Based on my understanding, the primary issue is "*how to put
the data in name field*" while editing an element. Romanization of the
local names and the rendering the labels are the secondary issues.
Therefore, please understand that I would to discuss the primary issue
first. (The secondary issues need to be hold off for the time being.)

Considering the global practices of OSM mapping, I would suggest;
1.  field needs to be in *Korean* (local name) only.
2. In order to support global use of OSM,  field having
a tag of  is necessary.
3. Putting data in the  field by *Korean (English)* is never a good
manner of data management practice.
4. Rendering the labels to display in a map, concatenating the two fields
like *Korean \ English* is recommended, where '\' sign is a line break. (I
suspect if rendering functionality is not supported by OSM map viewer. I
think Andrew Errington's note seems to reflect it that "... might not be
usable for some time, until the software is ready".)

Previously on March 5, I mentioned that "I strongly support the idea of
labeling the name by Korean and English". Now, I need to clarify what my
ultimate intention was;
- This was NOT about to put the data in the name field.
- BUT, this was about to render the labels to display in the map.

Unfortunately, this is contrary to what Andrew is in favor of. But, if we
keep putting data by 'Korean (English)', this accumulates kinks to resolve
in the future.

Therefore, I'd like to make out a consensus to ask developing multilingual
labeling support of OSM map viewer developer team. The good example is  an
attempt for Thailand running at - http://thaimap.osm-tools.org/. Isn't it
pretty good, Andrew? To make it happen for South Korea, just
populating/putting data in  *(or )* AND  separately
is required. Then, the software functionality part will treat the labeling
the tags(name values).

Do we agree and ask for the software functionality support in OSM map
viewer. This is just for the sake of OSM mappers only. (Of course, when the
data is ready, any stand-alone software application can manage to display
multilingual labels by its own capability.)

Hoping to get your feedback.

P.S. I suggest to have an off-line meeting with Nrimbo and/or Yongmin to
discuss more about Korean OSM community activity. I going to sent a private
e-mail separately attention to both of you.

Kyu-sung Choi

2017-03-06 21:00 GMT+09:00 :

> Send Talk-ko mailing list submissions to
> talk-ko@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ko
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-ko-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-ko-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ko digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Fixing laguage-mixed name tag in Korean region (느림보)
>2. Re: Fixing laguage-mixed name tag in Korean region (Max)
>
>
> -- 전달된 메시지 --
> From: "느림보" 
> To: OpenStreetMap Korea 
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 22:32:57 +0900
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ko] Fixing laguage-mixed name tag in Korean region
>
> Errington wrote:
>
>> I think we should remember that we are not mapping Korea for Koreans, we
>> are mapping it for everybody.
>>
>
>
> Yes, it’s true. We are mapping it for everyone. However, I think it cannot
> be a reason that we put or remain English name in name tag. Most countries
> including China, Japan, Finland, Italy, Switzerland are using their local
> name in name tag. Finland and Switzerland has several official languages
> but many name tags are represented by ‘the most common language of the
> region’ (Helsinki in Finland: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1372477580,
> Fribourg in Switzerland: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1685926271)
>
>
>
> From such perspective, it looks like that global consensus on name tag is
> ‘local name’. In case of South Korea, it is Korean name. I understand your
> concern because I had similar problem when I travel foreign Countries.
> However, I think the problem should be discussed in global view and solved
> by other method rather than tricking on name tag.
>
>
> I have an idea how it should work, which would require some software
>> support, but remember, we have plenty of time, and the data we are putting
>> in now might not be usable for some time, until the software is ready.
>> It's important to have a goal, and be patient that it will take some time
>> to reach it.
>>
>
> I don’t agree with ‘plenty of time.’ It’s an indefinite postponement. It
> will be difficult to convince people

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] NOUVEAU Bus contributor - Appli arrêts de bus

2017-03-07 Per discussione PanierAvide

Merci. Je viens de tester assez rapidement, ça s'utilise bien, c'est 
assez ergonomique et le petit tutoriel contextualisé permet de prendre 
assez vite l'interface en main. Comme tu l'annonces c'est une première 
étape, mais j'ai hâte de voir ce que ça va donner quand seront gérés les 
parcours des bus ;-)


Cordialement,

Adrien.


