Re: [Talk-it] Flame su old_name

[solitone]

> On 3 Jul 2019, at 12:12, Paolo Monegato  wrote:
> 
> Meglio:
> 
> name=Sauze d'Oulx
> name:it=Sauze d'Oulx
> name:oc=Sauze d'Oulx
> alt_name:it=Salice d'Ulzio
> 
> o meglio:
> 
> name=Sauze d'Oulx
> name:oc=Sauze d'Oulx
> name:it=Salice d’Ulzio

Secondo me:

name=Sauze d’Oulx
name:it=Sauze d’Oulx [1]
name:oc=Le Saouze d’Ols [2]
old_name:it=Salice d’Ulzio [3]

[1] Serve davvero name:it=*, visto che coincide con name=*? Non è ridondante? 
[2] Ci sono un sacco di varietà dell’occitano. Questo è il modo di scriverlo in 
una delle varianti. https://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauze_d%27Ols
In Patois, Oulx si dice Ours, ma non sono riuscito a capire come si scrive 
Sauze d’Oulx in Patois.
[3] Non è un nome alternativo, è un nome vecchio, che non esiste più. Anche 
qui, non so se si debba usare old_name=*, old_name:it=*, oppure entrambi.
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Marc Gemis]

I agree that in this case I would tolerate it, but is it still allowed
to turn from East Mineral avenue to the  North-South, unclassified
highway?
If not, one should add turn restrictions.

regards

m

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:11 PM Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>
> On 03.07.2019 22:03, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote:
> > I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes 
> > unless "traffic flows are
> > physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which 
> > prevents movements between
> > said flows."
>
> Yes, I agree in general. Nearly all cases can be modelled with turn:lanes 
> (and maybe change:lanes).
>
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496
>
> This case -- and the aerial image is necessary to understand it -- would be 
> one of the few
> exceptions where I would tolerate the current mapping of a separate lane for 
> the left turn.
> Otherwise a navigation engine would not be able to create the appropriate 
> turn instruction at the
> point where the lane forks off. A much more complicated data model would be 
> necessary.
>
> tom
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Reordering and rewriting Good Practice wiki page

[Warin]

On the order of things.

Best to tell them what to do first. This provides some motivation.

Leave 'what not to do' for last, these tend to turn people away.

So I would do:

1   One feature, one OSM element

2   Good changeset comments (+Keep the history)

3   Editing Standards: (Align aerial imagery before tracing, Do not
trace from outdated imagery... Keep straight ways straight ... Mark
estimations with FIXME ... etc.)
 
4	Do correct errors


5   Verifiability (+Map what's on the ground, Don't map: historic
events, temporary features, local legislation etc)

6   Document your custom-tags (Don't remove tags that you don't
understand...

7   Don't map for the renderer (+ Don't misuse name tag)




On 04/07/19 14:15, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

As mentioned, I plan to significantly shorten the "Keep the history"
section, with a link to the longer version at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history instead.

I would probably support shortening the page even further, but I've
already had several edits reverted by other users who are in favor of
including various sections.

On 7/4/19, Yves  wrote:

Hmm... I would be all in favor of extending the See also... section and
shorten drastically the page to keep it simple.
Some of the good practices there are second order, don't you think?
Keeping history compared to Tag for the renderer, for example.
Yves

Le 4 juillet 2019 05:53:23 GMT+02:00, Joseph Eisenberg
 a écrit :

I've reordered and reworded several sections of the Good practice
page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice

The page had grown over the years from 6 or 7 initial sections:
(First verion of page in 2008
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Good_practice=86242)

1) Don't map for the renderer
2) One feature, one OSM-object
3) Keep straight ways straight
4) Map what's on the ground
5)a) Don't remove tags you don't understand
   b) Document your custom-tags
6) Do correct errors

Now there were 22 different sections, several added this past year
without discussion, and they were not organized:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Good_practice=1861565

I've reordered and categorized these sections under 7 main headings:

1   Do correct errors
2   Verifiability (+Map what's on the ground, Don't map: historic
events, temporary features, local legislation etc)
3   Don't map for the renderer (+ Don't misuse name tag)
4   Good changeset comments (+Keep the history)
5   One feature, one OSM element
6   Editing Standards: (Align aerial imagery before tracing, Do not
trace from outdated imagery... Keep straight ways straight ... Mark
estimations with FIXME ... etc.)
7   Document your custom-tags (Don't remove tags that you don't
understand...

I've made some wording changes for more consistent and concise style,
and removed some examples (eg abandoned railways)

I've removed 2 sections added in the past year:

"Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile objects"
- this section duplicated information in the exiting heading about
temporary features

"Don't censor anything existing in reality for any reason. Avoid
interpolations if there is sufficient imagery."
- This seems redundant and the part about censoring data isn't
completely correct. We don't add personal info about who lives in a
private house, for example.

While I haven't done this yet, I would also recommend moving the long
details about "Keep the history", involving how to use specific
editors and checking history in certain editors, along with the
section "Check the history of important objects" which duplicates
advice in the Aerial Imagery section, to a new page, with a link:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history

Joseph Eisenberg, User:Jeisenbe

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

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




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Reordering and rewriting Good Practice wiki page

[Joseph Eisenberg]

As mentioned, I plan to significantly shorten the "Keep the history"
section, with a link to the longer version at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history instead.

I would probably support shortening the page even further, but I've
already had several edits reverted by other users who are in favor of
including various sections.

On 7/4/19, Yves  wrote:
> Hmm... I would be all in favor of extending the See also... section and
> shorten drastically the page to keep it simple.
> Some of the good practices there are second order, don't you think?
> Keeping history compared to Tag for the renderer, for example.
> Yves
>
> Le 4 juillet 2019 05:53:23 GMT+02:00, Joseph Eisenberg
>  a écrit :
>>I've reordered and reworded several sections of the Good practice
>>page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
>>
>>The page had grown over the years from 6 or 7 initial sections:
>>(First verion of page in 2008
>>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Good_practice=86242)
>>
>>1) Don't map for the renderer
>>2) One feature, one OSM-object
>>3) Keep straight ways straight
>>4) Map what's on the ground
>>5)a) Don't remove tags you don't understand
>>   b) Document your custom-tags
>>6) Do correct errors
>>
>>Now there were 22 different sections, several added this past year
>>without discussion, and they were not organized:
>>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Good_practice=1861565
>>
>>I've reordered and categorized these sections under 7 main headings:
>>
>>1 Do correct errors
>>2 Verifiability (+Map what's on the ground, Don't map: historic
>>events, temporary features, local legislation etc)
>>3 Don't map for the renderer (+ Don't misuse name tag)
>>4 Good changeset comments (+Keep the history)
>>5 One feature, one OSM element
>>6 Editing Standards: (Align aerial imagery before tracing, Do not
>>trace from outdated imagery... Keep straight ways straight ... Mark
>>estimations with FIXME ... etc.)
>>7 Document your custom-tags (Don't remove tags that you don't
>>understand...
>>
>>I've made some wording changes for more consistent and concise style,
>>and removed some examples (eg abandoned railways)
>>
>>I've removed 2 sections added in the past year:
>>
>>"Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile objects"
>>- this section duplicated information in the exiting heading about
>>temporary features
>>
>>"Don't censor anything existing in reality for any reason. Avoid
>>interpolations if there is sufficient imagery."
>>- This seems redundant and the part about censoring data isn't
>>completely correct. We don't add personal info about who lives in a
>>private house, for example.
>>
>>While I haven't done this yet, I would also recommend moving the long
>>details about "Keep the history", involving how to use specific
>>editors and checking history in certain editors, along with the
>>section "Check the history of important objects" which duplicates
>>advice in the Aerial Imagery section, to a new page, with a link:
>>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history
>>
>>Joseph Eisenberg, User:Jeisenbe
>>
>>___
>>talk mailing list
>>talk@openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Reordering and rewriting Good Practice wiki page

[Yves]

Hmm... I would be all in favor of extending the See also... section and shorten 
drastically the page to keep it simple.
Some of the good practices there are second order, don't you think?
Keeping history compared to Tag for the renderer, for example.
Yves 

Le 4 juillet 2019 05:53:23 GMT+02:00, Joseph Eisenberg 
 a écrit :
>I've reordered and reworded several sections of the Good practice
>page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
>
>The page had grown over the years from 6 or 7 initial sections:
>(First verion of page in 2008
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Good_practice=86242)
>
>1) Don't map for the renderer
>2) One feature, one OSM-object
>3) Keep straight ways straight
>4) Map what's on the ground
>5)a) Don't remove tags you don't understand
>   b) Document your custom-tags
>6) Do correct errors
>
>Now there were 22 different sections, several added this past year
>without discussion, and they were not organized:
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Good_practice=1861565
>
>I've reordered and categorized these sections under 7 main headings:
>
>1  Do correct errors
>2  Verifiability (+Map what's on the ground, Don't map: historic
>events, temporary features, local legislation etc)
>3  Don't map for the renderer (+ Don't misuse name tag)
>4  Good changeset comments (+Keep the history)
>5  One feature, one OSM element
>6  Editing Standards: (Align aerial imagery before tracing, Do not
>trace from outdated imagery... Keep straight ways straight ... Mark
>estimations with FIXME ... etc.)
>7  Document your custom-tags (Don't remove tags that you don't
>understand...
>
>I've made some wording changes for more consistent and concise style,
>and removed some examples (eg abandoned railways)
>
>I've removed 2 sections added in the past year:
>
>"Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile objects"
>- this section duplicated information in the exiting heading about
>temporary features
>
>"Don't censor anything existing in reality for any reason. Avoid
>interpolations if there is sufficient imagery."
>- This seems redundant and the part about censoring data isn't
>completely correct. We don't add personal info about who lives in a
>private house, for example.
>
>While I haven't done this yet, I would also recommend moving the long
>details about "Keep the history", involving how to use specific
>editors and checking history in certain editors, along with the
>section "Check the history of important objects" which duplicates
>advice in the Aerial Imagery section, to a new page, with a link:
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history
>
>Joseph Eisenberg, User:Jeisenbe
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Reordering and rewriting Good Practice wiki page

