[Talk-es] semanarioOSM Nº 457 2019-04-16-2019-04-22

[theweekly . osm]

Hola, el semanario Nº 457, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/11968/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

[OSM-co] semanarioOSM Nº 457 2019-04-16-2019-04-22

[theweekly . osm]

Hola, el semanario Nº 457, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/11968/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-co mailing list
Talk-co@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co

[Talk-cu] semanarioOSM Nº 457 2019-04-16-2019-04-22

[theweekly . osm]

Hola, el semanario Nº 457, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/11968/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-cu mailing list
Talk-cu@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cu

[Talk-cl] semanarioOSM Nº 457 2019-04-16-2019-04-22

[theweekly . osm]

Hola, el semanario Nº 457, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/11968/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-cl mailing list
Talk-cl@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cl

Re: [Talk-it] via crucis

[canfe]

Essendo di 'pari grado' come luogo devozionale, cambia solo la fattispecie
architettonica, sarebbe impensabile un

wayside_niche ?



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:12 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:01 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> > I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place.
> > Copley Place is a named building: 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783

This local Bostonian concurs.

This is one of those skyscrapers with a vanity "street" address with
no such street.
(To confuse matters further, there is also a Copley Place Hotel whose
address is NOT Copley Place!)

> more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copley_Place - the
> building complex, in addition to the shopping mall, has office
> buildings (tenants include the German and Canadian consulates, on the
> fourth and fifth floors respectively of tower 3), hotels and a parking
> garage, all connected.

(and all-weather connections to adjacent malls and hotels too, and to
two T (metro) lines and Amtrak rail.)
(used to have a Cinema, but iirc it got consolidated out of existence?)

> I'm not familiar enough with indoor mapping to be able to direct you
> how to map a suite within the towers.

A Consulate might prefer we not map the interior access?
That level of detail is fine for retail but ... government entities
can attract untoward attention.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

[Talk-it] percorso su spiaggia

[Gabriele via Talk-it]

Buongiorno,
sto mappando un percorso escursionistico che passa per una parte sulla spiaggia 
[0]: come lo mappo? Aggiungo un percorso pedonale sulla spiaggia anche se non 
c'è nulla fisicamente?

[0] https://www.viaemisericordiae.org/le-tappe/pomposa/

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:01 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place.
> Copley Place is a named building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783

more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copley_Place - the
building complex, in addition to the shopping mall, has office
buildings (tenants include the German and Canadian consulates, on the
fourth and fifth floors respectively of tower 3), hotels and a parking
garage, all connected.

There's a detailed plan of the first few levels at
https://www.simon.com/mall/copley-place/map#/ - the menu at upper
right will let you select the levels, and the entrances to the towers
are on 'Sky Level'.

I'm not familiar enough with indoor mapping to be able to direct you
how to map a suite within the towers.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:40 PM Wolfgang Zenker
 wrote:
> I tried to add the German Consulate General in Boston, MA, but could not
> find the address "Three Copley Place, Boston, MA 02116" in
> our data. That place is apparently somewhere near Boston University.
> Anyone local who could check if this is a missing street name in our
> data?
>
> consulate website: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783

I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place.
Copley Place is a named building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783

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

[Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

[Wolfgang Zenker]

Hi,

I tried to add the German Consulate General in Boston, MA, but could not
find the address "Three Copley Place, Boston, MA 02116" in
our data. That place is apparently somewhere near Boston University.
Anyone local who could check if this is a missing street name in our
data?

consulate website: https://www.germany.info/us-en/embassy-consulates/boston

Greetings,
Wolfgang
( lyx @ osm )

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

brad  writes:

>>> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
>>> recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>> Because we have existing norms, and it is not generally a good idea to
>> ask that tagging of thousands of objects be thrown out and redone.
> OK, but I think that's what you're asking for if county parks, state
> parks, and large city parks can't be tagged as parks.

If people in one country have mistagged things, then I think it's ok to
fix that.  I don't think it's ok to ask the rest of the world to change
to accomodate our mistagging.

The notion of what leisure=park means (that many "state parks" aren't
included) has been clear to me for years, from reading the wiki when I
joined OSM.

But I'm not really clear on the total statistics of use of leisure=park
in the US and not in the US.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[brad]

On 4/29/19 4:11 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:

brad  writes:


It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford
dictionary, a park is:

No.  Plain language cannot be used to define what tags mean.  Each tag
is actually a codepoint, not human language, and needs a definition.
That is fundamental to how tagging works in OSM.
Agreed, but the tag language should be close to human language where 
possible



Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?

Because we have existing norms, and it is not generally a good idea to
ask that tagging of thousands of objects be thrown out and redone.
OK, but I think that's what you're asking for if county parks, state 
parks, and large city parks can't be tagged as parks.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

Andy Townsend  writes:

> With regard to British English usage, I think you're
> correct*. Something described here as a "park" would pretty much match
> the current description at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark (without the
> urban requirement, but you've already talked about that).  In the UK a
> "national park" (or something like the Pentland Hills Regional Park
> which was already mentioned) isn't really a subset of "park" in any
> way - it's something else altogether.

So it seems that the definition of leisure=park we have converged on in
the US matches more or less leisure=park and what humans mean when
speaking en_UK.  That seems like a very sane place to be.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

Joseph Eisenberg  writes:

> On 4/29/19, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>> With leisure=nature_reserve, leisure=park, golf courses, cemetaries,
>> schools, etc., we represent them on the map by some kind of shading or
>> fill.  But, boundary=protected_area is represented by denoting the
>> border, and this does not serve map users well.
>
> If you are talking about the Openstreetmap-carto style (the standard
> map layer on openstreetmap.org), then this is not quite correct.
>
> It's true that leisure=park and golf courses are represented by a fill
> color for the whole polygon.
>
> However, leisure=natural_reserve, boundary=national_park and
> boundary_protected area (with protect_class  1 thru 7 and 97-99) are
> currently rendered identically, with a green semi-transparent outline.
> (There is also a semi-transparent green fill at low zoom levels).

Sorry, I was off on nature_reserve.   But my point is that we have fill
sometimes and sometimes not, and that focusing on thinking about
boundary seems to lead to not filling, and I think that's unfortunate.

It's at high zooms that I think the fill is needed; some of these are
large enough that zooming in means the border isn't showing.

> Military areas and tourist areas (zoos, theme parks) are also rendered
> with outlines in red and purple.

Military at least also has a fill pattern, so they are not just
observable from the edges.  I have no problem with special edges; my
complaint is the decision that no fill is necessary.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

brad  writes:

> It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford
> dictionary, a park is:

No.  Plain language cannot be used to define what tags mean.  Each tag
is actually a codepoint, not human language, and needs a definition.
That is fundamental to how tagging works in OSM.

> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
> recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?

Because we have existing norms, and it is not generally a good idea to
ask that tagging of thousands of objects be thrown out and redone.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Ajout de panneaux d'affichage libre

[marc marc]

Oui :-)
Quel est la source de ceux ci et la licence de la source ?
Faire une page Wiki décrivant l'import
Ne pas oublier de faire/décrire une détection anti doublon avec l'existant .
Je te conseille de peaufiner l'import et sa doc ici afin d'avoir le soutient de 
la communauté locale avant de partir à l'assaut de celui de la ml import :-)

> Le 29 avr. 2019 à 22:02, "goues...@orange.fr"  a écrit :
> 
> Bonsoir
> 
> Il m'a été fortement recommandé de vous prévenir de mon ajout de plusieurs 
> dizaines (centaines?) d'emplacements de panneaux d'affichage libre dans 
> OpenStreetMap sous peu. J'ai lu les consignes et les commentaires de membres 
> de plusieurs forums sur la façon de les qualifier. Je peux vous montrer un 
> échantillon si vous le souhaitez. J'ai plusieurs fichiers au format geojson 
> que je vais convertir au format XML OsmChange. Je sais utiliser l'API en 
> ligne de commande avec Curl, j'ai même trouvé comment faire marcher ça avec 
> la version 0.6 de l'API alors que le wiki mentionne des exemples qui marchent 
> uniquement avec la version 0.5. Je connais JOSM, je l'ai installé au cas où 
> mais je ne pense pas qu'il me sera utile pour le téléversement. Je ferai des 
> essais sur une version de test. Je (re)vérifierai que je ne risque pas 
> d'écraser les contributions d'autres personnes. Une fois prêt, j'enverrai un 
> message électronique à impo...@openstreetmap.org à moins que vous me disiez 
> que ce ne sera pas nécessaire. Je pense téléverser les emplacements par 
> groupe de 30 à peu près ou bien commune par commune. Si vous pensez que 
> j'oublie quelque chose d'important, n'hésitez pas à me le faire savoir, je ne 
> suis pas encore un habitué et j'ai beaucoup à apprendre.
> 
> Cordialement.
> 
> ___
> 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

[OSM-talk-fr] Ajout de panneaux d'affichage libre

[gouessej]

Bonsoir

Il m'a été fortement recommandé de vous prévenir de mon ajout de plusieurs 
dizaines (centaines?) d'emplacements de panneaux d'affichage libre dans 
OpenStreetMap sous peu. J'ai lu les consignes et les commentaires de membres de 
plusieurs forums sur la façon de les qualifier. Je peux vous montrer un 
échantillon si vous le souhaitez. J'ai plusieurs fichiers au format geojson que 
je vais convertir au format XML OsmChange. Je sais utiliser l'API en ligne de 
commande avec Curl, j'ai même trouvé comment faire marcher ça avec la version 
0.6 de l'API alors que le wiki mentionne des exemples qui marchent uniquement 
avec la version 0.5. Je connais JOSM, je l'ai installé au cas où mais je ne 
pense pas qu'il me sera utile pour le téléversement. Je ferai des essais sur 
une version de test. Je (re)vérifierai que je ne risque pas d'écraser les 
contributions d'autres personnes. Une fois prêt, j'enverrai un message 
électronique à impo...@openstreetmap.org à moins que vous me disiez que ce ne 
sera pas nécessaire. Je pense téléverser les emplacements par groupe de 30 à 
peu près ou bien commune par commune. Si vous pensez que j'oublie quelque chose 
d'important, n'hésitez pas à me le faire savoir, je ne suis pas encore un 
habitué et j'ai beaucoup à apprendre.

Cordialement.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Les sous-stations ferroviaires (SNCF et les autres)

[Yves P.]

> Si on regarde taginfo, 37k contributeurs sur la clé power. Tous ne sont pas 
> des spécialistes certes, mais c'est pas 10 non plus
J’en trouve 477 différents pour les 3477 substation=traction.
Ça en fait plus que 10 effectivement 

> Les transformateurs sont généralement en intérieur, les redresseurs (si le 
> chemin de fer fonctionne en courant continu) sont souvent à l'intérieur d'un 
> bâtiment d'une taille assez importante.
Le local de service est "modeste ». Il y a des transformateurs à l’extérieur…

> Mais le but ici n'est pas de cartographier précisément chaque appareil mais 
> de qualifier le périmètre.
Je voulais juste savoir si il y avait quelque chose de visible qui permettait 
de savoir si on a un changement de fréquence ou un redressement.

> ce serait bon pour ac-dc ou ac_dc
ça me va aussi :)

> Parce que la fréquence est une propriété des appareils, pas des sites.
…
> Il en est de même pour la tension ou le caractère monophasé/triphasé. 
Donc, c’est comme pour la tension 
(je pinaille)

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] polygone pour représenter un trottoir

[osm . sanspourriel]

Quant à décider si la jonction entre deux trottoirs est la bissectrice
ou se prolonge le long de la rue "la plus importante", je pense qu'on
peut laisser cela à la discrétion du mapper.


+1 car on parle de way avec area=yes.

Le 29/04/2019 à 20:28, François Lacombe - fl.infosrese...@gmail.com a
écrit :


Je préfères cette représentation que d'utiliser le tag
highway=pedestrian pour représenter ce que l'on appelle une place
alors qu'il y a un parking au milieu voir une route...

+1


Là c'est nous qui ne devons pas parler de la même chose car si c'est
piéton il n'y pas pas de route pour les voitures. Sinon tu as deux zones
piétonnes séparées par une route.

Quant aux parkings à piétons, c'est un concept que je ne maîtrise pas.
Un début de manif ? ;-).

Jean-Yvon

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Annonce carto-partie le samedi 22 juin à Grenoble

[Paul Desgranges]

Bonjour à tous !