Le 07/03/2017 à 12:41, Florian LAINEZ a écrit :

Voici le lien pour téléchargement direct :
_https://github.com/jawg/osm-contributor/releases/download/v3.0.3/Bus_Contributor_v1.0.apk 
_ 

L'application devrait être téléchargée automatiquement. Toutes les 
futures versions seront disponibles ici : 
https://github.com/jawg/osm-contributor/releases/ 



Le 7 mars 2017 à 11:19, Vincent Bergeot > a écrit :


Le 07/03/2017 à 10:24, PanierAvide a écrit :

Est-ce qu'il y a quelque part un lien direct vers l'APK (pour
les gens qui n'auraient pas d'accès au Google Play) ?


+1 :)

Merci pour ce projet !


-- 
Vincent Bergeot




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





--

*Florian Lainez*

@overflorian 


___
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-it-lazio] Digest di Talk-it-lazio, Volume 56, Numero 3

2017-03-07 Per discussione jprimav

io preferirei piu in centro. però chiaramente se la maggioranza vive da
quelle parti mi posso adattare. negli ultimi incontri quanti eravate?
A Monti ci sono un paio di pub irlandesi che potrebbero essere comodi forse:
il fiddler's elbow
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4455036146
e il finnegan (non mappato su osm )
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=finnegan%20irish%20pub%20roma#map=19/41.89459/12.49218




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Re-Talk-it-lazio-Digest-di-Talk-it-lazio-Volume-56-Numero-3-tp5892500p5892610.html
Sent from the Lazio mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] NOUVEAU Bus contributor - Appli arrêts de bus

Voici le lien pour téléchargement direct :
*https://github.com/jawg/osm-contributor/releases/download/v3.0.3/Bus_Contributor_v1.0.apk
*
L'application devrait être téléchargée automatiquement. Toutes les futures
versions seront disponibles ici : https://github.com/jawg/osm-
contributor/releases/

Le 7 mars 2017 à 11:19, Vincent Bergeot  a écrit :

> Le 07/03/2017 à 10:24, PanierAvide a écrit :
>
>> Est-ce qu'il y a quelque part un lien direct vers l'APK (pour les gens
>> qui n'auraient pas d'accès au Google Play) ?
>>
>
> +1 :)
>
> Merci pour ce projet !
>
>
> --
> Vincent Bergeot
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>



-- 

*Florian Lainez*
@overflorian 
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[Talk-de] Missing Boundaries Auswertung vom 2017-03-07

2017-03-07 Per discussione talk-de-bounces


Moin,

hier die aktuelle Missing Boundaries-Auswertung: 
https://wambachers-osm.website/index.php/10-osm-reports/823-countries-compare-2017-03-07

Der Datenstand ist vom 2017-03-07 01:01:02+01

18 Missings und drei kritische Grenzen.
   
Gruss
walter


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a pokemon go edit?

2017-03-07 Per discussione Jez Nicholson

I notice that there is a Pokemon Go Worcester UK Facebook Group with a
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1706278502965393/?order=_query=ben%20pickering=members
as
a member.


On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 at 10:57 Ian Caldwell 
wrote:

I have reverted the change set


Ian

On 6 March 2017 at 20:33, Ian Caldwell 
wrote:

This changeset look wrong.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46565840

I have contacted the contributor but no reply in 24 hours.

Is it the kind that pokemon go players do?

Should I reverse it without a ground survey?

Ian


___
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: [OSM-talk-fr] Charger imagerie en local sur JOSM

2017-03-07 Per discussione Stéphane Péneau


Le 07/03/2017 à 10:50, Violaine Doutreleau a écrit :


Ah c'est bien ce que je voulais éviter, faire un serveur en local...