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I've reordered and reworded several sections of the Good practice
page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice

The page had grown over the years from 6 or 7 initial sections:
(First verion of page in 2008
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Good_practice=86242)

1) Don't map for the renderer
2) One feature, one OSM-object
3) Keep straight ways straight
4) Map what's on the ground
5)a) Don't remove tags you don't understand
   b) Document your custom-tags
6) Do correct errors

Now there were 22 different sections, several added this past year
without discussion, and they were not organized:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Good_practice=1861565

I've reordered and categorized these sections under 7 main headings:

1   Do correct errors
2   Verifiability (+Map what's on the ground, Don't map: historic
events, temporary features, local legislation etc)
3   Don't map for the renderer (+ Don't misuse name tag)
4   Good changeset comments (+Keep the history)
5   One feature, one OSM element
6   Editing Standards: (Align aerial imagery before tracing, Do not
trace from outdated imagery... Keep straight ways straight ... Mark
estimations with FIXME ... etc.)
7   Document your custom-tags (Don't remove tags that you don't 
understand...

I've made some wording changes for more consistent and concise style,
and removed some examples (eg abandoned railways)

I've removed 2 sections added in the past year:

"Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile objects"
- this section duplicated information in the exiting heading about
temporary features

"Don't censor anything existing in reality for any reason. Avoid
interpolations if there is sufficient imagery."
- This seems redundant and the part about censoring data isn't
completely correct. We don't add personal info about who lives in a
private house, for example.

While I haven't done this yet, I would also recommend moving the long
details about "Keep the history", involving how to use specific
editors and checking history in certain editors, along with the
section "Check the history of important objects" which duplicates
advice in the Aerial Imagery section, to a new page, with a link:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history

Joseph Eisenberg, User:Jeisenbe

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Données routières ouvertes en France

[Jérôme Amagat]

Les tag source=cadastre c'est le plus souvent pour le name=* de la route
voir la ref.
Le cadastre est bien vectoriel sur une bonne parti de la France mais on y
trouve le bâti et les parcelles de terrain mais pas les routes à ma
connaissance.
on peut quand même en déduire où sont une partie des routes : c'est là où
il n'y a pas de parcelle :) mais une petite partie des routes sont sont sur
des parcelles...

on peut le trouvé là :
https://cadastre.data.gouv.fr/datasets


Le mer. 3 juil. 2019 à 17:33, Julien Minet 
a écrit :

> Bonjour,
>
> Je travaille à Champs-Libres.coop en Belgique où nous développons des
> applications avec les données OSM.
>
> Pour un de nos projets, on cherche des données de réseaux routiers en
> Belgique et en France. Par données de réseau routier, j'entends:
>
>- tout type de route carrossables, de la "residential/unclassified" à
>la "motorway"
>- la géométrie des routes
>- des attributs comme le nom, et si possible le "ref", "lanes",
>"width", voire d'autres infos.
>
> Bien sûr OSM est une bonne option que nous espérons proposer au client,
> mais j'aimerai prospecter les sources officielles de données existantes en
> France (et éventuellement comparer les 2). Après quelques recherches, je
> vois que les données de l'IGN (BD Carto et BD Topo) ne sont pas libres mais
> disponibles après paiement. Il y a bien Route 500
>  dispo gratuitement mais
> cela ne concerne que les "grandes" routes.
>
> Or il se trouve que sur certaines routes en France dans OSM, j'ai trouvé
> plusieurs fois cette source : "cadastre-dgi-fr source : Direction Générale
> des Impôts - Cadastre. Mise à jour : 20XX".
>
> Je me suis donc renseigné sur l'import du cadastre en lisant les pages du
> wiki 
> mais je n'ai pas trouvé qu'elle était la source originelle qui a servi à
> cet import. D'où ma question: est-ce que les données cadastrales des
> voiries en France sont disponibles *en vectoriel*? Ou bien est-ce que ces
> données ont été digitalisées à partir d'un WMS?
>
> Plus largement, connaissez-vous des données ouvertes de voiries en France
> disponibles?
>
>
> Happy mapping,
> Julien Minet aka juminet
>
> --
> Julien Minet
> Champs-Libres.coop
> +32 496 24 17 60
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] édition de masse : crossing=island -> crossing:island=yes

[Jérôme Amagat]

Je suis d'accord que ce qui est dit dans la proposition va vers un tag
déprécié et la création d'un autre à la place sauf ce qui est dit
explicitement dans la section proposal : ce n'est qu'une alternative à un
autre tag qui pose des problèmes. Sûrement parce qu'il est plus facile de
faire approuvé comme ça que de demander la suppression d'un tag...

Mais sinon je suis pas contre la migration pour la France :)
Par contre, il y a un risque de se faire taper sur les doigts :) voir un
revert

Le mar. 2 juil. 2019 à 21:38,  a écrit :

> Jérôme, quand je lis sur https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing
> à propos de crossing=island "*Note:* It is recommended to use the newer
> tag crossing:island
> =yes instead,
> which can be used in addition to crossing=
> traffic_signals/uncontrolled/unmarked." je lis que crossing=island est
> déprécié.
>
> La version française est d'ailleurs plus explicite : crossing=island
>  (obsolète)
> Jean-Yvon
> Le 02/07/2019 à 20:21, marc marc - marc_marc_...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
> l'argumentaire est dans "rational" : crossing=island est problématique :
> autant il est possible de dire qu'un carrefour est sans feu,
> avec marquage et îlot crossing=uncontrolled;island (même si c'est non
> supporté par la majorité des outils parce qu'en conflit, mais ca c'est
> une autre histoire)
> autant il est impossible de décrire qu'un carrefour important
> est sans feu, avec marquage sans îlot sans utiliser crossing:island=no
>
> c'est bien pour éviter de garder 2 tags avec le même sens que je
> prend mon bâton de pèlerin pour virer celui qui est problématique :)
>
> Le 02.07.19 à 20:09, Jérôme Amagat a écrit :
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Key:crossing:island=1780913
> il est dit ici "This key is an alternative to the problematic tag
> crossing  
> =island
>  "
> de plus crossing=island n'est indiqué nulle part comme déprécié.
> Donc pour moi, les 2 clés sont valables donc pas de raison d'enlevé les
> crossing=island, il y a 2 clés pour la même chose :(
>
>
> Le mar. 2 juil. 2019 à 19:52, deuzeffe 
> mailto:opensm@deuzeffe.org> 
> > a écrit :
>
> Je plussoie aussi.
>
> On 02/07/2019 00:09, Vincent Privat wrote:
>  > +1
>  > Ticket JOSM en rapport: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17330
>  > A+
>  > Vincent
>  >
>  > Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 22:25, marc marc
> mailto:marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> 
> > a
>  > écrit :
>  >
>  >> Bonjour,
>  >>
>  >> certains en ont parlé dans la discussion précédente,
>  >> une proposition a été votée pour migrer crossing=island
>  >> en crossing:island=yes
>  >>
>  >>
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Key:crossing:island=1780913
>  >> la raison est de libérer la clef crossing pour lui faire retrouver
>  >> son usage principal (traffic_signals <> uncontrolled).
>  >>
>  >> je propose par conséquent, si personne ne s'y oppose,
>  >> de migrer les crossing=island en crossing:island=yes en France
>  >>
>  >> NB: cette clef est à ne pas confondre avec traffic_calming=island
>  >> qui décrit un îlot construit pour réguler le trafic.
>  >> certains îlots de refuges sont aussi des îlots pour réguler le
> trafic,
>  >> d'autre non (par exemple un îlot situé dans la largeur de la bordure
>  >> entre 2 routes n'a aucun effet spécifique sur le trafic)
>  >> de même certains îlots pour réguler le trafic ne sont pas liés
>  >> à des passages piétons, ces 2 clefs ont donc leur propre sens
>  >> et la modif proposée n'affecte pas les îlots pour réguler le trafic.
>  >>
>  >> Cordialement,
>  >> Marc
>  >> ___
>  >> 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
>  >
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org  
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing 
> listTalk-fr@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing 
> 

Re: [Talk-it] divieto basato sulla cilindrata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Jul 2019, at 21:25, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Il tag dovrebbe essere qualcosa
> come 
>   min_displacement:motorcyle=150
> L'unica cosa simile che trovo:in taginfo è:
>   motorcycle:maxdisplacement (15 volte)


ho trovato questo con il conditional tagging:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=motorcycle%3Aconditional=yes%20%40%20(displacement%20%3C%3D%20125%20cc)

 c’è anche mofa=no e moped=no per escludere i motorini piccoli, ma se devi 
arrivare a 150ccm non bastano quei tags


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Route verte besoin de corrections encore

[James]

Scuse, oui c'était bien la route 1, j'ai travaillé dessus aujourd'hui pour
complèter le plus possible

On Wed., Jul. 3, 2019, 6:53 p.m. Alouette955,  wrote:

> Pour avoir souvent réparé des relations, notamment la Route verte j’ai
> détecté  plusieurs causes aux trous (GAPs).
>
> Un , il y a des segments non encore complétés. Bien entendu, dans la
> notion de relation il est supposé qu’elle est continue mais pas dans ce
> cas-ci.
>
> Puis la Route verte tel que défini par Vélo Québec se distingue de la
> notion de relation OSM. Prenons simplement le fait qu’elle passe des Iles
> de la Madeleine à la Gaspésie. Bien entendu il n’y a pas de lien physique
> dans ce gap là. La Route verte 3 en construction est  truffée de segments
> non terminés.
>
> Et souvent des contributeurs re-fusionnent des  segments de routes qui
> avaient justement été segmentés pour définir correctement la relation.
> L’appartenance à la relation est alors étendu aux segments qui n’en font
> pas partie.
>
> En utilisant l’outil “Relation analyser” et son option “Analyze on map” on
> voit très bien les gaps ou erreurs dans la relation:
>
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=416115
>
> Il suffit de zoomer sur chaque gap et on trouve l’explication et souvent
> la solution saute aux yeux.
>
> Selon moi la principale raison des erreurs dans les relations est la
> relative invisibilité des relations dans les outils. On ne nous dit pas
> toujours que ce qu’on touche impacte des relations. C’est très courant pour
> les relations de lignes de bus.
>
> Avec “Relation Analyser” on pourrait certainement s’en sortir en moins
> d’une heure pour corriger le tout.
>
> Claude
>
> *From:* Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 6:02 PM
> *To:* Pierre Boucher
> *Cc:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Route verte besoin de corrections encore
>
> C’est la route verte 1 alors.
>
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 18:00, Pierre Boucher  wrote:
>
> Si on parle de la totalité que couvre la relation 416115 qui va de
> Pembroke en Ontario jusqu'en Gaspésie et aux Îles de la Madeleine elle est
> truffée de segments.
>
> "Split into several pieces
> For this relation type it is required that it exists as one piece."
>
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=416115
>
> Pierre Boucher
>
> Le 2019-07-03 à 17:31, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca a écrit :
>
> On parle bien de Route Verte 5 ? Je vois pas vraiment de trous.
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:56, James mailto:james2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Il y a des trous dans la route verte(relation # 416115) encore et a besoin 
> d'être réparer de nouveau.
>
> J'ai essayer de remplir les trous dans l'est, mais l'ouest de Montreal a 
> beaucoup de trous.
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing 
> listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing 
> listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> --
>
> *Pierre Boucher*
> 514.730.6211
> formation en navigation de plaisance
> Ste-Thérèse (Québec) Canada
> http://www.lavoile.com
> --
>
> *...Pensez à l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce courriel !.*
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
>
> --
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Route verte besoin de corrections encore

[Alouette955]

Pour avoir souvent réparé des relations, notamment la Route verte j’ai détecté  
plusieurs causes aux trous (GAPs).

Un , il y a des segments non encore complétés. Bien entendu, dans la notion de 
relation il est supposé qu’elle est continue mais pas dans ce cas-ci.

Puis la Route verte tel que défini par Vélo Québec se distingue de la notion de 
relation OSM. Prenons simplement le fait qu’elle passe des Iles de la Madeleine 
à la Gaspésie. Bien entendu il n’y a pas de lien physique dans ce gap là. La 
Route verte 3 en construction est  truffée de segments non terminés.

Et souvent des contributeurs re-fusionnent des  segments de routes qui avaient 
justement été segmentés pour définir correctement la relation. L’appartenance à 
la relation est alors étendu aux segments qui n’en font pas partie.

En utilisant l’outil “Relation analyser” et son option “Analyze on map” on voit 
très bien les gaps ou erreurs dans la relation:

http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=416115

Il suffit de zoomer sur chaque gap et on trouve l’explication et souvent la 
solution saute aux yeux.

Selon moi la principale raison des erreurs dans les relations est la relative 
invisibilité des relations dans les outils. On ne nous dit pas toujours que ce 
qu’on touche impacte des relations. C’est très courant pour les relations de 
lignes de bus.

Avec “Relation Analyser” on pourrait certainement s’en sortir en moins d’une 
heure pour corriger le tout.

Claude

From: Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca 
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 6:02 PM
To: Pierre Boucher 
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Route verte besoin de corrections encore

C’est la route verte 1 alors. 




On Jul 3, 2019, at 18:00, Pierre Boucher  wrote:


  Si on parle de la totalité que couvre la relation 416115 qui va de Pembroke 
en Ontario jusqu'en Gaspésie et aux Îles de la Madeleine elle est truffée de 
segments.


"Split into several pieces
For this relation type it is required that it exists as one piece."

  http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=416115

  Pierre Boucher


  Le 2019-07-03 à 17:31, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca a écrit :

On parle bien de Route Verte 5 ? Je vois pas vraiment de trous.

On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:56, James mailto:james2...@gmail.com wrote:

Il y a des trous dans la route verte(relation # 416115) encore et a besoin 
d'être réparer de nouveau.

J'ai essayer de remplir les trous dans l'est, mais l'ouest de Montreal a 
beaucoup de trous.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


  -- 

  Pierre Boucher
  514.730.6211
  formation en navigation de plaisance
  Ste-Thérèse (Québec) Canada
  http://www.lavoile.com


--

  ...Pensez à l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce courriel !.


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


 Virus-free. www.avg.com  




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Route verte besoin de corrections encore

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

C’est la route verte 1 alors. 



> On Jul 3, 2019, at 18:00, Pierre Boucher  wrote:
> 
> Si on parle de la totalité que couvre la relation 416115 qui va de Pembroke 
> en Ontario jusqu'en Gaspésie et aux Îles de la Madeleine elle est truffée de 
> segments.
> 
> "Split into several pieces
> For this relation type it is required that it exists as one piece."
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=416115
> 
> Pierre Boucher
> 
>> Le 2019-07-03 à 17:31, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca a écrit :
>> On parle bien de Route Verte 5 ? Je vois pas vraiment de trous.
>> 
>>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:56, James  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Il y a des trous dans la route verte(relation # 416115) encore et a besoin 
>>> d'être réparer de nouveau.
>>> 
>>> J'ai essayer de remplir les trous dans l'est, mais l'ouest de Montreal a 
>>> beaucoup de trous.
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> 
> -- 
> Pierre Boucher
> 514.730.6211
> formation en navigation de plaisance
> Ste-Thérèse (Québec) Canada
> http://www.lavoile.com
> 
> ...Pensez à l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce courriel !.
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Route verte besoin de corrections encore

[Pierre Boucher]

Si on parle de la totalité que couvre la relation 416115 qui va de 
Pembroke en Ontario jusqu'en Gaspésie et aux Îles de la Madeleine elle 
est truffée de segments.


   "Split into several pieces
   For this relation type it is required that it exists as one piece."

http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=416115

Pierre Boucher

Le 2019-07-03 à 17:31, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca a écrit :

On parle bien de Route Verte 5 ? Je vois pas vraiment de trous.


On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:56, James  wrote:

Il y a des trous dans la route verte(relation # 416115) encore et a besoin 
d'être réparer de nouveau.

J'ai essayer de remplir les trous dans l'est, mais l'ouest de Montreal a 
beaucoup de trous.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


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


--

*/Pierre Boucher/*
514.730.6211
formation en navigation de plaisance
Ste-Thérèse (Québec) Canada
http://www.lavoile.com



*...Pensez à l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce courriel !.*

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Route verte besoin de corrections encore

[Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca]

On parle bien de Route Verte 5 ? Je vois pas vraiment de trous.

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:56, James  wrote:
> 
> Il y a des trous dans la route verte(relation # 416115) encore et a besoin 
> d'être réparer de nouveau.
> 
> J'ai essayer de remplir les trous dans l'est, mais l'ouest de Montreal a 
> beaucoup de trous.
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Paul Johnson]

Context is important.  If it's being controlled as a separate way (like an
angled deceleration or acceleration lane, or a flush median porkchop, or
the gore on a median bullnose), that's a good candidate for
placement=transition.

Keep in mind this gets super messy if you dont take context and intent into
account:  LAX becomes one, giant, continuous sheet of asphalt and concrete
instead of distinct runways, aprons and taxiways since all of the infields
are just part of the same paved surface painted green.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 15:11 Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes
> unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass,
> concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."
>
> In other words, paint is not a barrier. Should we create highway links
> based solely on a painted surface?
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-it] Nome linea elettrica che cambia

[demon_box]

ecco 2 foto dei 2 tralicci in questione:

 

 

--enrico



--
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-it] Nome linea elettrica che cambia

[demon_box]

ecco 2 foto dei 2 tralicci in questione:

 

 

--enrico



--
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: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 03.07.2019 22:03, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote:
I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes unless "traffic flows are 
physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between 
said flows."


Yes, I agree in general. Nearly all cases can be modelled with turn:lanes (and 
maybe change:lanes).


https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496


This case -- and the aerial image is necessary to understand it -- would be one of the few 
exceptions where I would tolerate the current mapping of a separate lane for the left turn.
Otherwise a navigation engine would not be able to create the appropriate turn instruction at the 
point where the lane forks off. A much more complicated data model would be necessary.


tom

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I would consider such mapping as linked as incorrect and delete this extra ways
on encountering  them in my normal mapping.

Is there any reason to handle this situation in other way? Maybe there are some 
physical
barriers (for example concrete blocks) installed there?