 Pour vous annoncer une *carto-partie OpenStreetMap à Grenoble* 
 
le *samedi 22 juin* toute la journée. Avec un objectif assez ambitieux, 
puisqu'il s'agit du *CHU Nord de Grenoble 
 * (*)


 Tous les mappeurs OpenStreetMap de la région (l'Isère, la Drôme, la 
Savoie, les Hautes-Alpes, le Rhône, etc.) sont les bienvenus ! Bien sûr 
en premier tous ceux qui participent plus ou moins régulièrement aux 
ateliers mensuels du groupe OSM de Grenoble, ou aux mapathons 
humanitaires CartONG  régulièrement 
organisés sur Grenoble, et aussi tous ceux qui connaissent un peu 
OpenStreetMap et qui veulent en savoir un peu plus ! Venez nous aider !


 Nous aurons sur place une salle toute la journée pour se poser et 
effectuer la saisie sur nos ordinateurs. Une *collation* *offerte à midi 
*sera prévue pour tous les participants, mais vous pouvez aussi amener 
une spécialité à partager si vous le souhaitez.


*Important : *pour l'organisation de la carto-partie, et notamment 
prévoir le repas de midi, pouvez-vous vous enregistrer votre 
participation sur ce framadate ? 



Une réunion de préparation et d'organisation 
 
est prévue le mardi 11 juin, pas obligatoire d'y participer, mais 
ouverte à tous ceux qui veulent soit de former, se préparer, participer 
à l'organisation, etc.


En vous remerciant de votre attention, à bientôt

Le groupe local OpenStreetMap de Grenoble 




(*) CHU Nord de Grenoble 
 : ça doit faire plus de 
30 hectares, un nombre de bâtiments assez incroyable, un plan de 
circulation assez compliqué, des cheminements piétons, cycles, voitures, 
des parkings pour les différents moyens de transport, et réservés ou pas 
à différentes catégories de population, un domaine universitaire, un 
service de don du sang, une morgue, des unités pour chacune des 
spécialisations médicales, différents services d'urgences, des services 
techniques, bref beaucoup de singularités, des trucs que l'on ne mappe 
pas tous les jours. Tout ça avec une partie un peu historique dans un 
parc avec de beaux arbres, des zones de verdures, bref il y en aura pour 
tout le monde. On ne part pas de rien quand même, il y a déjà une bonne 
base.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[brad]

Agreed, emphasis in Kevin's text is mine.
It looks like some of this redefinition of the park tag is new?   ie the 
human sculpted part, and the attempt to restrict the usage. Perhaps 
clarity is needed, but more narrowly defined than the Oxford dictionary, 
or common usage, is not needed.


On 4/29/19 12:38 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

oops, sent to wrong list
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny 
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: OSM Tagging mailing list 


Using a British dictionary (Living Oxford Dictionary), the first
definition of 'park' is:

1 A large public garden or area of land used for recreation.
‘a walk round the park’
‘a country park’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/park

The 'or public garden' implies that the area *may* be human sculpted,
but there is no separate definition to encompass 'regional park'.
There is a separate entry for 'national park', and under 'park' there
are entries to cover the 'park' of a country house, a 'wildlife park',
'park' as another word for 'playground', 'park' as an informal word
for 'football pitch' (borrowed from the American usage) and the
Americanism 'sports park' - and then a second sense of any area
devoted to a specific purpose ('industrial park', 'office park'), plus
a third designating the 'park' position of the gear selector on an
automatic transmission.

I'm fine with 'leisure=park' being more specific, but we have to be 
very clear what we mean because it's more restrictive than even UK 
English (to say nothing of CANZUS, where 'park' for the large regional 
parks is surely common), and we have to expect mistagging, 
particularly in light of the fact that the rest of the 
English-speaking world has tagged a lot of parks with the looser 
language that used to be on the Wiki.


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Les sous-stations ferroviaires

[François Lacombe]

Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 12:06,  a écrit :

> frequency:input=
>
> frequency:output=
>
> aurait l'avantage de la clarté (et de la facilitation pour la vérification
> du chaînage).
>
Le problème est que ce n'est pas toujours aussi clair sur la structure en
entrée/sortie.
Je ne serai pas étonné de trouver des sous-stations mixtes qui alimentent
en 25kV AC et en 1500V DC (ici ce serait donc conversion=acdc)

Il vaut mieux ne pas parler de fréquence (ou de tout autre propriété des
appareils) pour les sous-stations.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Les sous-stations ferroviaires (SNCF et les autres)

[François Lacombe]

Bonsoir Yves,

Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 11:28, Yves P.  a écrit :

> Bonjour,
>
> Sujet hyper spécialisé, qui peut intéresser une petite dizaine de
> contributeurs OSM dans le monde ? 
>

Si on regarde taginfo, 37k contributeurs sur la clé power. Tous ne sont pas
des spécialistes certes, mais c'est pas 10 non plus
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/power

La même chose à quelques unités près pour railway
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/railway


> En tant que contributeur lambda, comment savoir si un poste de
> transformation est équipé d’un convertisseur de fréquence ?
>
Bonne question, j'ai tenté de compléter le document avec des indications
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Proposed_features/Traction_substations_extension#Comment_determiner_la_conversion_.3F


> Que peut-on éventuellement importer ?
>
En France, rien malheureusement, puisque la SNCF a adopté une licence non
compatible avec OdBL.
En revanche les tensions et fréquences sont normalement bien indiquées sur
le réseau français, donc en regardant les voies électrifiée aux abords des
sous-stations on peut s'y retrouver.
Les LGV sont toutes en 25kV AC 50Hz monophasé par exemple => Pas de
conversion dans ces sous-stations.


> Que peut-on observer sur place ? (J’ai photographié celle de Pannessières
>  sous toutes les
> coutures)
>
Les transformateurs sont généralement en intérieur, les redresseurs (si le
chemin de fer fonctionne en courant continu) sont souvent à l'intérieur
d'un bâtiment d'une taille assez importante.
Mais le but ici n'est pas de cartographier précisément chaque appareil mais
de qualifier le périmètre. Donc des informations sur les standards
électriques utilisés suffisent sans avoir besoin de voir ces appareils.

Le but est d'introduire une clé plus simple (sans namespace) avec des
> valeurs plus étoffées que yes/no pour indiquer si la sous-station produit
> du courant continu ou pas
>
> Pour le détail, acdc et acac ne sont pas très lisibles.
> Que pensez-vous de *ac/dc*, *ac/ac* ou *ac-dc*, *ac-ac* ?
>
Prenneur de vos avis, les valeurs sont proposées en l'état et peuvent
changer.
ac/dc est pas top, mais ce serait bon pour ac-dc ou ac_dc


> Pour info, il n’y a quasiment rien dans osm :
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=ac-dc#values
>
> Et juste une simple interrogation : pourquoi ne pas indiquer la(les)
> fréquence(s) dans le cas d’une conversion ?
>
Parce que a fréquence est une propriété des appareils, pas des sites.
Reporter ces valeurs sur le site ne rend pas compte de subtilités des
systèmes installés à l'intérieur en plus d'introduire une redondance peu
utile.
Donc on défini des valeurs plus adaptées, et si on veut plus de détails on
ira chercher les appareils et leurs arrangements dans le site.

Il en est de même pour la tension ou le caractère monophasé/triphasé. Dire
qu'un poste électrique est triphasé n'a aucun sens, le dire pour un
transformateur oui.
Un peu comme dire qu'un parking est diesel parce que les voitures qui y
sont stationnées roulent au gasoil.


>
> Voilà, en espérant faire avancer le schmilblick.
>

Les commentaires sont utiles, merci

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Markus]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 17:18, Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>
> Part of what seems to have started the PTv2 mess is that bus stops were
> sometimes mapped on the way and sometimes beside the way, and both cases
> were tagged the same.  PTv2 tried to separate those into "platform" and
> "stop_position", to bring uniformity across modes.

It would have been a lot easier to just recommend placing stops beside
the road. :)

> We need platforms beside the way so routers can get people to/from the
> stop on foot.  This is a big deal because trains are long and can
> usually be boarded along their entire length, unlike buses where a node
> often suffices.
>
> OTOH, we need stop positions so routers can get people from stop to stop
> on the buses/trains.

Routers just need the platforms (the places beside the road) because
the journey begins and ends there. Stop positions (on the road) are
irrelevant for routing. If someone, for whatever reasons, needs the
stop positions, they can be calculated (projection of the stop node or
centroid of the platform to the highway or railway way).

Regards

Markus

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

[Talk-us] Fwd: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Kevin Kenny]

oops, sent to wrong list
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny 
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: OSM Tagging mailing list 


Using a British dictionary (Living Oxford Dictionary), the first
definition of 'park' is:

1 A large public garden or area of land used for recreation.
‘a walk round the park’
‘a country park’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/park

The 'or public garden' implies that the area *may* be human sculpted,
but there is no separate definition to encompass 'regional park'.
There is a separate entry for 'national park', and under 'park' there
are entries to cover the 'park' of a country house, a 'wildlife park',
'park' as another word for 'playground', 'park' as an informal word
for 'football pitch' (borrowed from the American usage) and the
Americanism 'sports park' - and then a second sense of any area
devoted to a specific purpose ('industrial park', 'office park'), plus
a third designating the 'park' position of the gear selector on an
automatic transmission.

I'm fine with 'leisure=park' being more specific, but we have to be
very clear what we mean because it's more restrictive than even UK
English (to say nothing of CANZUS, where 'park' for the large regional
parks is surely common), and we have to expect mistagging,
particularly in light of the fact that the rest of the
English-speaking world has tagged a lot of parks with the looser
language that used to be on the Wiki.

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

[Talk-us] Fwd: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Kevin Kenny]

oops, meant to send this to the list...

-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny 
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: Mateusz Konieczny 


On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> It is supposed to be about both, I attempted to check both but I open to 
> discovering that I am mistaken.
> In case of British English I attempted to consult with people who are native 
> speakers of BE
> and people better in English than myself but maybe my questions/examples 
> failed to capture
> cases of what should be described park (and or leisure=park).

The earliest use of the word 'park' in English is attested to in the
13th Century - in which it means 'enclosed preserve for hunting.' The
great estates would maintain 'parks' that they would stock with beasts
of the chase.

The use of 'park' in its urban meaning entered the language some four
hundred years later, as London was being rebuilt after the Great
Plague and the Great Fire.  It began to sprawl, and tracts of land
were reserved to be kept in a quasi-natural state, or at least
protected from urban development, for public recreation. The name
extended in this way partly because the laws that had established
royal hunting preserves were repurposed to protect land in this way.
Civic pride made these parks highly sculpted, displaying an idealized
landscape, hence the urban use of the word 'park.'

'Park' in the sense of 'baseball park' - a sporting field - is an
Americanism dating to the 1860's.

'Car park' came from the fact that people visiting cities would use
the public parks as a place to leave their carriages, and later their
automobiles, and so 'parking' was born.

'Industrial park' and so on are 20th-century innovations, I suspect
from the advertising agencies and real estate agents.

> Neither of them is tagged leisure=park and it seems that
> "national park" is in some way similar to "business park" or "industrial park"
> - word park is in the name but it is not considered as a special case
> of "green human-sculpted landscape" that is commonly referred to as
> a "park".

'Park' in the sense of 'preserved natural land' (originally for
hunting, but the sense broadened as natural areas were preserved for
other purposes) and 'park' in the sense of 'sculpted, idealized
landscape' march hand in hand through the last 350 years or so, and
'preserved natural land' is the earlier sense of the word.

> This one is not surprising to me, it is probably result of compromise/conflict
> resulting in potected area with some objects that are contrary to any
> nature protection attempts.
> Poland has cases of legal large-scale active logging in Tatra mountains
> that is result of conflict between local people and desire to protect nature.
>
> See 
> https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wsp%C3%B3lnota_Le%C5%9Bna_Uprawnionych_O%C5%9Bmiu_Wsi
> - conflict dates back to creation of the Tatrzański Park Narodowy (=Tatra 
> National Park).
>
> See also motorways going sometimes through protected or "protected" areas.

One reason that the boundary lines in New York's big parks are such a
mess is that transportation and utility corridors, well fields,
cemeteries, and similar land uses are officially cut out of the
protected areas.
Much logging happens in the areas of lesser protection. They are
protected from development - the land owners can't build on them, or
are restricted to extremely low-density development - but sustainable
logging practices are permitted on many of the inholdings. In many
cases the timber companies also have easements against them requiring
public access when active logging is not in progress.

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

Re: [Talk-se] Upphovsrätt på data och polygoner

[Erik Johansson]

Hej Janos, frågar du om hjälp om vad som finns i OSM? Mitt tips är att
börja på ett litet område i glesbygd kolla vad du behöver göra för att
ersätta den OSM data som finns.

För att tanka hem data från OSM kan du gå till
https://overpass-turbo.eu/ tryck på wizzard sök efter
natural=coastline över de områden du vill jobba med.