Ce n'est pas obligatoire, ça fonctionne aussi en pointant directement 
sur un dossier local. C'est le cas de mon exemple :

tms[valeur max du zoom]:file:///E:/dossier/{z}/{x}/{-y}.png

J'essaie de voir les réponses / voir si on peut éviter ça, sinon va 
faloir que je m'y colle,


gdal2tiles, c'est pour linux?


Pas seulement (mais pas testé) :
http://www.bonnal.net/gdal2tiles-howto/

pour ma part, je n'avais pas voulu tenter le diable, et j'avais utilisé 
directement la distribution OSGEO Live dans Virtualbox.


Stf

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a pokemon go edit?

2017-03-07 Per discussione Ian Caldwell

I have reverted the change set


Ian

On 6 March 2017 at 20:33, Ian Caldwell 
wrote:

> This changeset look wrong.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46565840
>
> I have contacted the contributor but no reply in 24 hours.
>
> Is it the kind that pokemon go players do?
>
> Should I reverse it without a ground survey?
>
> Ian
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Charger imagerie en local sur JOSM

2017-03-07 Per discussione Stéphane Péneau


Hello !

Je ne peux pas t'aider pour PicLayer, mais voici ce que nous avions fait 
pour utiliser des plans dans Josm :


- Geo-référencement des plans dans Qgis

- Export en  je ne sais plus... geotiff je crois

- découpage en tuile avec gdal2tiles :|gdal2tiles --profile=mercator -z 
1-8 yourmap.tif outputfolder

avec:
-z 1-8 -> min zoom - max zoom
yourmap.tif-> fichier source
outputfolder-> chemin du dossier de destination des tuiles.|

- ajout de ce TMS sur un serveur web, ou directement en local dans Josm :
tms[valeur max du zoom]:file:///E:/dossier/{z}/{x}/{-y}.png


Stf

Le 07/03/2017 à 10:04, Violaine Doutreleau a écrit :


Bonjour à tous,

J'ai un problème d'utilisation des plugins ImportImagePlugin ou 
PicLayer pour charger de l'imagerie satellite dans JOSM. L'imagerie 
autorise la contribution OSM (sous licence NextView), mais en local.


Donc j'essaie d'importer selon l'une ou l'autre méthode mais JOSM me 
dit que j'ai pas assez de mémoire. Pourtant j'ai réduit la taille de 
l'imagerie à 15Mo et augmenté la mémoire RAM de JOSM dispo à 2048Mo... 
J'ai surement raté quelque chose (du moins j'espère), car sinon je 
vais devoir mapper sous QGis. Pour avoir déjà tenté sur une micro 
portion de l'imagerie c'est pas franchement simple pour rebasculer 
ensuite les données dans OSM...


Vous auriez des conseils / solutions?

C'est en plus sur un projet particulièrement urgent de cartographie de 
la ville de Goma en RDC (les données OSM seront exploitées à partir de 
vendredi..), j'en profite pour solliciter votre aide si vous avez un 
peu de temps disponible. Le projet de carto est là : 
http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/2608


Merci,

A bientôt!

Violaine


--

Violaine Doutreleau

Email:v_doutrel...@cartong.org 
Phone: +33 (0)4 79 26 28 82
Mobile: +33 (0)6 95 02 42 44
Skype: doutreleau.violaine  
CartONG Humanitarian mapping and information management
Website: cartong.org  | Twitter: @assocCartONG 
 | Address: Chambéry, France | Lon: 
05°55'24'' | Lat: 45°30'20''





___
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-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz

Á, už to vidím. Spinal a Pioneer se v základním režimu ocitly omylem.

To přejmenování zvážím.