3 Jul 2019, 22:03 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes 
> unless > "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, 
> concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."
>
> In other words, paint is not a barrier. Should we create highway links based 
> solely on a painted surface?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496
>  
> 
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link 
> 
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-it] Nome linea elettrica che cambia

[demon_box]

La linea in questione è questa

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/701189758#map=14/45.5378/10.2549

che ho momentaneamente spezzato io per rinominarla Linea Sud dal traliccio
che recita così, ma non è la soluzione finale.

Non ho fatto caso quanti sono i "fili" anche se il tag che già c'era dice
cables=6

Appena ci ripasso provo ad osservare meglio il traliccio.

Info ulteriori sono ovviamente ben accette.

GRAZIE

--enrico




--
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] Ogg Camp 19th-20th September in Manchester

[Tadeusz Cantwell]

Hey,
For the past couple of years, I've gone to Ogg Camp 
which is free to attend, with an optional price of £15 to support the
running costs. Last year I gave a talk on OSM, which saw around ten to
fifteen people turn up. As I'm from Ireland I couldn't give any local
information about mapping in the U.K. So if any of you are local you can
register to give a talk on the main stage or put up a post-it note,
unconference style for a talk in one of the other rooms. Maybe if a few
turn up we can do a mapping session around the city after the talk.

Depending on the layout, i.e are there tables in the common area like last
year and turnout of mappers, we could run tutorials on the fly as people
mingle between talks,

Tadeusz Cantwell
OSM Ireland
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-it] Nome Rotatoria

[Marcello]

Il 03/07/19 13:44, claudio62PG ha scritto:
> giuro che mi astengo da ora in poi:
> Faccio notare che se il nome della rotatoria va all'anello stradale allora
> se la rotatoria non ha nome è scorretto mettere dei nomi nell'anello
> stradale.
> La situazione è complessa e non pensavo di scatenare questo vespaio.
> A complicare le cose, a Perugia, al centro della rotatoria vi sono monumenti
> che nulla hanno a che fare con il nome della rotatoria, Penso alla Rotatoria
> Giovanni Paolo secondo che ha un monumento al Grifo nel suo centro.
> Saluti
> Claudio
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html
>
>
Claudio,

non ti preoccupare, la mailing list serve proprio per chiarire i dubbi e
cercare di avere una mappa abbastanza uniforme, se non ci si parlasse
non potrebbe essere così.

-- 
Ciao
Marcello


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

[OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk]

I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."In other words, paint is not a barrier. Should we create highway links based solely on a painted surface?https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57354/-104.98496https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link

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

[Talk-it] divieto basato sulla cilindrata

[Volker Schmidt]

Su tutta la tangenziale di Padova vige un divieto di accesso per
motociclette "fino a 149cc"
(vedi https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/E7s88ZLtuZL-vUvAszN8tA)
Come si tagga?

Il tag dovrebbe essere qualcosa
come
  min_displacement:motorcyle=150
L'unica cosa simile che trovo:in taginfo è:
  motorcycle:maxdisplacement (15 volte)
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] RAINews e mancata attribuzione

[Andreas Lattmann]

E su HDBlog mi hanno dato del rompi pa**e. 

Non ho parole. 藍


--
I❤️ Software Libero.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Nome linea elettrica che cambia

[Fabrizio Tambussa]

Mi vien da chiedere: e il traliccio 1846 cosa dice?  Ma presumo sia
inaccessibile.  Di che linea o zona stiamo parlando?
I tralicci portano una sola linea o due?
Se portassero due linee,  quindi 6 conduttori, le targhette sarebbero
posizionate "sfalsate" per identificare le 2 linee. Se portano una linea
sola, potrebbe essere che hanno suddiviso la linea in 2 tronconi differenti
per motivi di manutenzione o altro.
Queste le mie supposizioni.
Saluti


Il Mer 3 Lug 2019, 17:42 demon_box  ha scritto:

> ciao, chiedo un parere a chi se ne intende di linee elettriche:
>
> come può essere che su un traliccio sulla targhetta leggo 1845 (n. del
> traliccio stesso) Linea Nord e invece sul traliccio contrassegnato 1847
> (quindi non quello successivo ma quello dopo ancora) leggo Linea Sud?
>
> come è spiegabile questo cambio di nome della linea elettrica nel raggio di
> 3 tralicci?
>
> grazie
>
> --enrico
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Bromsgrove meetup Pub

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

Ewe & Lamb Stoke Heath for 8pm (south Bromsgrove)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/443974668#map=18/52.31191/-2.07669

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[Andrea Musuruane]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:02 PM demon_box  wrote:

> nella didascalia della seconda foto viene chiamato "Monumento a Arnaldo da
> Brescia"..
> quindi forse può essere historic=monument anche se è alto "soltanto" 20/30
> metri, che dici?
>

Il fatto che una cosa sia chiamata "Monumento" in italiano non implica
alcun tagging.

Così come un "bar" non implica amenity=bar ma amenity=cafe.

Ciao,

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tipo di relazione per raggruppare piccoli laghi

[Andrea Albani]

Il giorno mer 3 lug 2019 alle ore 17:35 Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 3. Jul 2019, at 11:51, Andrea Albani  wrote:
>
> Questo è un esempio di come ho usato il multipolygon per un caso simile:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5641947
>
>
>
> per me la semantica di questo è un unico laghetto “sparso” (non esiste
> probabilmente) con il nome Laghi ...
> I multipoligoni definiscono oggetti unici, in questo caso potrebbe essere
> qualcosa come water=group_of_lakes
>
>
Ok, il name lo mettiamo come tag della relazione, ma non capisco secondo
quale logica gli altri tag che sono a "fattor comune" dei 3 elementi,
esattamente come il tag name, debbano stare sulle singole closed way.

Aggiungo che per i multipolygon, come si può vedere dalla sezione tags di
[1], è previsto l'uso dei più diffusi tag, natural=water compreso, e che
nell'esempio [2] è contemplato il caso di multipli outer disgiunti con tag
primari associati alla relazione.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
[2]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples#Three_separated_farmland_.28Disjunct_outer_rings.29
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-ca] Route verte besoin de corrections encore

[James]

Il y a des trous dans la route verte(relation # 416115) encore et a besoin
d'être réparer de nouveau.

J'ai essayer de remplir les trous dans l'est, mais l'ouest de Montreal a
beaucoup de trous.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-it] Nome linea elettrica che cambia

[demon_box]

ciao, chiedo un parere a chi se ne intende di linee elettriche:

come può essere che su un traliccio sulla targhetta leggo 1845 (n. del
traliccio stesso) Linea Nord e invece sul traliccio contrassegnato 1847
(quindi non quello successivo ma quello dopo ancora) leggo Linea Sud?

come è spiegabile questo cambio di nome della linea elettrica nel raggio di
3 tralicci?

grazie

--enrico




--
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: [OSM-talk-fr] Données routières ouvertes en France

[marc marc]

Bonjour Julien :)

pour le cadastre, une partie des communes est en vectoriel,
une partie non.
historique un tag source sur l'objet vu son age
a plus de "chance" de te renseigner du non vectoriel.

Pour le nom des routes, il y a aussi fantoir (mais pas de caract)
cela sert de "base" pour la comparaison osm<>officiel
un peu comme l'outil équivalent pour la Flandre.

Cordialement,
Marc

Le 03.07.19 à 17:33, Julien Minet a écrit :
>   * tout type de route carrossables, de la "residential/unclassified" 
> à la "motorway"
>   * la géométrie des routes
>   * des attributs comme le nom, et si possible le "ref", "lanes",
> "width", voire d'autres infos.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tipo di relazione per raggruppare piccoli laghi

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Jul 2019, at 11:51, Andrea Albani  wrote:
> 
> Questo è un esempio di come ho usato il multipolygon per un caso simile:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5641947


per me la semantica di questo è un unico laghetto “sparso” (non esiste 
probabilmente) con il nome Laghi ...
I multipoligoni definiscono oggetti unici, in questo caso potrebbe essere 
qualcosa come water=group_of_lakes


con il gruppo faresti così:
type=group
name=*

questo è il minimo.

il fatto che si tratta di un gruppo di laghi si deriva dai membri e loro 
porterebbe i tag:
natural=water
water=pond


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

[OSM-talk-fr] Données routières ouvertes en France

[Julien Minet]

Bonjour,

Je travaille à Champs-Libres.coop en Belgique où nous développons des 
applications avec les données OSM.


Pour un de nos projets, on cherche des données de réseaux routiers en 
Belgique et en France. Par données de réseau routier, j'entends:


 * tout type de route carrossables, de la "residential/unclassified" à
   la "motorway"
 * la géométrie des routes
 * des attributs comme le nom, et si possible le "ref", "lanes",
   "width", voire d'autres infos.

Bien sûr OSM est une bonne option que nous espérons proposer au client, 
mais j'aimerai prospecter les sources officielles de données existantes 
en France (et éventuellement comparer les 2). Après quelques recherches, 
je vois que les données de l'IGN (BD Carto et BD Topo) ne sont pas 
libres mais disponibles après paiement. Il y a bien Route 500 
 dispo gratuitement 
mais cela ne concerne que les "grandes" routes.


Or il se trouve que sur certaines routes en France dans OSM, j'ai trouvé 
plusieurs fois cette source : "cadastre-dgi-fr source : Direction 
Générale des Impôts - Cadastre. Mise à jour : 20XX".


Je me suis donc renseigné sur l'import du cadastre en lisant les pages 
du wiki 
 
mais je n'ai pas trouvé qu'elle était la source originelle qui a servi à 
cet import. D'où ma question: est-ce que les données cadastrales des 
voiries en France sont disponibles *en vectoriel*? Ou bien est-ce que 
ces données ont été digitalisées à partir d'un WMS?