Om du ställer frågor om SMHIs data så har jag inte koll, men efter en
snabbt titt:
1. geometrierna kräver transformering för att få ut användbara kustlinjer
1.1 kan antagligen samman köras med NMD2018 från NV också eftersom det
verkar vara lite si och så med upplösningen.
1.2 Notera att Kustlinjer INTE använder multipolygoner. Ja
1.3 många öar saknas och många kustlinjer är mycket sämre upplösning
än de som redan finns.
1.4 Med stor sannolikhet så är Openstreetmaps data bättre än SMHIs
data nära tätorter (~100km kanske?)

2. metadata till geometrierna
2.1 Det verkar inte finnas några användbara taggar på den datan du har
konverterat. Du kan ta bort alla och ersätta med natural=coastline



On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:49 AM Janos Steiner  wrote:
>
> Hejsan,
>
>
>
> Jag har inte använt osm maillistor sedan länge. Var en aktiv OSM:are i "mitt 
> tidigare liv". Syftet ätt jag skriver är att jag vill hjälpa 
> Vattenmyndigheterna/SMHI angående deras KustWiki¹ grundgeometri. Indatat är 
> rent licensmässigt och består av polygoner med attributfält. Se min 
> preliminära konvertering²  Jag kan förbereda och anpassa data, men behöver ha 
> hjälp från Er angående :
>
>
>
> 0. Vad som redan finns inlagt i OSM på samma tema. Ett utdrag i "*.osm" 
> formatet.
>
> 1. Jag vill veta mer kring tabellstruktur och attributfältets utformning för 
> dessa polygoner.
>
> 2. Kontaktperson för uppladdning. Det är säkrare att Ni på den nationella OSM 
> sidan gör uppladdningen.
>
>
>
> ¹[ https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Projekt_Kustvatten ]
>
> ²[ http://geomatika.mapcat.net/COMMON/Projects/osm_version0_6.zip ], 8,7 MB
>
>
>
> Hälsning / stenhuggare
>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se



-- 
/emj

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

I do think it important we hear about distinctions between British English (and 
how it had a defining influence on much tagging in OSM), and American English, 
which I often say distinctly affected the way Americans have used the 
leisure=park tag.  "Park" in American English is much more encompassing than 
"park" in British English AND leisure=park, and whether good or bad, this 
semantic sense of the word has blurred US tagging to be wide and wild.  OK, 
enough history.  (The problem may be worldwide in OSM, with the US having its 
own quirky reasons and tangles).  Then, there is what we might do going forward.

I am heartened to see so much earnest discussion.  Yet I feel the same way 
Mateusz does when he says while thinking loudly, he is not sure "what exactly 
should be done here."  Yes.

And this is not the first time similar discussion has happened.  A result is 
things mostly grind along as they have.  Or perhaps (as with the introduction 
of the boundary=protected_area, ostensibly created as a new scheme to solve 
many things), we get MORE complexity.  I wish I didn't sound so negative or 
like I'm sowing chaos — I'm not — genuinely, I would love to see clarity 
emerge, yet it seems elusive.  Though I'll say it again:  talk, talk and more 
talk, while tedious and even exhausting sometimes, seems it's better than not 
talking, as sometimes a kernel of better understanding shakes out.  I continue 
to hold out for that here.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] polygone pour représenter un trottoir

[François Lacombe]

Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 18:32, Antoine Riche via Talk-fr <
talk-fr@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

> Quand on "tourne au coin de la rue". Sur l'exemple
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146662272 je ferais un way pour chacune
> des rues : Orderner, Jean Robert, Doudeauville, Francis Carco et
> Stephenson. Quant à décider si la jonction entre deux trottoirs est la
> bissectrice ou se prolonge le long de la rue "la plus importante", je pense
> qu'on peut laisser cela à la discrétion du mapper.
>

On ne droit pas parler de la même chose : un way pour chaque me fait plus
penser à du linéaire qu'à du surfacique.
Quand il n'y a pas de limite sur le terrain, certain vont couper au milieu,
d'autres sur les côtés, ca va être irrégulier.

> Sachant que sans le multipolygone, on doit repasser sur chaque contours de
> bâtiment, c'est plus redondant.
>
> Pas sûr de comprendre : dans les exemples donnés le inner définit le
> contour de l'ensemble des bâtiments du bloc. Il me semble y avoir le même
> niveau de redondance dans les deux façons de faire non ?
>
Non : dans le cas du surfacique, tu vas effectivement dessiner les
immeubles, d'une part et l'emprise du trottoir d'autre part. Les deux étant
adjacents, ils vont partager une limite commune tout le long de la rue.

> Le principe est de créer un graphe à partir de la surface, pour proposer
> un itinéraire réaliste (et la  distance correspond à cet itinéraire). Je ne
> maîtrise pas le sujet mais il existe des articles qui proposent des
> solutions :
>
>- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10095020.2017.1399675
>-
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305272744_Integrating_Open_Spaces_into_OpenStreetMap_Routing_Graphs_for_Realistic_Crossing_Behaviour_in_Pedestrian_Navigation
>
> Cela nécessite de prendre en compte les obstacles se trouvant sur la
> surface pour les contourner ou les franchir.
>
D'accord, c'est ce qu'on ferait sur certains lacs en hydrographie là où le
réseau hydrologique n'est pas tracé.

Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 19:37, Jérôme Amagat  a
écrit :

> pourquoi pas un multipolygon, c'est plus proche de la réalité que de
> couper le trottoir pour en recommencer un juste après sans raison. c'est
> autour d'un patté de maison donc c'est pas si grand que çà.
>  par contre, vu que c'est un multipolygon, il y a plus de chance qu'il
> soit "cassé" par quelqu'un qui ne comprend pas comment çà marche.
>
Oui, comme tout il faut du contrôle là-dessus.

c'est peut être plus highway=pedestrian qu'il faut utiliser, mais comme
> j'ai toujours pas compris les différences et où l'on doit utiliser tous ces
> tags assez proche: highway=pedestrian, highway=footway, highway=path...
>
highway sur du surfacique me semble maladroit, jusque dans la sémantique

Je préfères cette représentation que d'utiliser le tag highway=pedestrian
> pour représenter ce que l'on appelle une place alors qu'il y a un parking
> au milieu voir une route...
>
+1

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] polygone pour représenter un trottoir

[Jérôme Amagat]

pourquoi pas un multipolygon, c'est plus proche de la réalité que de couper
le trottoir pour en recommencer un juste après sans raison. c'est autour
d'un patté de maison donc c'est pas si grand que çà.
 par contre, vu que c'est un multipolygon, il y a plus de chance qu'il soit
"cassé" par quelqu'un qui ne comprend pas comment çà marche.
Par contre dans le 2e exemple du 1er message, le multipolygone n'est pas
bien fait...

c'est peut être plus highway=pedestrian qu'il faut utiliser, mais comme
j'ai toujours pas compris les différences et où l'on doit utiliser tous ces
tags assez proche: highway=pedestrian, highway=footway, highway=path...

Je préfères cette représentation que d'utiliser le tag highway=pedestrian
pour représenter ce que l'on appelle une place alors qu'il y a un parking
au milieu voir une route...

Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 18:32, Antoine Riche via Talk-fr <
talk-fr@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

> Le 29/04/2019 à 17:57, François Lacombe a écrit :
>
>
> Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 17:15, Antoine Riche via Talk-fr <
> talk-fr@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
>
>> Idem, je trouve cette utilisation de multi-polygone abusive. Il ne s'agit
>> pas ici d'une aire piétonne trouée par un bloc de bâtiments, mais de 4
>> trottoirs. Créer une aire par trottoir est plus en cohérence avec le
>> principe
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:One_feature,_one_OSM_element, et
>> plus facile à créer et maintenir. Les trottoirs doivent être contigus et
>> partager des nodes.
>>
>
> Sur quelle limite visible sur le terrain baser ce découpage ?
>
> Quand on "tourne au coin de la rue". Sur l'exemple
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146662272 je ferais un way pour chacune
> des rues : Orderner, Jean Robert, Doudeauville, Francis Carco et
> Stephenson. Quant à décider si la jonction entre deux trottoirs est la
> bissectrice ou se prolonge le long de la rue "la plus importante", je pense
> qu'on peut laisser cela à la discrétion du mapper.
>
> Sachant que sans le multipolygone, on doit repasser sur chaque contours de
> bâtiment, c'est plus redondant.
>
> Pas sûr de comprendre : dans les exemples donnés le inner définit le
> contour de l'ensemble des bâtiments du bloc. Il me semble y avoir le même
> niveau de redondance dans les deux façons de faire non ?
>
> Quand au routage piéton un outil dédié (présenté à Bordeaux
>> https://nextcloud.openstreetmap.fr/index.php/s/LjyTwZNxwEgKe3J/download?path=%2F=81_Accompagnement_pietons.pdf
>> page 13 https://moodwalkr.com/fr/apropos/index.html) permet de router à
>> travers de surfaces
>>
>> Je ne connaissais pas la proposition "Sidewalk schema", qui se focalise
>> et semble très précise sur les trottoirs, merci JC ! Mais les trottoirs ne
>> sont qu'une partie des espaces où se déplacent les piétons.
>>
> Très interessant pour la SNCF, impatient de voir ce qu'ils préparent.
> Ca vaut aussi pour la RATP dans certaines stations
>
> Concernant le routage sur des aires, rien indique qu'on puisse se déplacer
> uniformément sur la surface.
> Comment est définie la distance sur ces surfaces ?
>
> Le principe est de créer un graphe à partir de la surface, pour proposer
> un itinéraire réaliste (et la  distance correspond à cet itinéraire). Je ne
> maîtrise pas le sujet mais il existe des articles qui proposent des
> solutions :
>
>- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10095020.2017.1399675
>-
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305272744_Integrating_Open_Spaces_into_OpenStreetMap_Routing_Graphs_for_Realistic_Crossing_Behaviour_in_Pedestrian_Navigation
>
> Cela nécessite de prendre en compte les obstacles se trouvant sur la
> surface pour les contourner ou les franchir.
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> ___
> 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-de] OSM Stammtisch in Straßburg

[Christine Karch]

Hallo,

der Termin für den naechsten OSM Stammtisch in Straßburg steht jetzt fest:

25. Mai 2019, von 17 bis 19 Uhr im L'Artichaut:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4246812839

Gruesse

Christine



On 23.04.19 22:28, Christine Karch wrote:
> Hallo liebe Ortenauer, aber auch alle anderen Interessierten,
> 
> wir (Denis Helfer aus Straßburg und ich) planen wieder eine OSM Treffen
> in Straßburg. Wir haben eine Umfrage gestartet, um den Termin festzulegen:
> 
> https://framadate.org/MhvHlAmb8gMDv5uw
> 
> Wer Lust hat, dabei zu sein, ist hiermit herzlich eingeladen, mitzumachen.
> 
> Das Treffen wird dann in einer Kneipe in der Innenstadt stattfinden. Am
> liebsten natürlich draußen, es gibt da ja viele schöne Straßencafés.
> Denis kümmert sich darum, ich schick einen OSM-Link, sobald der Termin
> feststeht.
> 
> Fürchtet euch nicht vor dem Sprachproblem. Wir reden Mischmasch
> deutsch-französisch-englisch-elsässisch. Das klappt ganz gut :)
> 
> Bislang haben wir uns zweimal getroffen. Letztes Jahr im Frühling und im
> Herbst. Wir versuchen da eine Tradition einzuführen im Halbjahres-Rhythmus.
> 
> Viele Grüße
> 
> Christine
> 
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
> 


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

[OSM-talk-fr] Rencontre OSM à Strasbourg: 25 mai 2019

[Christine Karch]

Bonjour,

il y a une réunion d'OSM à Strasbourg le 25 mai 2019. C'est de 17 heures
à 19 heures à l'Artichaut:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4246812839

Tout le monde est bienvenue!

A+

Christine

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/04/2019 17:04, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




29 Apr 2019, 17:36 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:

Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with
additional tags?

That would require redefining leisure=park and while would
match use of word "park" in USA
it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would
also start to mismatch how
leisure=park is used in Europe.

Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining
popular tags is deeply problematic.


Are we talking about the use of the *tag*, or the use of the *word* in
British English?

It is supposed to be about both, I attempted to check both but I open 
to discovering that I am mistaken.
In case of British English I attempted to consult with people who are 
native speakers of BE
and people better in English than myself but maybe my 
questions/examples failed to capture

cases of what should be described park (and or leisure=park).

I know that it is possible, that is part of the reason why I posted 
quoted message (it would be embarassing
to discover that my claims were wrong but I prefer to discover as soon 
as possible).


With regard to British English usage, I think you're correct*. Something 
described here as a "park" would pretty much match the current 
description at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark 
(without the urban requirement, but you've already talked about that).  
In the UK a "national park" (or something like the Pentland Hills 
Regional Park which was already mentioned) isn't really a subset of 
"park" in any way - it's something else altogether.