Marián

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Jethro
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic
Datum: 7. 3. 2017 9:54:20
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz
"

Zdar,

pokud to chceme pro běžné uživatele, pak "OpenStreetMap Mapnik", "Ortofoto
ČÚZK", "OpenCycleMap" ani Pioneer a Spinal nejsou dobré pojmy, nešlo by je
přepsat? Navrhuji: "Základní", "Letecká", "Cyklistická", "Metalová"?,
"Historizující".

MSF

Jethro

2017-03-07 7:23 GMT+01:00 Marián Kyral :
"
Ahoj,
postoupil jsem na další úroveň a přesunul nový přepínač vrstev do hlavní
větve. Takže nové url pro testování je http://rawgit.com/osmcz/osmcz/master/
index.html(http://rawgit.com/osmcz/osmcz/master/index.html)

Hlavní změna je přidání zjednodušeného (základního) režimu pro obyčejné
uživatele, který se zobrazí jako výchozí. Aby se nám nelekli ;-)
Na pokročilé zobrazení s dalšími vrstvami a skupinami je potřeba se přepnout
tlačítkem. Volba je pak následně uložena do cookies.

Pokud se neobjeví nějaká závažná chyba, tak bych to chtěl během týdne
nasadit na produkci.

Marián

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Marián Kyral
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic
Datum: 23. 2. 2017 22:17:51
Předmět: [Talk-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz(http://osmap.cz)
"

Ahoj,
tak má intenzivní, již druhý týden trvající snaha o vylepšení přepínače
vrstev konečně přinesla ovoce a dostala se do stavu, kdy jsem s výsledkem
dostatečně spokojen. Hlavně, že to funguje dle mých představ ;-)

Protože bych to chtěl brzy nasadit na osmap.cz(http://osmap.cz), prosím
zájemce o otestování a komentáře. Demo je dostupné na http://rawgit.com/
osmcz/osmcz/improve-layer-switcher/index.html
(http://rawgit.com/osmcz/osmcz/improve-layer-switcher/index.html)

Hlavní změny:

* Jednotlivé vrstvy rozděleny do skupin
* Informační text se schoval za ikonu "?"
* Ladění css a další drobnosti
* Související změny pod kapotou - rozbitou vrstvu rozcestníku jsem snad
už dal dohromady ;)

Pro zájemce - issue na Githubu: https://github.com/osmcz/osmcz/issues/36
(https://github.com/osmcz/osmcz/issues/36)

Musím říct, že jsem se po počátečních fázích beznaděje konečně trochu blíže
skamarádil s Bootstrapem. Šikovná věcička ;-)

Díky,
Marián

___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org(mailto:Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org)
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz)
"

___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org(mailto:Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org)
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
(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: [OSM-talk-fr] NOUVEAU Bus contributor - Appli arrêts de bus

2017-03-07 Per discussione Vincent Bergeot


Le 07/03/2017 à 10:24, PanierAvide a écrit :
Est-ce qu'il y a quelque part un lien direct vers l'APK (pour les gens 
qui n'auraient pas d'accès au Google Play) ?


+1 :)

Merci pour ce projet !


--
Vincent Bergeot


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

[Talk-tr] Hotosm Türkiye

2017-03-07 Per discussione Roman Neumüller


Hotosm Türkiye temsilcisi arıyor, ilgilenebilecek birileri varmı acaba?

Country Manager (Turkey) - Open Mapping for Refugees
Application deadline:
Friday, March 17, 2017

Ayrıntılı bilgi:

https://hotosm.org/job/country_manager_turkey_open_mapping_for_refugees/2017

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

Re: [Talk-cz] OSM pivo Praha 1.3.2017

2017-03-07 Per discussione Miroslav Suchy

Dne 7.3.2017 v 10:42 Pavel Machek napsal(a):
> Na druhou stranu to neni nic proti nicemu. Jako problem bych videl
> spis to "opravdove 3D".

No nam staci 2D plus vyska. Slovaci to resili na foru pred rokem.
A kus Dobsinske zmapovali:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6135381#map=17/48.86366/20.31226
nejvetsi opruz je davat ke kazdemu uzlu
  ele=*
coz u teto jeskyne maji jenom u nekterych prvku.