Plus largement, connaissez-vous des données ouvertes de voiries en 
France disponibles?



Happy mapping,

Julien Minet aka juminet

--
Julien Minet
Champs-Libres.coop
+32 496 24 17 60

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

Re: [talk-cz] Drobnosti na osmap.cz

[Petr Vozdecký]

ahoj,

hlasim poznatky po upravach ikon vrstvy fotek Fody:

- když je rozcestník "pěší" + "cyklo" + "lyžařský", tak se zobrazí vždy
ikonka pěší+lyžařský. Návrh: protože asi již složitějšáí kombinace v praxi
neexistuje (leda ještě + vozíčkářská trasa?), tak tomu věnovat speciální
ikonu, např. horní šipku udělat z části oranžovou a z části žlutou (pokud
bude očima patrný rozdíl)

- ještě prosím o speciální ikony pro chybějící information=board a
information=map - pak se bude dát (konečně!) opravdu jednoduše najít, co kde
chybí vyfocené!

- vyšší dívčí by byla u vrstvy OsmHiCheck možnost zapínat subvrstvy
(chybějící rozcestníky zvlášť od mapy a boardů)




Předem díky všem realizátorům ! :)




vop




-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Tom Ka 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 3. 7. 2019 9:23:21
Předmět: [talk-cz] Drobnosti na osmap.cz
"Ahoj,

par drobnosti na webu osmap.cz:

- nasazeny posledni ikony pro vrstvy fotek (lyzarske a neznamy rozcestnik)
- zakazany vrstvy el. vedeni a telko vysilace z OpenInfraMap (presli
na pouze vektorove dlazdice)
- uprava nazvy vrstev s fotkami a chybami - predesle uz nijak
neodpovidaly skutecnosti
(https://github.com/osmcz/osmcz/commit/31a31089a802f48e4f271b198979228770c
10183)

vse na: https://github.com/osmcz/osmcz/commits/production

Konec hlaseni
tom.k

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

Re: [Talk-it] Nome Rotatoria

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 2. Juli 2019 um 17:06 Uhr schrieb Andrea Musuruane <
musur...@gmail.com>:

> C'è scritto quanto segue:
>
> *Only if the roundabout itself has a name, the name
> =*
>  key is applied (such as
> John's Junction). It should not use the name of a road it connects. *
>
> *If the roundabout does not have an individual name, the name
> =*
>  tag is not used. *
> E mi sembra che non ci sia nulla da aggiungere.
>
>


potrebbe essere dato lo stesso nome alla rotatoria ed a due delle strade

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

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 3. Juli 2019 um 12:07 Uhr schrieb Andrea Musuruane <
musur...@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM demon_box  wrote:
>
>> Andrea Musuruane wrote
>> > Ciao,
>> >  historic=monument non va bene:
>>
>> ciao ripensandoci non sono d'accordo che historic=monument sia soltanto un
>> edificio nel quale si può entrare...
>>
>
> Sulla wiki non c'è scritto quello (né ho detto ciò).
>
> C'è scritto:
> *If it commemorates something/somebody and one can't tell it's
> "monumental" in size* then it shouldn't be tagged as a monument but as a
> historic =memorial
> .
>


la definizione è questa: "A memorial object, which *is especially large
(one can go inside, walk on or through it) or high enough* (see the examples
),
built to remember, show respect to a person or group of people or to
commemorate an event.
Monuments  are often built in
homage to past or present political/military leaders or religious
figures/deities."


quindi si, non è richiesto che deve per forza essere accessibile, potrebbe
anche essere molto alto.

ci sono parrecchi esempi poi:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument#Examples


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

Re: [Talk-bd] [Talk-asia] Updates on SoTM Asia 2019 preparation

[Fazle Rabbi]

Hi,

The first draft of the website was pushed to GitHub repository and waiting
to be reviewed and merged. A live preview of the site can be found in the
forked repository of user nr072. If the site could was deployed live we
could proceed with the call for proposal and scholarship. The social media
activation would get some boost with the published website as well.

Thanks

Fazle Rabbi
Bangladesh Open Innovation Lab

[image: Mailtrack]

Sender
notified by
Mailtrack

07/03/19,
06:44:31 PM

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:09 AM Jinal Foflia  wrote:

> Hello Tasauf and team,
>
> Was wondering if there were any updates from the conference? Let us know
> if we can be of any help on this front. Looking forward to the conference.
>
> Cheers,
> Jinal Foflia
>
> On Tue, 21 May, 2019, 3:14 PM Jinal Foflia,  wrote:
>
>> Hello Tasauf and team,
>>
>> Thank you for the updates. Really excited for the conference this year.
>> Have already shared the comms and social media credentials with you. Let me
>> know if I can be of any help while you are getting started on it. It'll be
>> awesome to see a tweet/blog post sharing the tentative dates of the
>> conference as there are so many who are interested in attending the
>> conference and have to plan ahead if they are not dependent on the
>> scholarships.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jinal Foflia
>> [image: Twitter]   [image: LinkedIn]
>>   [image: Github]
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:19 PM Nama Budhathoki 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tasauf and All,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>
>>> Two quick questions I suggest that we begin to work as early as possible:
>>>
>>> 1. How can we identify and bring people who are doing great work in Asia
>>> in order to listen their stories? This will help to enhance the quality of
>>> the conference.
>>>
>>> 2. Many of those people do not have funding to attend the conference.
>>> This brings us to another question: How can we raise funding? Do you have
>>> estimates?
>>>
>>> I suggest that we begin regular meeting from June. It is important to
>>> engage others and stimulate them so that they begin to bring
>>> ideas/suggestions for making it an exemplary conference.
>>>
>>> Best, Nama
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:55 AM Erwin Olario  wrote:
>>>
 It's lovely to hear from you, and your community, Tasauf - and thank
 you for all the hard work you've been doing.  For sure, everyone is looking
 forward to hear the final details about sotmAsia 2019.

 /erwin

 *Erwin Olario*
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 » email: erwin@ *n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
  | gov...@gmail.com
 » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
 D56B


 On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:01 PM Tasauf A Baki Billah <
 tasauf1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Hope you are having some great times with all the activities going
> through both global & regional OSM communities.
>
> We do know you all are super excited for the upcoming SotM Asia 2019
> event in Dhaka by OpenStreetMap Bangladesh Community focusing the upcoming
> SotM Asia 2019 at Dhaka. Though being bit late in communication from our
> side we promise you an exciting event coming up. Sharing a bit update on
> our preparations & plans finalized from our side till now:
>
>
>1.
>
>Date: We are aiming on having the event on 1st & 2nd November 2019.
>2.
>
>Venue: We are already in contact with couple more possible venues
>other than the proposed one (Dhaka College), considering the traffic
>condition, more easier accessibility & more government level inclusion.
>Will have that finalized by end of this month.
>3.
>
>Website & Social media presence: Website is almost ready and
>hoping to push live by next week (20th to be precise). Social media
>contents will start appearing with pre-event stories & upcoming events 
> &
>meetups details.
>4.
>
>Logo Contest: Logo Contest will be pushed by next week.
>5.
>
>Call for presentations: Call for presentation is due by 30th May
>and will be pushed live.
>6.
>
>Sponsorships: Already shortlist of local sponsors being drafted &
>started reaching out with first phase of communication. Will need help 
> &
>guidance from your side for the international & regular sponsors.
>7.
>
>Visa & travel support: Already communication has been channeled to
>local agencies & selection is finalized.

Re: [OSM-ja] JA:Available Data の改訂

[Zoar.]

ぞあです｡

muramotoさんご確認ありがとうございます。


共通してマッピングされる対象に対しての公平性について指摘をいただいていてたと承知しました。



法的な側面から言うと、そもそも事実情報は著作物ではないので、利用規約で禁止していようが利用可能です。あくまでも法的には。


この条件を組み込んでいたのは法的な側面を考慮しなかったわけではありませんが、先方が明文にしてまで守ってもらいたいと書いていることに反して情報を取得するのは正しい行為かどうかという面であった方が良いという判断をしました。


不公平がないようにという考え方について理解できます｡


On 2019/06/29 11:45, tomoya muramoto wrote:

ぞあ様

ご回答ありがとうございます。




所有者や運営者による(一次データソース)並べ方に特別な創作性が無い事実情報であって、利用規約等で禁止されていないウェブサイトに掲載されており、データベース権を侵害しえない事項という条件への一致を持って等価と判断しています｡

(1)「事実情報である」
(2)「利用規約等で禁止されていない」
(3)「データベース権を侵害しない」
(4)「一次ソースである」
これらの4点を満たしていればOSMに投入可能である、とのご意見であると理解いたしました。

法的な側面から言うと、そもそも事実情報は著作物ではないので、利用規約で禁止していようが利用可能です。あくまでも法的には。そして「(著作物である)ウェブサイトの利用」という観点で見れば、利用規約を定めていなくても利用はできません。大企業のウェブサイトであれば多くの場合利用規約が定められていて利用禁止が謳われているのでOSMには利用不可であるが、小さな店舗の場合は利用規約まで定めていないのでOSMに利用可能である、というのは不公平であるように思います。

データベース権の侵害については、たとえば私がローソンの一店舗だけ公式ウェブサイト情報を転記したとしてもデータベース権の侵害にはなりません。非常に多くのフランチャイズ店のうちごく一部だけをつかっても「データベース権の侵害」ではありません。逆に、数店舗しかない小企業の公式ウェブサイト情報を転記した場合、データベース権の侵害にあたるおそれがあります。小企業が有するデータの多くを使ってしまうためです。こういったことを考えても、上記と同様に不公平になるおそれがあります。


挙げていただいた条件だけならマッピングが可能だと思いますが､現実的には不可能だと判断しました｡


「マッピングしてもよいが、現実的にはできない」と「マッピングしてよい」というのは区別すべきだと考えます。
あまの様への返信でも言及しましたが、きっと近い将来にはNominatimが日本の住所体系に対応して、住所を入れれば高い精度で座標に変換されるようになると思います。そうすると、ローソンリモートマッピングが可能となってしまいます。
今回議論しているのはライセンスに関わるガイドラインであり、技術の進展によって左右されないガイドラインを定めるべきではないでしょうか？少なくとも安全側に定めるべきであると思います。
また、現時点においても、イオンモールのような大型地物であれば、およその場所がわかれば特定は容易です。小型地物はダメで大型地物ならよい、という運用になりかねないのもまずいと思います。

muramoto


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



--
Twitter : @ex_zoar
OSM: http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?k_zoar

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

Re: [OSM-ja] JA:Available Data の改訂

[Zoar.]