National Parks such as Yellowstone were established in the US many years 
ago as pretty much their own thing - they're almost nothing like parks 
such as Derby Arboretum (arguably the first public park in Britain).  In 
concept Britain's "National Parks" owe more to the American National 
Parks than they do to earlier local parks.  There are significant 
differences in how they are managed and run, but the model was borrowed 
from the US.  The fact that the "Peak District National Park" has the 
word "park" in it does not make it a "park" in the normally understood 
sense.


Turning to things in the US, there's no way that I'd describe 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3003169/history ("Joseph D Grant 
County Park") as "more like" Derby Arboretum / Golden Gate Park than the 
Peak District National Park in England or Yosemite. Sure, it's a sliding 
scale, with most bits of Joseph D Grant significantly "less wild" than 
Yosemite, but my impression of it after having been there is "not really 
a park in the British English sense".


Obviously different communities worldwide stretch OSM tags to match 
local differences and important local distinctions that may not exist in 
the British English tag definitions (for example, apparently German 
gravel has a different name depending on whether it's sharp or rounded), 
and it's up to the US community to decide how to tag things in the US, 
but I'd suggest that substantially broadening the usage of a tag that 
means something else everywhere else is not the best approach.


Best Regards,

Andy

* for the benefit of anyone who may not know, I'm a native English 
(British) English speaker.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] polygone pour représenter un trottoir

[Antoine Riche via Talk-fr]

Le 29/04/2019 à 17:57, François Lacombe a écrit :


Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 17:15, Antoine Riche via Talk-fr 
mailto:talk-fr@openstreetmap.org>> a écrit :


Idem, je trouve cette utilisation de multi-polygone abusive. Il ne
s'agit pas ici d'une aire piétonne trouée par un bloc de
bâtiments, mais de 4 trottoirs. Créer une aire par trottoir est
plus en cohérence avec le principe
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:One_feature,_one_OSM_element,
et plus facile à créer et maintenir. Les trottoirs doivent être
contigus et partager des nodes.


Sur quelle limite visible sur le terrain baser ce découpage ?
Quand on "tourne au coin de la rue". Sur l'exemple 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146662272 je ferais un way pour 
chacune des rues : Orderner, Jean Robert, Doudeauville, Francis Carco et 
Stephenson. Quant à décider si la jonction entre deux trottoirs est la 
bissectrice ou se prolonge le long de la rue "la plus importante", je 
pense qu'on peut laisser cela à la discrétion du mapper.
Sachant que sans le multipolygone, on doit repasser sur chaque 
contours de bâtiment, c'est plus redondant.


Pas sûr de comprendre : dans les exemples donnés le inner définit le 
contour de l'ensemble des bâtiments du bloc. Il me semble y avoir le 
même niveau de redondance dans les deux façons de faire non ?



Quand au routage piéton un outil dédié (présenté à Bordeaux

https://nextcloud.openstreetmap.fr/index.php/s/LjyTwZNxwEgKe3J/download?path=%2F=81_Accompagnement_pietons.pdf
page 13 https://moodwalkr.com/fr/apropos/index.html) permet de
router à travers de surfaces


Je ne connaissais pas la proposition "Sidewalk schema", qui se
focalise et semble très précise sur les trottoirs, merci JC ! Mais
les trottoirs ne sont qu'une partie des espaces où se déplacent
les piétons.

Très interessant pour la SNCF, impatient de voir ce qu'ils préparent.
Ca vaut aussi pour la RATP dans certaines stations

Concernant le routage sur des aires, rien indique qu'on puisse se 
déplacer uniformément sur la surface.

Comment est définie la distance sur ces surfaces ?


Le principe est de créer un graphe à partir de la surface, pour proposer 
un itinéraire réaliste (et la  distance correspond à cet itinéraire). Je 
ne maîtrise pas le sujet mais il existe des articles qui proposent des 
solutions :


 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10095020.2017.1399675
 * 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305272744_Integrating_Open_Spaces_into_OpenStreetMap_Routing_Graphs_for_Realistic_Crossing_Behaviour_in_Pedestrian_Navigation

Cela nécessite de prendre en compte les obstacles se trouvant sur la 
surface pour les contourner ou les franchir.


Antoine.


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

Re: [Talk-it] via crucis

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Apr 2019, at 11:45, canfe  wrote:
> 
> Qualcuno ha in mente qualche tag?


direi di aggiungere un ulteriore tag per specificare la sottoclasse.

Secondo la logica generale dei tags potrebbe essere wayside_shrine la “nuova” 
chiave, è già usata:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wayside_shrine#values

forse =wall
oppure =wall_mounted
oppure =maria_wall ?

Forse anche la chiave “support” sarebbe idonea?

Non viene nominata in taginfo come combinazione corrente, ma ci sono valori che 
potrebbero essere adatti:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/support#values




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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 17:36 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
> <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > wrote:
>
>> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', 
>> a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>>
>> That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word 
>> "park" in USA
>> it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to 
>> mismatch how
>> leisure=park is used in Europe.
>>
>> Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is 
>> deeply problematic.
>>
>
> Are we talking about the use of the *tag*, or the use of the *word* in
> British English?
>
It is supposed to be about both, I attempted to check both but I open to 
discovering that I am mistaken.
In case of British English I attempted to consult with people who are native 
speakers of BE 
and people better in English than myself but maybe my questions/examples failed 
to capture
cases of what should be described park (and or leisure=park).

I know that it is possible, that is part of the reason why I posted quoted 
message (it would be embarassing
to discover that my claims were wrong but I prefer to discover as soon as 
possible).

> If we're talking about the use of the word 'park' in common speech,
> the British Isles have ample examples of 'park' being used in a sense
> much like the US one: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359617831 
> 
> happened to be the first one I noticed, but
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/421685070 
> >  and others are also
> present. If these aren't 'parks' in UK English, why do they exist in
> the UK with 'park' in their names?
>
Neither of them is tagged leisure=park and it seems that
"national park" is in some way similar to "business park" or "industrial park"
- word park is in the name but it is not considered as a special case
of "green human-sculpted landscape" that is commonly referred to as
a "park".

Note that I may be mistaken here, my check was quick sanity check of
a biased group of people not some scientific research

> I also notice that Great Britain has similar situations to the US
> national parks, where other land uses are embedded. I see that
> Cairngorms National Park
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1947603 
> >  embeds at least four
> villages (Avlemore, Ballater, Grantown-on-Spey and Kingussie).
>
This one is not surprising to me, it is probably result of compromise/conflict
resulting in potected area with some objects that are contrary to any 
nature protection attempts.
Poland has cases of legal large-scale active logging in Tatra mountains 
that is result of conflict between local people and desire to protect nature.

See 
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wsp%C3%B3lnota_Le%C5%9Bna_Uprawnionych_O%C5%9Bmiu_Wsi
 

- conflict dates back to creation of the Tatrzański Park Narodowy (=Tatra 
National Park).

See also motorways going sometimes through protected or "protected" areas.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 05:12 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

> How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large, (important?) 
> state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the national_park definition in our 
> wiki?
>
It seems that national_park is likely to be affected by problem similar to 
leisure=park.
Many countries have things  called "national park" that are some form of nature 
protection
but details are very different.

Given that there is viable alternative that may be less ambiguous it may be 
preferable to
avoid national_park or at least be aware that meaning is likely to be strongly 
affected by regional
differences.

For example:
in Poland "national park" is basically "large/very large nature reserve that 
has stronger legal 
protections and is more famous". Some of them are tiny (probably comically tiny 
by USA standards)
like Ojcowski Park Narodowy ("Park Narodowy" directly translates into "Naional 
Park")
at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6247785#map=12/50.2054/19.8272 
 - 
covering 21 square km.

I am tempted to treat boundary=protected_area as preferable, despite that tags 
specifying exact type
are unreadable codes.

(I am loudly thinking here, and not sue what exactly should be done here)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

Kevin Kenny  writes:

> The smaller state parks - the thousand-acre type that you contemplate
> - are often not what IUCN considers to be protected areas, and so I've
> taken to using protected_area tagging, but with protection classes
> such as 21 (which woud be accompanied with
> 'protection_object=recreation').  That doesn't render, so as a
> stopgap, I've been tagging them 'leisure=nature_reserve' or
> 'leisure=park', whichever seems to fit, recognizing that further
> developments are likely eventually to make the dual tagging
> unneccessary. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6442393 is
> typical.

I completely fail to understand why IUCN protection status has become
the main thing.  Whether something is functioning as a park now seems to
me to have nothing to do with long-term legal protection.   I am not
objecting to tagging the legal status.  I just don't see how denoting
legal status somehow removes the need to describe what is.

> What I struggle with is are more complex situations - that may always
> necessitate some 'abuse' of tagging. The thousand-acre park with a
> forty-acre developed section is handled quite nicely with your scheme.
> When you have a 'park' comprising hundreds of thousands, or millions
> of acres, operated in public-private partnership, things start to
> break down. This is true of New York's two huge parks; of the USA's
> larger National Parks; and of US National Monuments, National Forests,
> and BLM recreation lands. The outer ring - the legally designated area
> - may not really enclose anything recognizable as a 'park', while the
> stricter 'park' land management may be somewhat diffuse, in many
> discrete protected areas. The larger area is also protected, but
> limited sustainable development is often permitted.

Agreed this is messy.  I meant merely to broach the notion of tagging
usage in sub-parts separately from tagging the name of the entity on the
large object.

> Looking at the IUCN definitions, the only class that fits these large
> parks is '2' - 'national park'. IUCN, like our Wiki, doesn't actually
> require that 'national park' be constituted by a national government.
> It simply embodies a hidden assumption that only a nation-state has
> the resources to constitute one. leaving the bigger state-defined
> facilities in terminologic limbo.

I would ask if it's really a good thing that OSM has adopted IUCN as the
basis for what is and is not a park.  It seems to me that it's causing
trouble.

> Another odd case that I've mapped a lot of are the undeveloped
> recreation areas owned by New York City to protect its water supply.
> The city bought them to protect them from development, and allows
> public access (in some cases requiring that the user apply for a free
> permit, in others, "come one, come all!") I've tagged these with
> boundary=protected_area protect_class=12 protection_object=water, and
> then added leisure=nature_reserve as a rendering stopgap (because
> class 12 doesn't render either).

We used to have "landuse=reservoir_protection" (although maybe these
places are watershed protection, not reservoir).  Part of what I object
to about the IUCN hegemony is the view that everything should be turned
into some complicated protect_class and other tagging removed.

But, in this case, your approach seems reasonable in terms of denoting
the landuse.

I would argue that if people are welcome, then in addition to whatever
protection tags, it deserves "leisure=nature_reserve" *also*.  There is
no reason to conclude from "water protection" that humans are or are not
allowed.  Near me, there is reservoir protection land, and it has "no
trespassing - public water supply" signs.  I think the protection
tagging ought to match your case (but maybe protection_object=reservoir
instead of =water), but also access=no and definitely no nature_reserve.

(I agree with your notion that free permit means access=yes to first
order.)

> One reason that I disfavour 'leisure=park' is, simply, the renderer.
> (I know, don't tag for the renderer!) The objects that render with
> borders (nature_reserve, national_park, protected_area for classes
> 1-6) don't obscure landcover, so those who wish to map landcover in
> these large areas can do so without collision. The only place where
> I've really tried to do that has been Bear Mountain - where I was
> producing a detailed map for a group outing a couple of years ago. I
> didn't push beyond the specific area that I needed.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6467468

There is a much larger issue in the standard style between landuse and
landcover, and not having an integrated vision for which is rendered
how, to avoid colliding.

Around me, golf courses have a color fill and nature_reserve doesn't,
and that has always seemed broken.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', a 
> park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>
> That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word 
> "park" in USA
> it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to 
> mismatch how
> leisure=park is used in Europe.
>
> Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is 
> deeply problematic.

Are we talking about the use of the *tag*, or the use of the *word* in
British English?

If we're talking about the use of the tag, then we get to define it,
but if it is too far removed from a word's commonly understood
meaning, we have to expect extensive mistagging.

If we're talking about the use of the word 'park' in common speech,
the British Isles have ample examples of 'park' being used in a sense
much like the US one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359617831
happened to be the first one I noticed, but
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/421685070 and others are also
present. If these aren't 'parks' in UK English, why do they exist in
the UK with 'park' in their names?

I also notice that Great Britain has similar situations to the US
national parks, where other land uses are embedded. I see that
Cairngorms National Park
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1947603 embeds at least four
villages (Avlemore, Ballater, Grantown-on-Spey and Kingussie).

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Sorry for a previous empty message. I clicked send too early by an accident.