Mirek

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

Re: [Talk-it] Mancante tabella per l'Italia su pagina wiki su routing/Access-Restrictions"

2017-03-07 Per discussione Martin Koppenhoefer

2017-03-07 10:56 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :

> Magari si possono mappare i cartelli "living_street" separatamente come
> nodi.
> Non penso che il CdS in Italia conosce il concetto di una "strada" dove i
> pedoni hanno la precedenza in carreggiata, come è il caso con il concetto
> living_street in altri paesi. Probabilmente una "zona pedonale" con un
> "eccetto residenti" viene più vicino a una "Spielstrasse" in Germania.
>


si, in Germania con "Spielstraße" (o più technicamente: "verkehrsberuhigter
Bereich"=area di traffico tranquillizato), le regole sono vari, compresi un
limiti di velocità a passo d'uomo (20km/h sono già troppi e ti fanno la
multa), sosta soltanto in parcheggi segnalati, precedenza dei pedoni e non
si ha mai (anche in assenza di ulteriori cartelli) la precedenza uscendo da
una strada così. In più ci sono spesso ostacoli artificiali. Spesso viene
anche emfatizzato da una superficie diversa (spesso paving_stones o
cobblestone):
http://www.bv-zazenhausen.de/bilder/spital12.jpg
http://www.gruene-mering.de/cms/media/AG_Verkehr/Engen1_700.jpg
http://cdn1.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/media.media.8c3721cc-dd8f-4df2-be1f-7a9fc2de26d3.normalized.jpeg
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/6/6a/Spielstrasse.jpg/300px-Spielstrasse.jpg

Anche se non corretto, un grosso danno non è segnalare i borghi storici
così, perché difatto la situazione è simile (non dico di mettere quel tag,
dove mi accorgo lo correggo, ma non ha priorità (penso) di correggere).

Ciao,
Martin
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-cz] spolecna konference osgeo, wikimedia, osm

2017-03-07 Per discussione Jáchym Čepický


Ahoj,

obracím se tak nějak do pléna, co byste řekli na společnou konfernci 
našich 3 organizací/skupin? Témata máme do vysoké míry společná, jinde 
ve světě to funguje, mohla by to být zajímavá a vzájemně obohacující akce


Jachym

P.S. Vůbec netuším, na jakém kanále by se o tom dalo mluvit. Slack? 
Mail? Jiný? Píšu prostě na mě známé adresy.

--
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepi...@gmail.com
twitter: @jachymc

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

Re: [Talk-it] Mancante tabella per l'Italia su pagina wiki su routing/Access-Restrictions"

2017-03-07 Per discussione Volker Schmidt

Anche se sono reo di aver mappate delle living_street in Italia, adesso,
cioè dopo esser mi documantato, non lo farei più, ovvero non metterei il
tag living_street su un way.  La soluzione che mi sembra più corretta è di
mappare la strada come highway=residential con le restrizioni segnalati dai
cartelli presenti sul luogo. Magari si possono mappare i cartelli
"living_street" separatamente come nodi.
Non penso che il CdS in Italia conosce il concetto di una "strada" dove i
pedoni hanno la precedenza in carreggiata, come è il caso con il concetto
living_street in altri paesi. Probabilmente una "zona pedonale" con un
"eccetto residenti" viene più vicino a una "Spielstrasse" in Germania.
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Traffic jam historical Open data ?