ぞあです｡


書いてみました。
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Available_Data

ありがとうございます!

On 2019/07/01 22:38, 石野貴之 wrote:

石野です。

2019年6月29日(土) 11:42 Zoar. :


ぞあです｡


一旦この場での議論は中断して、talkかlegal-talkで意見を求めてみようかと考えています。よろしいでしょうか？


この提案に賛成します｡



私も賛成します。ただ、legal-talkは現在過疎状態(2019年6月の投稿なし)なので、talkとlegal-talkへのクロスポストとすることを提案します。可能ならばtalk-jaともクロスポストして、海外のMLを購読していない方にも議論の進行が分かりやすくするようにすると嬉しいです。



追加となってしまいますが､JA:Available Dataのウェブサイトの項目のどこかに議論中である旨の記載を追加してはいかがでしょうか｡



書いてみました。
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Available_Data

石野 貴之
yumean1...@gmail.com


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



--
Twitter : @ex_zoar
OSM: http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?k_zoar

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

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[demon_box]

Andrea Musuruane wrote
> La prospettiva forse inganna, ma non mi sembrano alti come la Statua della
> Libertà.

sì te lo confermo entrambi NON sono alti come la Statua della Libertà, ma
curiosamente se tu leggi la pagina wikipedia di Arnaldo da Brescia

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaldo_da_Brescia

nella didascalia della seconda foto viene chiamato "Monumento a Arnaldo da
Brescia"..
quindi forse può essere historic=monument anche se è alto "soltanto" 20/30
metri, che dici?

--enrico





--
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-it] Nome Rotatoria

[claudio62PG]

giuro che mi astengo da ora in poi:
Faccio notare che se il nome della rotatoria va all'anello stradale allora
se la rotatoria non ha nome è scorretto mettere dei nomi nell'anello
stradale.
La situazione è complessa e non pensavo di scatenare questo vespaio.
A complicare le cose, a Perugia, al centro della rotatoria vi sono monumenti
che nulla hanno a che fare con il nome della rotatoria, Penso alla Rotatoria
Giovanni Paolo secondo che ha un monumento al Grifo nel suo centro.
Saluti
Claudio



--
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-it] Nome Rotatoria

[Volker Schmidt]

Ripeto:

prima di scrivere qualcosa sul wiki o fare modifiche a quello che c'è già
nel data base vorrei vedere chiaro sugli regolamenti. Non basta che
crediamo che in Veneto non ci sono nomi perché a Padova non ci sono.
Le rotatorie sono cosi numerose, che qualsia lavoro fatto su di essi
dovrebbe essere fatto dopo aver capito gli regolamenti esistenti (o meno).
Vorrei solo fermare lavoro inutile e dannoso per il momento ed invitare
tutti alla calma. Non c'è fretta.


On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 12:35, Paolo Monegato 
wrote:

> Il 02/07/2019 08:51, Volker Schmidt ha scritto:
>
> Invece a Padova, mi sembra è diverso. Mi sto informando, ma, secondo la  mappa
> online  pubblicata
> dal comune, sembra che sono spezzate, con l'effetto che una rotatoria è
> composto da pezzi di strada con nomi diversi. Non so ancora, se questo
> riflette la situazione legale. Di sicuro  non ci sono cartelli con nomi
> delle rotatorie.
>
> Molto semplicemente, imho, le rotatorie in questo caso non hanno un nome e
> sarei per non mettere nulla (ovvero non spezzare in settori e dare il nome
> della via entrante).
>
> Tra l'altro non ho mai visto in Veneto rotatorie con il nome... mentre ne
> ho vista qualcuna con il ref (soprattutto nel veneto orientale). Quindi
> credo che la situazione patavina si possa estendere al resto della regione.
>
> ciao
> Paolo M
> ___
> 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] Nome Rotatoria

[Paolo Monegato]

Il 02/07/2019 08:51, Volker Schmidt ha scritto:
Invece a Padova, mi sembra è diverso. Mi sto informando, ma, secondo 
la mappa online 
 pubblicata dal 
comune, sembra che sono spezzate, con l'effetto che una rotatoria è 
composto da pezzi di strada con nomi diversi. Non so ancora, se questo 
riflette la situazione legale. Di sicuro  non ci sono cartelli con 
nomi delle rotatorie.


Molto semplicemente, imho, le rotatorie in questo caso non hanno un nome 
e sarei per non mettere nulla (ovvero non spezzare in settori e dare il 
nome della via entrante).


Tra l'altro non ho mai visto in Veneto rotatorie con il nome... mentre 
ne ho vista qualcuna con il ref (soprattutto nel veneto orientale). 
Quindi credo che la situazione patavina si possa estendere al resto 
della regione.


ciao
Paolo M

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

Re: [talk-cz] Drobnosti na osmap.cz

[Michal Poupa]

Dobrý den,
vrstva Wikimedia Map má tedy nějaká podivná čísla slinic které lezou z
chlívku a neresepketuje třídy silnic všechno je to stejné...

 Michal

st 3. 7. 2019 v 9:18 odesílatel Tom Ka  napsal:
>
> Ahoj,
>
> par drobnosti na webu osmap.cz:
>
> - nasazeny posledni ikony pro vrstvy fotek (lyzarske a neznamy rozcestnik)
> - zakazany vrstvy el. vedeni a telko vysilace z OpenInfraMap (presli
> na pouze vektorove dlazdice)
> - uprava nazvy vrstev s fotkami a chybami - predesle uz nijak
> neodpovidaly skutecnosti
>   (
https://github.com/osmcz/osmcz/commit/31a31089a802f48e4f271b198979228770c10183
)
>
> vse na: https://github.com/osmcz/osmcz/commits/production
>
> Konec hlaseni
> tom.k
>
> ___
> talk-cz mailing list
> talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
___
talk-cz mailing list
talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[Andrea Musuruane]

La prospettiva forse inganna, ma non mi sembrano alti come la Statua della
Libertà.

Ciao,

Andrea


On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:19 PM demon_box  wrote:

> e questi altri 2 casi:
>
> <
> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/file/t343727/Monumento_a_garibaldi1_brescia_by_stefano_Bolognini.jpg>
>
>
> <
> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/file/t343727/p191ic8q3q96plgdg1j142gdsn5.jpg>
>
>
> Garibaldi a cavallo e Arnaldo da Brescia, secondo me vista l'altezza dei
> manufatti, historic=monument ci può stare in questo caso, che dite?
>
> --enrico
>
>
>
> --
> 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-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[Andrea Musuruane]

Ciao,

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:13 PM demon_box  wrote:

> Andrea Musuruane wrote
> > Sulla wiki non c'è scritto quello (né ho detto ciò).
> > (...)
>
> ok, scusami allora ho capito male io, ma alla fine questo Niccolò Tartaglia
> tu come lo taggeresti?
>

Scartato monument (hint: controllare cosa c'è nella vostra zona con
CheckTheMonuments: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html),
rimane solo:

historic=memorial + memorial=statue

Ciao,

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

Re: [Talk-it] Flame su old_name

[Paolo Monegato]

Il 01/07/2019 20:38, solitone via Talk-it ha scritto:

No, secondo me si deve mantenere:
name=Sauze d’Oulx
old_name=Salice d’Ulzio

perché Salice d’Ulzio era il vecchio nome imposto in epoca fascista. Non 
importa se ancora qualcuno utilizza, erroneamente, quel vecchio nome. Non è un 
nome alternativo, è un nome che non esiste più e non andrebbe più utilizzato.


In giro per il paese ci sono nomi imposti all'epoca che sono tuttora 
nomi ufficiali...


Comunque, imho, se il toponimo è ancora in uso può andare anche in 
"alt_name"



Sulla questione del suffisso *:it non so se serva specificare anche name:it e 
old_name:it, duplicando i valori di name e old_name che, comunque, ritengo 
vadano mantenuti.


Imho su "old_name" e "alt_name" va sempre specificata la lingua. 
Soprattutto in zone dove si usano diversi idiomi.


ciao
Paolo M

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

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[demon_box]

e questi altri 2 casi:


 

 

Garibaldi a cavallo e Arnaldo da Brescia, secondo me vista l'altezza dei
manufatti, historic=monument ci può stare in questo caso, che dite?