29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by g...@lexort.com:

> So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
> denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
> tagging:
>
>  outer: name="Foo State Park"
>  inner: leisure=park
>  relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve
>
> Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
> the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
> overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.
>
I think I would base deciding whatever leisure=nature_reserve (or 
boundary=protected_area)
should be multipolygon excluding inner or cover both should be based on a 
situation.

For example - is leisure=park area exempt from (all/nearly all) rules 
protecting remaining area?
It is probably should be multipolygon.

Is leisure=park area more intensively used but there are still some real 
restrictions? Probably
boundary=protected_area should also cover it.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:05 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:
> The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one
> or the other.  Consider:
>
>   1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt
>   hiking paths
>
>   a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that is different:
> - paved parking lot
> - visitor center / bathroom building
> - grass and a few trees (city park like)
> - picnic tables, grills
>
>   probably there are different rules for the two pieces.  Dogs might be
>   allowed in the 40-acre chunk, but not in the larger forest, for
>   example.
>
>   the entire thing is called "Foo State Park", owned by a state
>   government.  Legally it is one parcel, and run by the same state
>   agency.
>
> I think the basic issue is that we tend to focus on the larger
> definition of area and think we must give it one tag, so we frame the
> question: "Is this 1000 acre place a =park or a =nature_reserve?".
> Stepping back, I see a park and a nature_reserve as separate and related
> things.
>
> So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
> denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
> tagging:
>
>  outer: name="Foo State Park"
>  inner: leisure=park
>  relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve
>
> Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
> the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
> overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.
>
> (As I see it this applies to many National Parks too, but we don't worry
> about that because we just call them national_park.)

That's more or less what I've been doing - tag the outer ring, but
without cutouts for the inner ring(s). (It's also slightly more
complicated than you describe, since the developed areas are
frequently, if indeed not usually, on the margin of the larger park,
but I do understand multipolygon topology and can deal with that case
readily as well.) There's nothing wrong with embedding a
protect_class=1b or a protect_class=4 within a protect_class=2.

The reason for avoiding cutouts is to make it clear what is and is not
part of the named park. Many of the parks that I deal with have
private inholdings that are not part of the park but may be completely
surrounded by it. Those do get cutouts.

I haven't even attempted yet to map the strange intermediate beasts
like public-access conservation easements - common on lumber-company
land - or private leaseholds of public land - common to allow the
larger parks to embed facilities like youth camps that restrict public
access. I'm doing what I can manage!

The smaller state parks - the thousand-acre type that you contemplate
- are often not what IUCN considers to be protected areas, and so I've
taken to using protected_area tagging, but with protection classes
such as 21 (which woud be accompanied with
'protection_object=recreation').  That doesn't render, so as a
stopgap, I've been tagging them 'leisure=nature_reserve' or
'leisure=park', whichever seems to fit, recognizing that further
developments are likely eventually to make the dual tagging
unneccessary. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6442393 is
typical.

What I struggle with is are more complex situations - that may always
necessitate some 'abuse' of tagging. The thousand-acre park with a
forty-acre developed section is handled quite nicely with your scheme.
When you have a 'park' comprising hundreds of thousands, or millions
of acres, operated in public-private partnership, things start to
break down. This is true of New York's two huge parks; of the USA's
larger National Parks; and of US National Monuments, National Forests,
and BLM recreation lands. The outer ring - the legally designated area
- may not really enclose anything recognizable as a 'park', while the
stricter 'park' land management may be somewhat diffuse, in many
discrete protected areas. The larger area is also protected, but
limited sustainable development is often permitted.

Looking at the IUCN definitions, the only class that fits these large
parks is '2' - 'national park'. IUCN, like our Wiki, doesn't actually
require that 'national park' be constituted by a national government.
It simply embodies a hidden assumption that only a nation-state has
the resources to constitute one. leaving the bigger state-defined
facilities in terminologic limbo.

Another odd case that I've mapped a lot of are the undeveloped
recreation areas owned by New York City to protect its water supply.
The city bought them to protect them from development, and allows
public access (in some cases requiring that the user apply for a free
permit, in others, "come one, come all!") I've tagged these with
boundary=protected_area protect_class=12 protection_object=water, and
then added leisure=nature_reserve as a rendering stopgap (because
class 12 doesn't render either).

One reason that I disfavour 'leisure=park' is, simply, the renderer.
(I 

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by g...@lexort.com:

> The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one
> or the other.  Consider:
>
>  1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt
>  hiking paths
>
>  a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that is different:
>  - paved parking lot
>  - visitor center / bathroom building
>  - grass and a few trees (city park like)
>  - picnic tables, grills
>
>  probably there are different rules for the two pieces.  Dogs might be
>  allowed in the 40-acre chunk, but not in the larger forest, for
>  example.
>
>  the entire thing is called "Foo State Park", owned by a state
>  government.  Legally it is one parcel, and run by the same state
>  agency.
>
> I think the basic issue is that we tend to focus on the larger
> definition of area and think we must give it one tag, so we frame the
> question: "Is this 1000 acre place a =park or a =nature_reserve?".
> Stepping back, I see a park and a nature_reserve as separate and related
> things.
>
> So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
> denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
> tagging:
>
>  outer: name="Foo State Park"
>  inner: leisure=park
>  relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve
>
> Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
> the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
> overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.
>
> (As I see it this applies to many National Parks too, but we don't worry
> about that because we just call them national_park.)
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
> 
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 15:28 by bradha...@fastmail.com:

> It doesn't restrict, as the leisure:park wiki does, to smaller, urban 
> human-sculpted parks.
>
I am partially responsible for recent rewrite. The rewrite was supposed to 
explain how leisure=park
is used in OpenStreetMap, and not redefine meaning of this tag. USA is a tricky 
case as typical
use of leisure=park was not matching use of leisure=park that was intended and 
initial and
dominating in other well mapped areas.

Restricting to "human-sculpted parks" was 100% intentional, "smaller" as in 
"area covering 
hundreds square kilometers is extremely unlikely to be leisure=park" was 
intentional.

Restricting it cities was not intentional and should be fixed if it  happened, 
some leisure=parks
exist in rural areas.

> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', a 
> park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>
That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word 
"park" in USA
it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to 
mismatch how
leisure=park is used in Europe.

Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is 
deeply problematic.

If someone feels that leisure=park as described by me here (and partially on 
Wiki)
misrepresents situation - I would participate in some wider discussion 
on global tagging mailing list if someone would start it.

Just recently leisure=park OSM Wiki page was basically without definition and 
discussion
page had basically failed definition attempt and I hope that was is now on the 
page is an improvement
over no definition/explanation at all, but...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 2019-04-28 09:04, Markus wrote:

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 13:47, Dave F via Talk-transit
 wrote:

Are Stop_Areas required?
What are they for?
Are they in use?/Who uses them?/Will they ever be used?*
If there is a purpose for them, what should they consist of? I've seen
shops, bike racks, litter bins included. Surely they're irrelevant?


At least, stop_areas are required for underground stations (if
footways have not been mapped yet) to link the railway=subway_entrance
with the station.

Including other elements than station, platform and entrances IMHO is
useless and makes the relations unnecessarily confusing.


Stop areas are supposed to link stop positions to platforms, so a router 
knows which platform you need to take a route that only stops on a 
particular track.  In most cases, this can be inferred by proximity, but 
in some it can't, particularly at very complex stations.


If an entrance serves a subset of platforms (i.e. you might have to 
leave and re-enter via a different door to change trains), then it might 
make sense in a stop area, but otherwise, it's just part of the station.


S

--
Stephen Sprunk  "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 2019-04-28 06:46, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:

Are Stop_Areas required?
What are they for?
Are they in use?/Who uses them?/Will they ever be used?*
If there is a purpose for them, what should they consist of? I've seen
shops, bike racks, litter bins included. Surely they're irrelevant?

Remove public_transport=station/train=yes &
public_transport=platform/train=yes from railways.
They are purely duplication of the existing, much used
railway=station/railway=platform respectively. They provide no
additional information. Duplication is wasted effort. It leads to
confusion & errors.


Agreed.


The use of 'platform' seems to have been hi-jacked by PT to represent
a stopping place instead of it's original true meaning of a physical
raised area above road level to aid vehicle boarding.


Part of what seems to have started the PTv2 mess is that bus stops were 
sometimes mapped on the way and sometimes beside the way, and both cases 
were tagged the same.  PTv2 tried to separate those into "platform" and 
"stop_position", to bring uniformity across modes.


We need platforms beside the way so routers can get people to/from the 
stop on foot.  This is a big deal because trains are long and can 
usually be boarded along their entire length, unlike buses where a node 
often suffices.


OTOH, we need stop positions so routers can get people from stop to stop 
on the buses/trains.


Where things went off the rails (pun intended) is creating redundant 
mode-neutral tags (probably so routers would work regardless of mode) 
when mode-specific tags already existed.



Is public_transport=platform required at all on bus stops? As with
railways, use existing tags.


Agreed.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk  "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov

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

[Talk-us] Private playgrounds (was Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 13:56 by g...@lexort.com:

> It does mean that leisure=playground access=private is going to happen,
> in gated community-ish places.  But that's fine, I think.
>
Or in schools/kindergartens. (leisure=playground access=private is even 
supported
by a special rendering in OSM Carto ).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-transit] Line colour, text colour and background colour

[Stephen Sprunk]

The route and route_master relations have a documented "colour" key that
can be used.  However, that seems to be intended for the line itself,
and I'm not aware of any renderer that uses it.  If they did, they'd
probably use it for the label background too. 

Relation:destination_sign has attributes colour:back and colour:text, so
it makes sense to reuse those here, but if renderers aren't even using
colour for the line/label today, I wouldn't count on them doing anything
special with the text either. 

S 

On 2019-04-27 06:03, Héctor Ochoa wrote:

> Hi, 
> Yesterday Zaragoza City Council unveiled its new bus network design. It gives 
> each line a distinct text and background colour, as seen here: 
> https://i2.wp.com/detalier.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/autobuses-urbanos-zaragoza-detalier-9.jpg
>  
> https://i2.wp.com/detalier.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/autobuses-urbanos-zaragoza-detalier-8.jpg
>  
> 
> I am asking if https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref:colour could be 
> adapted to use it in public transport routes, or something similar that 
> complements https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:colour 
> 
> Thanks in advance! 
> Héctor 
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

-- 
Stephen Sprunk  "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I would recommend starting to use boundary=protected_area for State
parks, and other parks that are large natural areas that are designed
for a balance of tourism and protection of the natural environment but
are not actually National Parks.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area

You can tag state parks like this:

boundary=protected_area + protect_class=2 + protection_title="State Park"

Protect Class 2 is the same type as National Parks, and will be
rendered and interpreted the same by most database users, but the
protection title makes it clear that it's actually a State Park, not a
National Park.

For county parks: many of these are small parks that are similar to a
usual urban park, with gardens, playgrounds, sports fields etc, and
can be tagged with leisure=park. Others are natural areas or nature
reserves, and could use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=5 +
protection_title="County Park".

State and National Forests, which are used for logging and grazing as
well as recreation, can be tagged as:
boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 + protection_title="National
Forest" or "State Forest".

These features will all be rendered the same as boundary=national_park
and leisure=nature_reserve in many renderings styles, but it's nice to
be a little more specific.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On 4/29/19, Greg Troxel  wrote:

> With leisure=nature_reserve, leisure=park, golf courses, cemetaries,
> schools, etc., we represent them on the map by some kind of shading or
> fill.  But, boundary=protected_area is represented by denoting the
> border, and this does not serve map users well.

If you are talking about the Openstreetmap-carto style (the standard
map layer on openstreetmap.org), then this is not quite correct.

It's true that leisure=park and golf courses are represented by a fill
color for the whole polygon.

However, leisure=natural_reserve, boundary=national_park and
boundary_protected area (with protect_class  1 thru 7 and 97-99) are
currently rendered identically, with a green semi-transparent outline.
(There is also a semi-transparent green fill at low zoom levels).

The other type of boundary is "boundary=aboriginal_lands" and
"boundary = 'protected_area" with "protect_class=24" - these are used
for American Indian and Alaskan Native reservations and other similar
features, and are
rendered with a brown outline.

Military areas and tourist areas (zoos, theme parks) are also rendered
with outlines in red and purple.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] London venues

[Jez Nicholson]

Hi Phil,

We are very close to confirming a venue and date.

The date will be pushed out into later June as we have to give 45 days
notice for an AGM, and to give people a chance to arrange transport, etc.