2017-03-07 Per discussione Ben Abelshausen

Hi,

This is one of the big missing links in open-data when using OSM for
routing and traffic analysis, historical travel times. There was some data
released by BeMobile during the dynacity project a while back but that was
only for Ghent. I don't think we will see an open data source for this in
short term because it's not collected by the government, it's expensive to
collect, and it gives companies a competive advantage. There are some
companies that realized that pooling their resources is the only way to fix
this, that lead to this project:

http://opentraffic.io/

I think they will be starting to release something this year but I don't
know how much data what coverage they will have or if they will cover data
going back in time.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Best regards,

Ben Abelshausen

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 8:50 PM,  wrote:

>
> Yeah sure, welcome in the belgian imbroglio :-( Anyway, I’m especially
> interested in Brussels, guess why :-)
>
> Nevertheless there are sources at the federal level - not open though.
>
> > On 06 Mar 2017, at 19:31, Wannes Soenen  wrote:
> >
> > Problem is traffic is a regional regulation. You'd need a flemish,
> walloon and brussels source
> >
> >
> > On 6 mrt. 2017 19:02 +0100, Matthieu Gaillet ,
> wrote:
> >> Hey open data specialists,
> >>
> >> Not exactly osm-related, but does anyone know a Belgian source of open
> data regarding traffic jams in Belgium ? I'm looking for historical data
> (like how many kilometre jams in a given region at a given time)
> >>
> >> Thanks for helping,
> >>
> >> Matthieu G. (en mode mobile)
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-be mailing list
> >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> > ___
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 344

2017-03-07 Per discussione majka

Zkusila jsem napsat na ten kontaktní mail, tak uvidíme...

2017-03-07 10:40 GMT+01:00 Marián Kyral :

>
> -- Původní e-mail --
> Od: Pavel Machek 
> Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
> Datum: 7. 3. 2017 10:35:43
> Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 344
>
> Ahoj!
>
> > Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 344 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:
> >
> > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/8772
> >
> > * Nová verze osmap.cz.
> > * Validátor adres JOSM.
> > * Chybné polygony v Maproulette.
> > * Data o mýtném v OSM?
> > * Překlady JOSM.
> > * Nový AI import Facebooku.
> > * Příspěvky pro SotM 2017.
> > * Portál výškových dat.
> > * Zobrazení smazaných dat.
> >
> > Pěkné počtení ...
>
> Funguji vam ty statistiky cest?
> https://osmstats.stevecoast.com/dashboard/cz/total Me to ukazuje samy
> nuly (pro CR, Nemecko funguje).
>
> Taky mi to pro ČR nefunguje
> 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

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 344


-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Pavel Machek 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 7. 3. 2017 10:35:43
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 344
"Ahoj!

> Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 344 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:
>
> http://www.weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/8772
>
> * Nová verze osmap.cz.
> * Validátor adres JOSM.
> * Chybné polygony v Maproulette.
> * Data o mýtném v OSM?
> * Překlady JOSM.
> * Nový AI import Facebooku.
> * Příspěvky pro SotM 2017.
> * Portál výškových dat.
> * Zobrazení smazaných dat.
>
> Pěkné počtení ...

Funguji vam ty statistiky cest?
https://osmstats.stevecoast.com/dashboard/cz/total Me to ukazuje samy
nuly (pro CR, Nemecko funguje).
"
Taky mi to pro ČR nefunguje 

Marián___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-talk] Changing Bing to bing

2017-03-07 Per discussione Martin Koppenhöfer

> On 07 Mar 2017, at 09:44, molto...@gmail.com wrote:
> FWIW I've alway ignored JOSM's "Bing" -> "bing" warning and would be glad to 
> see it removed, or reversed and downgraded to notice.
> 
> While we do have a "standard values should be lowercase" best-practice in 
> OSM, I don't think this should apply to source tags except maybe "survey" and 
> "local_knowledge” :

note that “local knowledge” comes in a series of sauces, local knowledge, 
local_knowledge, Local knowledge, …
IMHO there doesn’t seem need to unify any of those. You can easily unify all 
spaces and underscores and capitalisation downstream for making statistics or 
similar.

FWIW, personally I prefer “Bing aerial imagery” over “Bing”, as the latter is 
not sufficiently accurate (it’s the name of a search engine). Seems more to 
type, but autocompletion makes this difference almost vanish. Looking at 
taginfo, there are many others who prefer being more explicit.