--enrico



--
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-it] Monumento o statua

[demon_box]

Andrea Musuruane wrote
> Sulla wiki non c'è scritto quello (né ho detto ciò).
> (...)

ok, scusami allora ho capito male io, ma alla fine questo Niccolò Tartaglia
tu come lo taggeresti?

grazie ancora

ciao

--enrico





--
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-it] Flame su old_name

[Paolo Monegato]

Il 29/06/2019 22:32, Ivo Reano ha scritto:


è anche vero che c'è il problema che il nome ufficiale attuale è un
altro, e quindi "name:it" dovrebbe essere "Sauze d'Oulx" (anche se
non è
in lingua italiana essendo nome ufficiale si può dire che il
"name:it" è
quello no?)...


In casi come questi è ovvio che si usa il nome ufficiale. Sopratutto 
riferendosi ad unità amministrative.
Pensa un po se invece di "Torino" mettessi sulla mappa "Türin" perchè 
è il modo in cui ci si riferisce normalmente in tutto il Piemonte (ed 
anche in francese e  pure in inglese!)



Forse non mi sono spiegato bene.

Ovviamente "name=Sauze d'Oulx". Ma cosa mettere su "name:it=" ?

Essendo il nome ufficiale "Sauze d'Oulx" possiamo dire che è anche il 
"name:it"?


Oppure dato che è un toponimo in altra lingua non può essere messo in 
"name:it"?


Meglio:

name=Sauze d'Oulx
name:it=Sauze d'Oulx
name:oc=Sauze d'Oulx
alt_name:it=Salice d'Ulzio

o meglio:

name=Sauze d'Oulx
name:oc=Sauze d'Oulx
name:it=Salice d'Ulzio


ciao
Paolo M

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

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[Andrea Musuruane]

Ciao,

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM demon_box  wrote:

> Andrea Musuruane wrote
> > Ciao,
> >  historic=monument non va bene:
>
> ciao ripensandoci non sono d'accordo che historic=monument sia soltanto un
> edificio nel quale si può entrare...
>

Sulla wiki non c'è scritto quello (né ho detto ciò).

C'è scritto:
*If it commemorates something/somebody and one can't tell it's "monumental"
in size* then it shouldn't be tagged as a monument but as a historic
=memorial
.

Monumental=very big.


> tempo fà su questa lista si diceva che semplicemente se "l'opera" in
> questione è più grande di una persona, è perciò "monumentale" e tale tag
> merita.
>

Monumental implica che sia enorme. Quindi molto più grande di una persona.
Guarda gli esempi sulla wiki.


> inoltre nel wiki stesso se tu guardi le foto di esempio a corredo di
> historic=monument vengono riportate anche statue o sculture di dimensioni
> appunto monumentali...
>

Nella wiki ci sono statue di almeno 30 metri (!!!) in altezza.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument#Examples

Non mi sembra il tuo caso.

Ciao,

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tipo di relazione per raggruppare piccoli laghi

[Andrea Albani]

Il giorno mer 3 lug 2019 alle ore 11:03 Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

>
> per utilizzare un multipolygono ci dovrebbe essere un tag che descrive un
> “gruppo di laghi”, e tutti i membri devono essere poligoni, con il type
> group non ci deve essere un tag per l‘insieme (perché implicito) e si
> possono gruppare anche nodi e ways aperti.
>
>
Ciao Martin,

non colgo quale sia il beneficio di avere una relazione che raggruppa
logicamente degli elementi, ma non li descrive... almeno non nel caso
descritto in cui parliamo di membri fatti di soli poligoni.
Una relazione serve anche ad evitare di "disperdere" tag uguali sui singoli
membri, mentre qui si tratta, immagino, di duplicare lo stesso insieme di
tag per ogni laghetto.

Questo è un esempio di come ho usato il multipolygon per un caso simile:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5641947

Il fatto che questa relazione sia riferita ad un "gruppo di laghi" mi
sembra ben esplicitato dalla presenza di natural=water e water=pond.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[demon_box]

Andrea Musuruane wrote
> Ciao,
>  historic=monument non va bene:

ciao ripensandoci non sono d'accordo che historic=monument sia soltanto un
edificio nel quale si può entrare...
tempo fà su questa lista si diceva che semplicemente se "l'opera" in
questione è più grande di una persona, è perciò "monumentale" e tale tag
merita.
inoltre nel wiki stesso se tu guardi le foto di esempio a corredo di
historic=monument vengono riportate anche statue o sculture di dimensioni
appunto monumentali...

credo che alla fine farò così:

historic=monument + name=Monumento a Niccolò Tartaglia

che dite?

grazie

--enrico





--
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-lv] Rescuing tree import in Valmiera made by Pēteris Brūns

[Peteris Bruns]

Hi,

mainly all I can explain was done already answering to Michael at this
thread
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57269387#map=14/57.5362/25.4167

In general, I'm now not ready to check all steps required by import
procedure. Feel free to delete/revert changesets.

Data used in import are available here
http://gisnet.lv/~kartes/OSM/valmiera2018/ for anyone ready to go with
complete import process and ready to clarify legal aspects.
WMS service based on data is here http://gisnet.lv/cgi-bin/osm_vektori

Best regards,


On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 11:38, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> (sorry for English)
>
> Is somebody interested in rescuing tree import in Valmiera made by Pēteris
> Brūns?
>
> See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pēteris Brūns/history
>
> There are following problems
>
> - apparently this import was never discussed
> - copyright of data added is unknown
> - data quality was not verified before import and there are complaints
> about data quality
> - misuses tags (leaf_type=evergreen)
>
> Is somebody interested in
> - verifying and documenting license
> - checking whatever data quality is acceptable
> - checking with community whatever keeping this imported data is acceptable
> - verifying with https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
> whatever what was done is enough to
> keep this imported data
> - document this import as required at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Step_4_-_Documentation
> - mentioning what was done in changesets to explain situation to others
>
> I notified also author, but given that this account was used solely for
> the import I am not
> expecting a reply.
> ___
> Talk-lv mailing list
> Talk-lv@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lv
>


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Attribut ref sur les ronds point : la question de Montpellier

[osm . sanspourriel]

Les versions anglaise et française sont non seulement différentes mais
explicitement contradictoires :


   /Ref Tagging/

//
/Roundabout with ref tagging consistent with connecting roads/

/For roundabouts that have ways either continuing through, or ending at
the roundabout, //ref
=*//and //int_ref
=*//tags from those
ways should be added to that roundabout. This allows routing to navigate
through the roundabout more fluidly.
/

et /
/

 * /Le tag //ref
   =*//n'a pas de sens
   sur un carrefour. Les références désignent les routes et non les
   carrefours, même si une route est coupée par un carrefour giratoire,
   il ne faut pas reporter la référence de cette route sur ce chemin./

La version française date de 2011 pour cette partie./
/

Avant le 9 avril 2019, la page anglaise ne mentionnait pas de ref.

Les modifs correspondantes datent du 9 au 25 avril./
/

En conclusion je donnerais raison à la personne de Montpellier. Et en
conséquence entrerais un ticket dans Osmose pour éviter ce signalement.

À mon avis on peut virer tout test de ref sur les rond-points car si
jamais une route principale commence sur un rond-point, le rond-point
peut avoir pour référence celle de la route.

Jean-Yvon

Le 03/07/2019 à 07:45, marc marc - marc_marc_...@hotmail.com a écrit :

Bonjour,

Le 03.07.19 à 00:13, François Lacombe a écrit :

Je vous relaye cette interrogation, postée à bon escient sur le wiki,
par la métropole de Montpellier
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR_talk:Tag:junction%3Droundabout

je comprend la règle comment étant : "un carrefour est un élément
ponctuel et on ne met pas la ref de la route sur tous les noeuds
de la route"
par extension, on fait pareil avec un "gros carrefour" style ronds-point.
je saisis pas trop l'argument du guidage gps.
on est perdu si le guidage dit "prenez la 1er sortie du rond-point"
au lieu de "prenez la 1ère sortir du rond-point ref 123 ?"
faudrait par contre aller voir pq c'est pas pareil en fr et anglais.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tipo di relazione per raggruppare piccoli laghi

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Jul 2019, at 10:57, Marco  wrote:
> 
> Ciao Andrea, in effetti anche nella wiki sembra essere elencata questa 
> evenienza
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Two_disjunct_outer_rings
> 
> A questo punto sono un po' confuso
> 


per utilizzare un multipolygono ci dovrebbe essere un tag che descrive un 
“gruppo di laghi”, e tutti i membri devono essere poligoni, con il type group 
non ci deve essere un tag per l‘insieme (perché implicito) e si possono 
gruppare anche nodi e ways aperti.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Jul 2019, at 09:30, demon_box  wrote:
> 
> la composizione è più alta di una persona.
> 
> historic=monument + name=Niccolò Tartaglia  ?
> 
> historic=memorial + memorial=statue + name=Niccolò Tartaglia  ?


il tag “name” si riferisce al nome dell’oggetto, quindi per me sarebbe più 
preciso qualcosa come “monumento a Niccolò Tartaglia”
tra monument e memorial il criterio mi sembra che un monument deve essere 
accessibile (si può entrare).

Per “N. Tartaglia” si potrebbe pensare anche al tag subject
e i subtags:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=subject

subject:wikidata è il più usato, poi artwork_subject e ci starebbe anche 
memorial:subject 

io userei probabilmente wikidata subject e solo subject.

tourism=artwork e relative subtags potrebbero essere aggiunti.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tipo di relazione per raggruppare piccoli laghi

[Marco]

Ciao Andrea, in effetti anche nella wiki sembra essere elencata questa 
evenienza


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Two_disjunct_outer_rings

A questo punto sono un po' confuso

Il 02/07/2019 17:09, Andrea Albani ha scritto:

Ma non bastava un type=multipolygon con le way member marcate come outer ?