Regards,
 Jez

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 20:56 Philip Barnes,  wrote:

> On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 23:14 +, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> For the next OSM UK annual general meeting we thought we would try London
> as a possible location. Does anyone know of good (and cheap) venues that we
> can use? We have 100 members but would expect the number to actually attend
> would be in the region of 20-30 unless paired with a significant other
> event.
>
> Dates: We are thinking Saturday 8 June as a starting point but can move to
> other Saturdays if venue availability is better.
>
> Is this event still on?
>
> Just thinking that diaries are filling up and availability of cheap rail
> tickets will be diminishing.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] geospatial hackday, Bath, Sat 4 May 2019

[Jez Nicholson]

Bath:Hacked are holding a geospatial hackday this Saturday (4 May 2019) in
central Bath. OSMers may be interested in attending.

https://www.meetup.com/Bath-Hacked/events/259509544
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMappers meeting in Norfolk

[Jez Nicholson]

Hi Nora,

As a mapper and OSMUK Director I would love to see you succeed. I am
interested in how we enhance OSM all over the UK. I'm wondering whether
partnering with an existing meetup such as NorDev to do a talk might shake
some mappers out of the woodwork? or generate some new ones? Or whether
Norwich could do with a Maptime or CodeClub? Or whether OSMUK could help?

Anyway, does anyone have any advice on 'finding you tribe' for real-life
OSM meetups?...or is it a case of starting with one person and building
slowly?

Regards,
  Jez

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 8:00 PM  wrote:

> Hi fellow OSM companions in Norfolk,
>
> I’m trying to organise a meetup.
>
> *Why?* I aim to revitalise the social side of mapping in the rural
> spheres of Norfolk. It would be great to get to know other local mappers
> from the area and to find out what other people are interested in or
> currently working on.
>
> *When?* I suggest the 11th, 12th, 18th or 19th May 2019.
>
> *Where?* I propose to meet at a public place like a pub or café in
> Norwich as suitable location for an initial meeting.
>
> If you are principally interested, it would be great if you could respond
> to me.
>
> Regards
> Nora
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[brad]

It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford 
dictionary, a park is:

" A large public garden or area of land used for recreation."
It doesn't restrict, as the leisure:park wiki does, to smaller, urban 
human-sculpted parks.
In CO the county, city (some very large parks), and state parks are 
tagged as leisure:park.    This makes sense from the local dialect 
perspective as well as the Oxford english.


Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for 
recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?


Sorry I'm chiming in late to the discussion, I've been travelling and 
mostly unplugged for a week.


On 4/29/19 5:37 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

The real problem is that we have two linguistic traditions: one is plain
langauge, and one is tagging tokens.  People keep blurring them, and of
course this is going to continue.  We end up with having to explain
"Just becuase it says 'Foo Park' doesn't mean it's a park."  If we had

#define LEISURE_PARK0x451

and we were talking about if something were a LEISURE_PARK then it would
be clearer about plain language vs tagging tokens.

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:


So, what emerges is that going forward, leisure=park is as our wiki
describes it (a smaller, urban-scale, human-sculpted place for
leisure/recreation), EVEN THOUGH many areas which aren't this are now
tagged this way.

I think that's a correct assessment.  Except that we have to be careful
about "recreation" -- a place that is largely soccer and baseball fields
is recreation_ground.  If you mean walking around, then agreed.

In Massachusetts, I'd say an interesting data point in distinguishing
"park" vs "nature_reserve" is that in a park you are not that likely to
pick up ticks (ixodes scapularis), and in a nature_reserve it is very
likely.  But that's just a proxy for "sculpted" vs "natural".


Going forward, NEW "parks" (in the USA) get this tag only as it is
meant/now wiki-described, as we use the Existing 4 more properly.  In
other words, it is correct to use the Existing 4 INSTEAD of solely
leisure=park when appropriate.  Simultaneously, it is inevitable that
many now-tagged-leisure=parks will have that tag changed to one of the
other Existing 4.  Yes?

I don't really follow "going forward" and "inevitable".  If you mean:

   We the mailinglist more or less agree, to the extent we ever do, that
   things that don't meet definition above  should not be leisure=park,
   and we should tag those things appropriately, both for new objects,
   and people fixing old objects.

then that sounds right.

Another question is: If we didn't have the special national_park tag,
how would they be tagged?  I would say that most would be
leisure=nature_reserve overall, with perhaps some small segments as
leisure=park, and then a few messy cases (Dry Tortugas, maybe Mesa
Verde).  I don't seriously expect us to get rid of the national_park
tag, so that's a moot point.


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



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

Re: [Talk-se] Naturvårdsverkets nya Nationella MarktäckeData

[Grigory Rechistov via Talk-se]

Hej Johan,
Jag känner inte till HOTOSM:s nu, behöver lära mig lite om det, men det låter 
lovande!

>Понедельник, 29 апреля 2019, 2:57 +03:00 от Johan Emilsson 
>:
>
>Hallå,
>Följer tråden med stort intresse.
>Kanske ett senare problem men vore det inte möjligt att använda HOTOSM:s 
>tasking manager för att systematisera importen av innehållet av rutorna på 
>5*5km? Vet dock inte hur aktiv  http://tasks2.openstreetmap.se/ är längre. 
>Annars finns ju alltid  https://github.com/hotosm/tasking-manager
>/Johan
>
>
Med vänliga hälsningar,
Grigory Rechistov
With best regards,
Grigory Rechistov
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

One of the things that has come up is "mixed-use parks", where an area
is not clearly one thing or the other.  I see two kinds of cases (with
of course a blurry line between the cases).

One case is an area where there are two kinds of uses close together, in
a way that's hard to draw a sensible line.  More "this place is both"
than "there are two places near each other treated as the same name".
Consider a smallish area that is both leisure=park and
leisure=recreation_ground.  Assume there is some grass with paved paths,
perhaps some flowers, a few trees, and an area with picnic tables,
perhaps with some roofs, and some charcoal grills.  That's clearly
leisure=park.  Then add a pond with swimming and a bath house for
changing.  Or two soccer fields.  Those by themselves are
leisure=recreation_ground.  Assume that this area is one parcel, managed
as one entity, and named as one thing by the owning body.  So how to tag
it?  Here, I would argue that one should simply look the more
significant use, and pick that and don't worry.  I would lean to park
when on the park/recreation_ground line, because the sports fields will
be tagged as pitches, and once those are there, they are rendered and
findable, regardless of the overall area being tagged as
recreation_ground.

The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one
or the other.  Consider:

  1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt
  hiking paths

  a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that is different:
- paved parking lot
- visitor center / bathroom building
- grass and a few trees (city park like)
- picnic tables, grills

  probably there are different rules for the two pieces.  Dogs might be
  allowed in the 40-acre chunk, but not in the larger forest, for
  example.

  the entire thing is called "Foo State Park", owned by a state
  government.  Legally it is one parcel, and run by the same state
  agency.

I think the basic issue is that we tend to focus on the larger
definition of area and think we must give it one tag, so we frame the
question: "Is this 1000 acre place a =park or a =nature_reserve?".
Stepping back, I see a park and a nature_reserve as separate and related
things.

So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
tagging:

 outer: name="Foo State Park"
 inner: leisure=park
 relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve

Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.

(As I see it this applies to many National Parks too, but we don't worry
about that because we just call them national_park.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[brad]

Unless we're going to be clear that a national park is a park 
owned/operated by a nation,  I'd be on board with this. Associating it 
with size is too ambiguous


On 4/29/19 5:24 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:


How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large,
(important?) state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the
national_park definition in our wiki?

My view is that we should deprecate the national_park tag entirely, and
end up with tags that represent what something is and who
owns/administers it separately.  And generally separate things that are
sane to separate.

Plus, I really doubt that what gets called "national park" in various
countries is the same definition.

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



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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[brad]

Agreed.
'National Park' is very specific.   We have national parks and we have 
state, county, regional ... parks.


National:
*: *belonging to or maintained by the federal government

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/national


On 4/27/19 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 18:35 Greg Troxel > wrote:


I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps
up a
lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand
things
when they don't.  In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while
allowing access and enjoyment", there is a notion that the place is
relatively distinguished, and it doesn't really have a connotation of
size.


I agree, the national_park tag is rather unfortunate, some other tag 
should be used to connote state or national parks in an easily 
distinguishable fashion while not making it excessively difficult to 
find parks in general. With the existing national park tag, I'd use it 
for national (US and indian tribal), but not state parks.


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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

Jmapb  writes:

> On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

>> No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids
>> play here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others
>> consider things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please
>> everybody; semantics can be messy.
>
> Certainly. But speaking as a map user, if I saw a playground on a map
> and then arrived there and found it was just an empty lot or an
> undeveloped bit of land, I would find fault with that map. So if these
> places (kids play here but it's unofficial) are to be mapped, I'd
> suggest different tagging.

THe issue is that leisure=playground does not mean "kids do play here".

It means instead:

  This is a place that has been established as a place to play, and is
  maintained in such a way that such activities are reasonable.  It is
  more or less open to the public (or perhaps associated with a school
  or other facility, or gated community, etc. for exclusive use of their
  people).  It is almost certainly known as a playground or similar to
  those living in the area.

That excludes play sets in back yards, and places where kids go in the
woods in an ad hoc or against-the-rules manner.

It does mean that leisure=playground access=private is going to happen,
in gated community-ish places.  But that's fine, I think.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:

> It may be emerging that tagging boundary=protected_area (where
> correct) where leisure=park now exists and we delete it, begins to
> supersede leisure=park on many North American now-called-parks.  I
> think that's OK, maybe even overdue.  To be clear, there are plenty of
> "we now call them parks" which are more like protected_area boundary
> areas or maybe "it is what it is today, nothing more."

I think you are not saying that a proper leisure=park should be
protected_area, but that some things which are really protected_area are
mistagged as park.

Here I will mostly talk about leisure=nature_reserve sorts of places, to
include national_park sorts of places that would be
leisure=nature_reserve if we didn't have national_park tags.

I have two problems with the notion of boundary=protected_area:

1) The current landuse is one thing, and legal protection for the future
is another.  Just because something is a nature reserve now doesn't mean
it has legal protection.

A town might own 300 acres of woods, have hiking trails, and have it
signed as "Foo Conservation Area".  That's enough to tag it
landuse=conservation (because that's the current actual landuse) and
leisure=nature_reserve.  But, 20 years from now, they might sell that to
a developer to buy some other land which has conservation value and
enough upland to build that new schoool they want.  So in this case
boundary=protected_area is completely inappropriate.

2) boundary=protected_area is semantically confused, because what is
being tagged is not the boundary, but the status of the area within the
boundary.

Of course, there is a computer-sciency duality between a boundary and
the area within the boundary.  From this viewpoint, things are entirely
equivalent.  But, humans interpret tags other than according to the
strict tagging definition semantics, and they tend to treat
boundary=protected_area as being about the boundary, particularly in
rendering.

With admin boundaries, there is a sense of "the land inside is in this
town", but we have a long cartographic culture of drawing lines on the
map.  These separate towns and states, for example, and it's understood
that this is a large feature and that shading them is not that useful,
except on small-scale maps where there is arbitrary coloring to
visualize that.

With leisure=nature_reserve, leisure=park, golf courses, cemetaries,
schools, etc., we represent them on the map by some kind of shading or
fill.  But, boundary=protected_area is represented by denoting the
border, and this does not serve map users wel.

> I think the greatest thing to "shake out" of this so far is that the
> leisure=park tag can (and should be) frequently be dismissed in
> preference to boundary=protected_area.  This alone will assert a great
> deal of sanity back into things around here.  Whether we invent a tag
> called proto_park ('cause there are such things, the city council just
> hasn't budgeted or spent the money to build it into a more fully
> human-leisure-place, yet).

There is no sanity in boundary=protected_area!  There would be in
area_protected=yes, if it were only used to describe areas that actually
have legal protection (easement or conservation restriction, state or
national And).

That aside, I think favoring boundary=protected_area for parks is a
major step backwards from separating separate concepts.  What is on the
ground, and what the legal protections are against change, are separate
things and should be kept separate.

Arguably, National Parks are no more protected than a parcel of woods
owned by a town (absent any CR/easemetn/state conservation status)
because the owning body can change the rules in the same manner.

In contrast, formal conservation land owned by towns in Mass requires
permission of the state to take out of conservation status.  And there's
the NY example, where the state government can't change things via
normal law.

But, it comes down to "how hard would it be politically", and that's not
really that useful.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

The real problem is that we have two linguistic traditions: one is plain
langauge, and one is tagging tokens.  People keep blurring them, and of
course this is going to continue.  We end up with having to explain
"Just becuase it says 'Foo Park' doesn't mean it's a park."  If we had

#define LEISURE_PARK0x451

and we were talking about if something were a LEISURE_PARK then it would
be clearer about plain language vs tagging tokens.

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:

> So, what emerges is that going forward, leisure=park is as our wiki
> describes it (a smaller, urban-scale, human-sculpted place for
> leisure/recreation), EVEN THOUGH many areas which aren't this are now
> tagged this way.