> * Most source values, like Bing, are proper names and capitalisation matters.

according to our contract with them, they might be called “MICROSOFT® BING™ 
MAPS IMAGERTY SERVICE” (sic! MS managed to get a typo in the contract headline)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf

And maybe interesting for some, you may not use them anyway if you are editing 
osm in a commercial context.

There also appear to be very few changesets based on other Bing maps sources 
that are explicitly forbidden and these contributions should eventually be 
redacted:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/source=bing%20Bird's%20eye
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/source=bing%20bird's%20eye%20view

> * "Bing" is twice as frequent as "bing" on taginfo, so suggesting the later 
> goes against the general trend.

+1

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 344

2017-03-07 Per discussione Pavel Machek

Ahoj!

> Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 344 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:
> 
> http://www.weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/8772
> 
> * Nová verze osmap.cz.
> * Validátor adres JOSM.
> * Chybné polygony v Maproulette.
> * Data o mýtném v OSM?
> * Překlady JOSM.
> * Nový AI import Facebooku.
> * Příspěvky pro SotM 2017.
> * Portál výškových dat.
> * Zobrazení smazaných dat.
> 
> Pěkné počtení ...

Funguji vam ty statistiky cest?
https://osmstats.stevecoast.com/dashboard/cz/total Me to ukazuje samy
nuly (pro CR, Nemecko funguje).

Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) 
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] NOUVEAU Bus contributor - Appli arrêts de bus

2017-03-07 Per discussione PanierAvide


Bonjour,

C'est super, ça commence à prendre forme ce projet :-) Est-ce qu'il y a 
quelque part un lien direct vers l'APK (pour les gens qui n'auraient pas 
d'accès au Google Play) ?


Cordialement,

Adrien.


Le 07/03/2017 à 10:06, Florian LAINEZ a écrit :

Salut,
Nos amis de chez Jawg Maps  ont développé une 
nouvelle appli mobile pour collecter des arrêts de bus dans OSM.
Un gros merci à eux pour cette nouveauté sous Android dispo ici 
:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.jawg.osmcontributor.bus 



Ce démonstrateur fonctionnel n'est que la première étape préliminaire 
mais il permet déjà de :

-afficher les arrêts de bus partout dans le Monde
-créer/modifier/déplacer/supprimer des arrêts de bus
-modifier le nom des arrêts ainsi que quelques détails de base
-télécharger des zones pour y contribuer même sans accès au réseau de 
données

-contribuer avec son propre compte OpenStreetMap
et tout cela de manière extrêmement simple. Pas besoin d'être un 
mappeur expérimenté pour utiliser l'appli !


Comme vous pouvez le constater cette appli est fonctionnelle mais il 
manque encore beaucoup avant de parvenir à une version finale, notamment :
-les lignes de bus ne s'affichent pas, et il n'est pas possible de 
relier un arrêt à une ou plusieurs lignes
-les seuls points édités sont des amenity=bus_stop, ce qui est le 
modèle pour les arrêts de bus le plus répandu mais qui est aussi 
déprécié pour public_transport_v2 



N'hésitez pas à tester l'application et à faire vos retours 
directement auprès de moi.
Pour l'instant, au delà de la dynamique de contribution, j'essaye bien 
entendu d'identifier avant tout les points bloquants.


Have fun !

--

*Florian Lainez*

@overflorian 


___
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-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz

2017-03-07 Per discussione jozka

v praci Chrome:

Failed to load resource: net::ERR_CONNECTION_RESET (vickrat, zrejme pro kazdou 
dlazdici)

a pak:
URL se nedá načíst: Doména této adresy URL není součásti domén aplikací. Abyste 
mohli  tuto adresu URL načíst, přidejte všechny domény a subdomény v aplikaci 
do pole Domény aplikace  v nastavení aplikací.