Il giorno mar 2 lug 2019 alle ore 15:58 Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:


c'è type=group che sembra perfetto per il tuo caso:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Group_Relation


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar Panels Q3 Project taster

[Brian Prangle]

Anther good source might be Aldi stores and distribution centres - see this
(old) news release from 2017
https://www.edie.net/news/6/Aldi-to-install-96-000-solar-panels-across-UK-stores-this-year/

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 23:07, SK53  wrote:

> I have set up a very small project  to map
> Solar panels in the Yorkshire colliery village of Rossington using the
> Swiss OSM instance of Tasking Manager. There are still 4 LSOAs which
> haven't been worked on yet: solar panel density is high & imagery good so
> this is a 'target-rich environment'.
>
> I plan to produce another similar task with around 50 LSOAs with a large
> number (50 or more) of solar panels for tomorrow. I hope to provide a
> reasonable spread across the country but all LSOAs will be urban. Also I'll
> expand on a couple of points in the instructions regarding search strategy
> & false positives.
>
> Depending on how useful people find these as a way of directing their
> mapping I hope to produce additional TM projects over the course of the
> quarter.
>
> Happy mapping,
>
> Jerry
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Polygon Coverage of Cornwall

[Rosenfeld, Emma]

Hi Jerry,

Thanks very much for your reply. I will look into your suggestions.

I have been drawing polygons around my areas of interest (residential, 
industrial, commercial etc) in a GIS and I will look into adding these to OSM 
in time

Emma


From: SK53 
Sent: 01 July 2019 16:49
To: Rosenfeld, Emma
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Polygon Coverage of Cornwall

Hi Emma,

A quick look suggests lots of landuse//landcover has not been mapped in 
Cornwall, which is fairly typical of OpenStreetMap in general.

Given that you are using OpenMapTiles adding additional features to OSM is 
probably the quickest way to get things which you are interested in available 
in the tiles. This may not be too arduous if you are able to assume that blank 
areas default to farmland.

If you use OSM data direct (e.g., from Geofabrik and loaded it into PostGIS 
with osm2pgsql) or via geojson output from Overpass-Turbo and pull it into a 
GIS package you could infill the gaps with something like CORINE data. 
Obviously this is a long way from usable vector tiles, but probably gives you 
decent complete coverage more quickly. There are some helpful tabulations of 
how CORINE 

 and Urban 
Atlas
 data codes correspond to OSM tags on the wiki. I may also have additional 
residential/urban area polygons calculated from OSM which cover areas where 
there are no landuse=residential polygons.

HTH,

Jerry



On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 16:02, Rosenfeld, Emma 
mailto:e.rosenf...@exeter.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hello all

I'm using OpenMapTiles for some mapping work in Cornwall and the information 
that they are providing is really great. I have downloaded the landuse and land 
cover layers but there are gaps in coverage. Does this mean that the polygons 
need creating or are there polygons in existence somewhere that need 
classifying?

Many thanks

Emma


Dr Emma Rosenfeld
Research Technician
Environment & Sustainability Institute
University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9FE, 
UK

Working hours: Mon, Wed, Thurs


___
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-lv] Rescuing tree import in Valmiera made by Pēteris Brūns

[Mateusz Konieczny]

(sorry for English)

Is somebody interested in rescuing tree import in Valmiera made by Pēteris 
Brūns?

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pēteris 
 Brūns/history

There are following problems

- apparently this import was never discussed
- copyright of data added is unknown
- data quality was not verified before import and there are complaints about 
data quality
- misuses tags (leaf_type=evergreen)

Is somebody interested in
- verifying and documenting license
- checking whatever data quality is acceptable
- checking with community whatever keeping this imported data is acceptable
- verifying with https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports 
 whatever what was done is 
enough to
keep this imported data
- document this import as required at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Step_4_-_Documentation 

- mentioning what was done in changesets to explain situation to others

I notified also author, but given that this account was used solely for the 
import I am not
expecting a reply.
___
Talk-lv mailing list
Talk-lv@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lv

Re: [talk-cz] Drobnosti na osmap.cz

[majkaz]

Hlavně pro Toma jeden drobný dotaz k fotkám rozcestníků a jejich tagování:
 
Mám brát rozcestník jako celek (tedy v podstatě součet všech cedulí) nebo 
označovat každou fotku samostatně podle toho, co na ní vidím?
Konkrétně: Pokud je na rozcestníku značení turistické, cyklo + lyžařské, mám 
všechny fotky označit takhle, nebo podle toho, co je na konkrétní fotce? V 
důsledku by tedy byla jedna fotka např. pěší + lyže, druhá jen cyklo atd. Zatím 
volím ten druhý způsob, ale není mi jasné, čemu se dává přednost.

Majka

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

Re: [Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[demon_box]

Andrea Musuruane wrote
> Ciao,
>  historic=monument non va bene:

ciao, quindi consigli questa soluzione?

historic=memorial + memorial=statue + name=Niccolò Tartaglia

--enrico




--
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-it] Monumento o statua

[Andrea Musuruane]

Ciao,
 historic=monument non va bene:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument#Warnings

*If it commemorates something/somebody and one can't tell it's "monumental"
in size* then it shouldn't be tagged as a monument but as a historic
=memorial
.

Tra l'altro potete controllare se ci sono usi non appropriati di
historic=monument con il tool "CheckTheMonuments":
http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html

NB: In Italia ce ne sono tantissimi.

Ciao,

Andrea


On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:31 AM demon_box  wrote:

> ciao, come mappo correttamente questa memoriale dedicato a Niccolò
> Tartaglia?
>
> <
> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/file/t343727/e7d532a927679eab1077b99294aafc6c.jpg>
>
>
> 
>
> la composizione è più alta di una persona.
>
> historic=monument + name=Niccolò Tartaglia  ?
>
> historic=memorial + memorial=statue + name=Niccolò Tartaglia  ?
>
> o cos'altro?
>
> Grazie
>
> --enrico
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] building=amenity

[Topographe Fou]

  Bonjour,As-tu contacté l'auteur de cette modification pour comprendre l'origine de ce changement ? Peut-être a-t-il introduit ce tag sur un autre bâtiment. Il y a 182 objets avec building=amenity selon taginfo, ce serait intéressant de voir si il y en a d'autres en France et si ils n'ont pas un lien.Suis aussi d'accord que cela ne rime pas à grand chose.LeTopographeFou   De: osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.comEnvoyé: 2 juillet 2019 9:32 PMÀ: talk-fr@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: talk-fr@openstreetmap.orgObjet: [OSM-talk-fr] building=amenity  Bonjour, usuellement les gares sont des building=yes de base et
  de plus en plus des building
   train_station(ou des station).La gare de Rennes est aujourd'hui taguée building=amenity.Pourtant rien n'indique cette possibilité de valeur.Quand on cherche gare, Rennes avec Nominatim on tombe du coup sur
  un étrange "Amenity Rennes".Et non "Train Station Rennes".Une objection à repasser à building=train_station ?Jean-Yvon



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

[Talk-it] Monumento o statua

[demon_box]

ciao, come mappo correttamente questa memoriale dedicato a Niccolò Tartaglia?


 

 

la composizione è più alta di una persona.

historic=monument + name=Niccolò Tartaglia  ?

historic=memorial + memorial=statue + name=Niccolò Tartaglia  ?

o cos'altro?

Grazie

--enrico




--
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-vi] Mapping missing roads in few cities of Vietnam

[Rihards]

On 03.07.19 07:49, Jinal Foflia wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I’m Jinal, Outreach and Community Manager at Grab. Our team is planning
> to go through the existing road geometries and add the missing ones if
> any in few cities of Vietnam.
> 
> We’ll be reviewing and mapping the following features: missing roads,
> road classification, and check for intersection configurations and
> alignment accuracy.
> Find more details here: https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/32
> 
> Please do reach out to us here or on Github if you have suggestions or
> feedback. Happy Mapping :)

Hi there, glad to see interest in mapping Vietnam. I've only been there
once, but liked the country immensely.
I mapped extensively during my stay, and noticed that new roads are
being built quite extensively, at least in some areas. When mapping from
imagery, one has to be very careful not to map based on outdated data.

I see that you are planning to use DG imagery. It is great, but usually
at least a few years out of date.
While Kaart has created some very fresh Mapillary imagery for some
cities, it does not seem to cover any in Khanh Hoa (which you plan to
map):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Vietnam#Kaart_Mapping .

You also mention in wikipages that internal GPS traces will be used -
hopefully those are recent and will help to avoid problems with outdated
imagery.

Targeted remote mapping previously has resulted in problems when only
roads are touched - for example, road alignment has been fixed, but a
building right next to it left as-is, resulting in the road going
through the building. It might be worth paying extra attention to
keeping surrounding features in sync with the road updates.

Thank you so much for contributions to OSM and good luck mapping :)

> Cheers,
> Jinal Foflia
> Twitter   LinkedIn
>   Github
>  -- 
 Rihards

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

[talk-cz] Drobnosti na osmap.cz

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj,

par drobnosti na webu osmap.cz:

- nasazeny posledni ikony pro vrstvy fotek (lyzarske a neznamy rozcestnik)
- zakazany vrstvy el. vedeni a telko vysilace z OpenInfraMap (presli
na pouze vektorove dlazdice)
- uprava nazvy vrstev s fotkami a chybami - predesle uz nijak
neodpovidaly skutecnosti
  
(https://github.com/osmcz/osmcz/commit/31a31089a802f48e4f271b198979228770c10183)

vse na: https://github.com/osmcz/osmcz/commits/production

Konec hlaseni
tom.k

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