I think that's a correct assessment.  Except that we have to be careful
about "recreation" -- a place that is largely soccer and baseball fields
is recreation_ground.  If you mean walking around, then agreed.

In Massachusetts, I'd say an interesting data point in distinguishing
"park" vs "nature_reserve" is that in a park you are not that likely to
pick up ticks (ixodes scapularis), and in a nature_reserve it is very
likely.  But that's just a proxy for "sculpted" vs "natural".

> Going forward, NEW "parks" (in the USA) get this tag only as it is
> meant/now wiki-described, as we use the Existing 4 more properly.  In
> other words, it is correct to use the Existing 4 INSTEAD of solely
> leisure=park when appropriate.  Simultaneously, it is inevitable that
> many now-tagged-leisure=parks will have that tag changed to one of the
> other Existing 4.  Yes?

I don't really follow "going forward" and "inevitable".  If you mean:

  We the mailinglist more or less agree, to the extent we ever do, that
  things that don't meet definition above  should not be leisure=park,
  and we should tag those things appropriately, both for new objects,
  and people fixing old objects.

then that sounds right.

Another question is: If we didn't have the special national_park tag,
how would they be tagged?  I would say that most would be
leisure=nature_reserve overall, with perhaps some small segments as
leisure=park, and then a few messy cases (Dry Tortugas, maybe Mesa
Verde).  I don't seriously expect us to get rid of the national_park
tag, so that's a moot point.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Greg Troxel]

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:

> How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large,
> (important?) state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the
> national_park definition in our wiki?

My view is that we should deprecate the national_park tag entirely, and
end up with tags that represent what something is and who
owns/administers it separately.  And generally separate things that are
sane to separate.

Plus, I really doubt that what gets called "national park" in various
countries is the same definition.

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

[Talk-GB] West Mids May meetup

[Brian Prangle]

 Hi everyone

Our May meeting is scheduled for Thursday this week and we're in Coventry
this month. Mapping first from whenever you can get there: we've chosen the
area around  Far Gosford Street
which looks in need of
improvement (lots of retail premises missing so fits in with our UK
Quarterly Project). So that we don't trip over each other and duplicate
effort let us know what you intend to do.If you've got another area of
Coventry you'd like to map that's OK too.
We'll meet for chat eats and drinks at the Botanist(not mapped yet!) in
Broadgate in the City Centre  from 8

Regards

Brian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Les sous-stations ferroviaires

[Yves P.]

> Les neuf autres sont ? ^^
> 
> Ce n'est pas une raison suffisante pour ne pas réfléchir ensemble et les 
> fanas de réseaux ferrés sont assez nombreux. Et les sociétés de chemin de fer 
> y ont aussi à y gagner.
> 
Il n’y avait pas de jugement de valeur dans mon propos, je me souvenais juste 
d’une conversation avec un autre contributeur local qui se sent dépassé par les 
électrons 
> Je dirais bien qu'on a fait un projet du mois pour distinguer les police des 
> gendarmeries alors que si tu as un soucis tu vas voir le plus proche : le 
> principe d'OSM c'est qu'on cartographie ce qu'on trouve utile.
> 
L’utilité des commissariats pour le citoyen est évidente. Pour les 
sous-stations c’est moins clair (mais j’essaie de m’y mettre aussi quand j’en 
croise une ).
> Et utiliser un schéma commun est important.
> 
On est d’accord

—
Yves

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

Re: [Talk-it] Biblioteche alla sapienza

[Alexander Shilin]

Grazie, poi ci vediamo stasera.

Alex

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2019 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> si, confermato.
> ___
> 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

[OSM-talk-fr] Postes de transformations électrique de "quartier" (sous-stations)

[Yves P.]

Bonjour,

Suite au message précédent de François souhaitant découper sa proposition 
d’origine, je souhaitais montrer la « complexité » actuelle pour rechercher des 
« transformateurs » pour le contributeur lambda.

Un « transfo » sur poteau 
 (type H61 en France) 
est un « transfo » comme un autre (en armoire, cabine haute, cabine basse…) ?
Et bien non ! Du moins pour certains logiciels que j’utilise à la maison ou sur 
le terrain :

Pour OSMAND :
« Transformateur électrique » ne trouve que les postes de transformation en 
cabine haute : 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202400990#map=19/46.60661/5.81376 


«  Poste électrique » les trouve tous sauf les « transformateurs » sur poteau :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3689422922 
 (plutôt visible sur les photos 
précédentes )

Quand à OpenInfraMap, il affiche le poteau mais pas la sous-station (le poste 
de transformation électrique) : 
https://openinframap.org/#17.9/46.761503/4.81474 


C’est donc difficile de voir sur cette carte si tous les « transfos » sont bien 
intégrés : https://openinframap.org/#14.3/46.76203/4.81819 



En espérant que la future proposition de François sur le sujet sera acceptée.

—
Yves




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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Les sous-stations ferroviaires

[osm . sanspourriel]

Le 29/04/2019 à 11:27, Yves P. - yves.prat...@gmail.com a écrit :


Bonjour,

Sujet hyper spécialisé, qui peut intéresser une petite dizaine de
contributeurs OSM dans le monde ? 


Les neuf autres sont ? ^^

Ce n'est pas une raison suffisante pour ne pas réfléchir ensemble et les
fanas de réseaux ferrés sont assez nombreux. Et les sociétés de chemin
de fer y ont aussi à y gagner.

Je dirais bien qu'on a fait un projet du mois pour distinguer les police
des gendarmeries alors que si tu as un soucis tu vas voir le plus proche
: le principe d'OSM c'est qu'on cartographie ce qu'on trouve utile. Et
utiliser un schéma commun est important.


Le but est d'introduire une clé plus simple (sans namespace) avec des
valeurs plus étoffées que yes/no pour indiquer si la sous-station
produit du courant continu ou pas

Pour le détail, acdc et acac ne sont pas très lisibles.
Que pensez-vous de *ac/dc*, *ac/ac* ou *ac-dc*, *ac-ac* ?

J'irais jusqu'à AC/DC, AC/AC. Non, sans pousser jusqu'à DC/DC ;-).


Pour info, il n’y a quasiment rien dans osm :
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=ac-dc#values

Et juste une simple interrogation : pourquoi ne pas indiquer la(les)
fréquence(s) dans le cas d’une conversion ?


"Nous verrons que frequency
=* est une propriété
des appareils installés dans le poste et ne doit pas être propagée à la
sous-station tout entière."

Là c'est François qui parle.

frequency:input=

frequency:output=

aurait l'avantage de la clarté (et de la facilitation pour la
vérification du chaînage).

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

Re: [Talk-se] Upphovsrätt på data och polygoner

[Axel Pettersson]

Hej,
Tack Janos! Som bakgrund till det här inlägget finns en diskussion som
startade i februari[1] om licenser och import, och att SMHI baserat på det
ändrade sig[2] och gick från CC BY till CC0 för att möjliggöra import och
användning av data både på OSM och i Wikidata. Förhoppningen nu är att
komma vidare med en import av polygoner, och eftersom jag inte kan själv
hoppas jag att Janos och övriga här finner det värdefullt och kan genomföra
importen.

Från SMHI finns Josefina Algotsson med, och hon har nu gått med i den här
maillistan för att kunna svara om det uppstår frågor.

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-se/2019-February/003528.html
[2] Tack alla inblandade för bra input, och tack SMHI för att ni lyssnade
och ändrade er!

Bästa hälsningar,
/axel


Axel Pettersson
Projektledare GLAM/Outreach
Wikimedia Sverige

+46 (0)733 96 55 65
axel.petters...@wikimedia.se

Twitter: @Haxpett 

Stöd fri kunskap, bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige.
Läs mer på *wikimedia.se/sv/blimedlem *


Den mån 29 apr. 2019 kl 09:50 skrev Janos Steiner :

> Hejsan,
>
>
>
> Jag har inte använt osm maillistor sedan länge. Var en aktiv OSM:are i
> "mitt tidigare liv". Syftet ätt jag skriver är att jag vill hjälpa
> Vattenmyndigheterna/SMHI angående deras KustWiki¹ grundgeometri. Indatat är
> rent licensmässigt och består av polygoner med attributfält. Se min
> preliminära konvertering²  Jag kan förbereda och anpassa data, men behöver
> ha hjälp från Er angående :
>
>
>
> 0. Vad som redan finns inlagt i OSM på samma tema. Ett utdrag i "*.osm"
> formatet.
>
> 1. Jag vill veta mer kring tabellstruktur och attributfältets utformning
> för dessa polygoner.
>
> 2. Kontaktperson för uppladdning. Det är säkrare att Ni på den nationella
> OSM sidan gör uppladdningen.
>
>
>
> ¹[ https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Projekt_Kustvatten ]
>
> ²[ http://geomatika.mapcat.net/COMMON/Projects/osm_version0_6.zip ], 8,7
> MB
>
>
>
> Hälsning / stenhuggare
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [Talk-it] via crucis

[canfe]

Sarebbe inoltre interessante distinguere i piloni votivi (colonne staccate
dagli edifici, in genere isolate) dalle 'edicole votive' piccole nicchie
ricavavate negli edifici, il cui uso e' identico, ma, de facto, son oggetti
abbastanza diversi.

Qualcuno ha in mente qualche tag?

Ferruccio Cantone (canfe)



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html

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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] OSM West Mids May meetup

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

Our May meeting is scheduled for Thursday this week and we're in Coventry
this month. Mapping first from whenever you can get there: we've chosen the
area around  Far Gosford Street
which looks in need of
improvement (lots of retail premises missing so fits in with our UK
Quarterly Project). So that we don't trip over each other and duplicate
effort let us know what you intend to do.If you've got another area of
Coventry you'd like to map that's OK too.
We'll meet for chat eats and drinks at the Botanist(not mapped yet!) in
Broadgate in the City Centre  from 8

Regards

Brian
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [Talk-GB] How would tag or name this wall crossing?

[Paul Berry]

Now that I know the name for them you'll soon see that usage spread out
across the rest of West Yorkshire :)

This is one of them, hiding in Leeds:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6412833214

Regards,
*Paul*

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 18:10, Mark Goodge  wrote:

>
>
> On 27/04/2019 18:02, I wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 27/04/2019 17:52, Andy Townsend wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27/04/2019 17:50, Philip Barnes wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dstile#Stile_details
> >>>
> >> 4000 of those:
> >>
> >> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/stile#values
> >>
> >> However also from that page I'm now wondering what "stile=hipster" (!)
> >> is?
> >
> > You can only go through it if you have a beard!
> Serious answer... generating a map of them via the Overpass Turbo link
> shows that all the instances of them are in an area around Keighley.
> And, looking at them on Google street view, they appear to be squeeze
> stiles. For example:
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/v8P8SrBYHu8BWMzZA
> https://goo.gl/maps/1h5zqHLpQDu4jUnb6
>
> So I'd hazard a guess that it's a local name for them in that neck of
> the woods.
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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] Les sous-stations ferroviaires (SNCF et les autres)

[Yves P.]

Bonjour,

Sujet hyper spécialisé, qui peut intéresser une petite dizaine de contributeurs 
OSM dans le monde ? 

En tant que contributeur lambda, comment savoir si un poste de transformation 
est équipé d’un convertisseur de fréquence ?
Que peut-on éventuellement importer ?
Que peut-on observer sur place ? (J’ai photographié celle de Pannessières 
 sous toutes les coutures)

> La proposition d'origine était beaucoup plus importante et cela l'a sûrement 
> desservi. Il faut donc découper et le 1er opus est ici.
J’espère que ça permettra de publier « rapidement » celle qui simplifiera les 
postes de transformations de distribution mineure.

> Le but est d'introduire une clé plus simple (sans namespace) avec des valeurs 
> plus étoffées que yes/no pour indiquer si la sous-station produit du courant 
> continu ou pas
Pour le détail, acdc et acac ne sont pas très lisibles.
Que pensez-vous de ac/dc, ac/ac ou ac-dc, ac-ac ?

Pour info, il n’y a quasiment rien dans osm : 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=ac-dc#values 


Et juste une simple interrogation : pourquoi ne pas indiquer la(les) 
fréquence(s) dans le cas d’une conversion ?
  154070456 

power =substation 

substation =traction
conversion 
=acac
 

name =Bahnstromumformerwerk 
Karlsruhe
voltage =11;15000
operator =DB Energie GmbH
start_date =1957
frequency =50;16.7

> Proposition
> …
> La dernière valeur est utile pour indiquer qu'aucun convertisseur en service 
> n'est installé dans la sous-station et que la fréquence électrique n'est pas 
> modifiée. Cela résout l'indétermination des objets manquants sur la carte : 
> existent-ils et doit-on les chercher ou bien rien n'existe sur le terrain ?