Hlavne je vysledek stejny na IE/Chrome+win v praci i FF+lin doma (UPC)

J.
__
> Od: Marián Kyral 
> Komu: "OpenStreetMap Czech Republic" 
> Datum: 07.03.2017 10:08
> Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz
>
>Mně to funguje bez problémů. Nevypisuje to něco do konzole? Ve FF - Vývoj
>webu / Webová konsole.
>
>Marián
>
>-- Původní e-mail --
>Od: jo...@razdva.cz
>Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
>Datum: 7. 3. 2017 10:02:45
>Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz
>"Hlavne jsem tedy asi jediny, komu (uz delsi dobu) nejde "Turisticka"?
>Firefox/Explorer/Chrome, v praci/doma... ostatni jdou.
>
>J.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz

Mně to funguje bez problémů. Nevypisuje to něco do konzole? Ve FF - Vývoj
webu / Webová konsole.

Marián

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: jo...@razdva.cz
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 7. 3. 2017 10:02:45
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz
"Hlavne jsem tedy asi jediny, komu (uz delsi dobu) nejde "Turisticka"?
Firefox/Explorer/Chrome, v praci/doma... ostatni jdou.

J.

__
> Od: Jethro 
> Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
> Datum: 07.03.2017 09:52
> Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz
>
>Zdar,
>pokud to chceme pro běžné uživatele, pak "OpenStreetMap Mapnik", "Ortofoto
>ČÚZK", "OpenCycleMap" ani Pioneer a Spinal nejsou dobré pojmy, nešlo by je
>přepsat? Navrhuji: "Základní", "Letecká", "Cyklistická", "Metalová"?,
>"Historizující".
>MSF
>Jethro
>
>2017-03-07 7:23 GMT+01:00 Marián Kyral :
>
>> Ahoj,
>> postoupil jsem na další úroveň a přesunul nový přepínač vrstev do hlavní
>> větve. Takže nové url pro testování je http://rawgit.com/osmcz/osmcz/
>> master/index.html
>>
>> Hlavní změna je přidání zjednodušeného (základního) režimu pro obyčejné
>> uživatele, který se zobrazí jako výchozí. Aby se nám nelekli ;-)
>> Na pokročilé zobrazení s dalšími vrstvami a skupinami je potřeba se
>> přepnout tlačítkem. Volba je pak následně uložena do cookies.
>>
>> Pokud se neobjeví nějaká závažná chyba, tak bych to chtěl během týdne
>> nasadit na produkci.
>>
>> Marián
>>
>>
>> -- Původní e-mail --
>> Od: Marián Kyral 
>> Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
>> Datum: 23. 2. 2017 22:17:51
>> Předmět: [Talk-cz] Vylepšený přepínač vrstev pro osmap.cz
>>
>> Ahoj,
>> tak má intenzivní, již druhý týden trvající snaha o vylepšení přepínače
>> vrstev konečně přinesla ovoce a dostala se do stavu, kdy jsem s výsledkem
>> dostatečně spokojen. Hlavně, že to funguje dle mých představ ;-)
>>
>> Protože bych to chtěl brzy nasadit na osmap.cz, prosím zájemce o
>> otestování a komentáře. Demo je dostupné na http://rawgit.com/osmcz/
osmcz/
>> improve-layer-switcher/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Hlavní změny:
>>
>> - Jednotlivé vrstvy rozděleny do skupin
>> - Informační text se schoval za ikonu "?"
>> - Ladění css a další drobnosti
>> - Související změny pod kapotou - rozbitou vrstvu rozcestníku jsem
>> snad už dal dohromady ;)
>>
>>
>> Pro zájemce - issue na Githubu: https://github.com/osmcz/osmcz/issues/36
>>
>>
>> Musím říct, že jsem se po počátečních fázích beznaděje konečně trochu
>> blíže skamarádil s Bootstrapem. Šikovná věcička ;-)
>>
>>
>> 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 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

[OSM-talk-fr] NOUVEAU Bus contributor - Appli arrêts de bus