Ce n’était pas très clair pour moi à la première lecture.
J’ai compris avec les exemples qu’il existe réellement des sous-stations 
ferroviaires sans changement de fréquence.

Voilà, en espérant faire avancer le schmilblick.

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

Re: [Talk-it-lazio] incontro

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2019 um 10:49 Uhr schrieb Mario Santanche <
mario.santan...@uniroma1.it>:

> Che dire; per me questa sera andrebbe bene, ma se per voi fosse meglio un
> altro giorno, non avrei problemi. Capisco che, trattandosi di un lunedì
> all'interno di un ponte, forse qualcun'altro interessato, potrebbe non
> essere a Roma.
>



direi confermato


Riguardo al posto, non conosco il centro a Garbatella, c'è lì la
> possibilità di avere un pc collegato in rete, o almeno una connessione
> wi-fi? Io magari mi porterei lo stampato del mio dataset, però forse
> potrebbe essere utile, vedere qualcosa.
>


Internet c'è.



Per me quest'incontro sarebbe certamente utile, essendo io assolutamente
> digiuno in fatto di GIS e progetti open, ho certamente tutto da imparare da
> voi.
> Mastico un po' di javascript e ho realizzato una pagina delle biblioteche
> utilizzando la libreria leaflet <
> https://sbs.uniroma1.it/biblio/map/mappe.php
> >, ma mi piacerebbe
> agire anche sul layout di base, che in questo momento, non sempre fornisce
> informazioni corrette: le varie biblioteche Sapienza hanno cambiato, e
> continueranno a cambiare denominazione a causa di continui accorpamenti
> dovuti alla mancanza di personale.
>


si, tutte le coordinate con i nomi sono il primo passo, mi piacerebbe
sviluppare insieme un sistema per descriverle meglio (tipologia di
biblioteca e tema). Poi ovviamente i dati generici (indirizzo, orari,
telefono, gestore, ecc.)


a sta sera,
Martin
___
Talk-it-lazio mailing list
Talk-it-lazio@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it-lazio

Re: [Talk-it] Biblioteche alla sapienza

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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

Re: [Talk-it] Biblioteche alla sapienza

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2019 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Alexander Shilin <
dmitri.alex.ji...@gmail.com>:

> Ciao a tutti,
>
> per favore una domanda. La RIunione del OSM Roma c'è oggi alle 20:00? Mi
> piacerebbe di partecipare ed arriverei per questo dall'Aquila.
>
> Ciao, Alex
>


sembrerebbe di si, la discussione poi è andata avanti qui:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it-lazio/2019-April/000851.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Reportage sur la réalisation des Ortho-photos au Grand Lyon

[Yves P.]

> Je partage ce petit reportage que j'ai bien aimé sur la réalisation des
> ortho-photos au Grand Lyon, qui sont faites à la base en prenant des
> photos depuis un avion mais avec également d'autres techniques
> intéressantes (LIDAR, capture par drone, contrôle en stéréo-photogrammétrie…)
> 
>  
> https://data.beta.grandlyon.com/fr/articles/67c0d256-aac2-492f-b675-b5026fc049cd

Merci, c’est vraiment intéressant 
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-it] via crucis

[Nogaro]

Ci sarebbe questa proposta, anche se è ancora poco usata:

 

  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Route%3DWorship

 

Ciao,

Alberto

 

From: Gabriele via Talk-it  
Sent: 28 April 2019 23:55
To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
Cc: sani.gabri...@protonmail.com
Subject: [Talk-it] via crucis

 

Buona sera,

sto mappando una serie di pilastrini relativi a una sorta di via crucis (non e' 
una via crucis in senso tradizionale con stazioni ecc. ma una cosa molto 
simile). Per ora ho usato wayside_shrine, ma non sono convinto sia il tag 
migliore allo scopo: qualcuno ha idee migliori?

 

Grazie

 

Gabriele

 

 

Sent with ProtonMail   Secure Email.

 

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

Re: [Talk-se] Upphovsrätt på data och polygoner

[Janos Steiner]

Hejsan,



Jag har inte använt osm maillistor sedan länge. Var en aktiv OSM:are i
"mitt tidigare liv". Syftet ätt jag skriver är att jag vill hjälpa
Vattenmyndigheterna/SMHI angående deras KustWiki¹ grundgeometri. Indatat är
rent licensmässigt och består av polygoner med attributfält. Se min
preliminära konvertering²  Jag kan förbereda och anpassa data, men behöver
ha hjälp från Er angående :



0. Vad som redan finns inlagt i OSM på samma tema. Ett utdrag i "*.osm"
formatet.

1. Jag vill veta mer kring tabellstruktur och attributfältets utformning
för dessa polygoner.

2. Kontaktperson för uppladdning. Det är säkrare att Ni på den nationella
OSM sidan gör uppladdningen.



¹[ https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Projekt_Kustvatten ]

²[ http://geomatika.mapcat.net/COMMON/Projects/osm_version0_6.zip ], 8,7 MB



Hälsning / stenhuggare
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [Talk-it] motor_vehicle da imagery?

[Volker Schmidt]

Nella nostra zona, tante "strade bianche", tipicamente a corsia singola,
servono sia come strade di collegamento (quindi sarebbero "unclassified"),
spesso ci sono anche case abitate (quindi sarebbero "residential") e ci
passano anche veicoli agricoli per andare ai campi locali (sarebbero
"track").
Il primo esmpio in questa conversazione ( 2]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69641423)

mi sembra un classico.

Il punto importante è che aggiungendo motor_vehicle=yes a un highway=track,
o anche un altra strada, è informazione ambigua perché il default access
per track include motor_vehicle. Se vogliamo  documentare che qualcuno ha
verificato che un track o una stradina è veramente aperto a specifiche
categorie di veicoli, besogna utilizzare tag aggiuntivi (potrebbe essere
"source:motor_vehicle=survey|sign|local_knowledge").
Il problema rimane anche con questo tipo di soluzione che la mappa contiene
tanti highway "inferiori" cui diritti di accesso non sono stati controllati
dai mappatori che titpicamente hanno utilizzato foto satellitari o simili.

Il metodo di verificazione di Amazon è valido, il mio dubbio è il tagging
del risultato della verifica.

Volker



On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 08:41, emmexx  wrote:

> On 04/28/2019 06:23 PM, lomastr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ce ne sono diversi di Amazon che fanno questa operazione, credo che
> > serva a garantire il routing sulle track. Probabilmente un corriere che
> > ha consegnato lungo quella via ha segnalato che è transitabile.
>
> Avevo segnalato la vecchia discussione perché conteneva il riferimento
> alla pagina wiki di Amazon:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amazon_Logistics
>
> "We contribute edits in North America, Great Britain, France, Italy,
> Spain and Germany. The mappers are Indian nationals."
>
> "We use driver feedback as our primary source in making edits (e.g.
> driver feedback about road names, turn restrictions, directionality
> while delivering to our customers). We also use GPS traces from our
> drivers to identify missing roads. Once a potential missing road has
> been identified we use OSM resources to confirm if that particular road
> segment exists before making any edits. In absence of strong evidence,
> we do not make any edits."
>
> "We make an edit only if there is ground data available and all edits
> are reviewed by a second level reviewer/auditor. We also have a team of
> GIS experts who audit a random sample of reviewed cases to ensure high
> standards of our edits to OSM."
>
> > Non ci vedo niente di male nell'esplicitare un valore di accesso
> > altrimenti ambiguo anche se secondo me nella maggior parte dei casi sono
> > strade etichettate erroneamente come track solo perché non asfaltate e
> > sarebbe meglio rietichettarle come unclassified o altro.
>
> track e unclassified non sono la stessa cosa. E nulla vieta che track
> sia asfaltata. La differenza sta nella destinazione d'uso (prevalente)
> della strada. Se l'uso prevalente è agricolo allora si tratta di track.
> Se si tratta di una strada che serve per connettere zone diverse a
> livello locale allora si tratta di unclassified anche se non è asfaltata.
>
> Il fatto che qualcuno di amazon sia passato da quella strada non la
> rende automaticamente unclassified.
>
> ciao
> maxx
>
>
> ___
> 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-it] motor_vehicle da imagery?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Apr 2019, at 08:41, emmexx  wrote:
> 
> track e unclassified non sono la stessa cosa.


+1


> E nulla vieta che track
> sia asfaltata.


+1


> La differenza sta nella destinazione d'uso (prevalente)
> della strada. Se l'uso prevalente è agricolo allora si tratta di track.


direi piuttosto se l’uso è unicamente agricolo/forestale è track, perché nelle 
zone remote c’è sempre un uso agricolo di tutte le strade (tranne le autostrade 
ovviamente).


> Se si tratta di una strada che serve per connettere zone diverse a
> livello locale allora si tratta di unclassified anche se non è asfaltata.


+1


> 
> Il fatto che qualcuno di amazon sia passato da quella strada non la
> rende automaticamente unclassified.


per me si, soprattutto se è l’unico modo per arrivarci, oppure forse service, 
ma credo l’unica strada per arrivare ad un’abitazione non può essere track 
(forse mi sbaglio).

Ciao, Martin 




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

Re: [Talk-it] Biblioteche alla sapienza

[Alexander Shilin]

Ciao a tutti,

per favore una domanda. La RIunione del OSM Roma c'è oggi alle 20:00? Mi
piacerebbe di partecipare ed arriverei per questo dall'Aquila.

Ciao, Alex

Am Di., 23. Apr. 2019 um 22:39 Uhr schrieb Mario Santanche <
mario.santan...@uniroma1.it>:

> È vero! Scusami, sono in vacanza e ho solamente un telefono con il display
> un po’ piccolo. Non avevo guardato con attenzione il link che mi avevi
> inviato, e non avevo capito che stavano lavorando sulle mappe su vari
> livelli proprio nella città universitaria!
> Grazie per la segnalazione. Ora vedo se riesco a contrattare l’utente
> Stefano M.
>
>
>
> Il giorno mar 23 apr 2019 alle 22:03 scratera  ha
> scritto:
>
>> ...il mio era uno spunto di riflessione...
>> ...visto che molto è già mappato in osm e quindi realizzare una relazione
>> che le ingobli tutte
>> ... non ho verificato se già esista qualcosa in questo caso però
>> https://openlevelup.net/?l=0#19/41.90223/12.51608
>> ..direi che questo è un buon inizio e potreste contattare l'utente che ha
>> già cominciato a lavorarci https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Stefano_M
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-it mailing list
>> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>>
> --
> Sistema Bibliotecario Sapienza
> 
> Via Cesare De Lollis 25, 00185 Roma
> 
> tel. (+39) 06 4991 int.  <+39%2006%204969%203287>23544
> fax 06 4969 3289 int. 33389 <06%204969%203289>
> s...@uniroma1.it
> https://web.uniroma1.it/sbs/
>
> 
> ___
> 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-it] motor_vehicle da imagery?

[emmexx]

On 04/28/2019 06:23 PM, lomastr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ce ne sono diversi di Amazon che fanno questa operazione, credo che
> serva a garantire il routing sulle track. Probabilmente un corriere che
> ha consegnato lungo quella via ha segnalato che è transitabile.

Avevo segnalato la vecchia discussione perché conteneva il riferimento
alla pagina wiki di Amazon:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amazon_Logistics

"We contribute edits in North America, Great Britain, France, Italy,
Spain and Germany. The mappers are Indian nationals."

"We use driver feedback as our primary source in making edits (e.g.
driver feedback about road names, turn restrictions, directionality
while delivering to our customers). We also use GPS traces from our
drivers to identify missing roads. Once a potential missing road has
been identified we use OSM resources to confirm if that particular road
segment exists before making any edits. In absence of strong evidence,
we do not make any edits."

"We make an edit only if there is ground data available and all edits
are reviewed by a second level reviewer/auditor. We also have a team of
GIS experts who audit a random sample of reviewed cases to ensure high
standards of our edits to OSM."

> Non ci vedo niente di male nell'esplicitare un valore di accesso
> altrimenti ambiguo anche se secondo me nella maggior parte dei casi sono
> strade etichettate erroneamente come track solo perché non asfaltate e
> sarebbe meglio rietichettarle come unclassified o altro.

track e unclassified non sono la stessa cosa. E nulla vieta che track
sia asfaltata. La differenza sta nella destinazione d'uso (prevalente)
della strada. Se l'uso prevalente è agricolo allora si tratta di track.
Se si tratta di una strada che serve per connettere zone diverse a
livello locale allora si tratta di unclassified anche se non è asfaltata.

Il fatto che qualcuno di amazon sia passato da quella strada non la
rende automaticamente unclassified.

ciao
maxx


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