Re: [Talk-it] Cancelliamo gli opening_hours:covid19 ?

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Ciao,

sono consentiti nei casi previsti dal CoC:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

e sempre previo discussione sulla ML.
Se vuoi correggere tutte le vie in un colpo solo, lo puoi fare, purché tu
ne abbia discusso almeno su una ML che copra almeno l'area in cui lo fai le
modifiche (regionale/nazionale/import).
Un edit automatico implica anche che tu non abbia nemmeno guardato i dati,
o fatto magari dei controlli a campione... Se li fai uno ad uno, vedi
Maproulette, non è un edit automatico.

Francesco

Il gio 16 lug 2020, 06:59 canfe  ha scritto:

> Ma gli edit automatici non erano vietati?
> Sennò cominciamo a correggere i nomi delle vie con Libertà scritto senza
> l’apostrofo.
>
>
>
> Cantone Ferruccio (canfe)
> ___
> 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] Cancelliamo gli opening_hours:covid19 ?

[canfe]

Ma gli edit automatici non erano vietati?
Sennò cominciamo a correggere i nomi delle vie con Libertà scritto senza
l’apostrofo.

 

Cantone Ferruccio (canfe)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] local copyright law on government data and OSM license

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

A few thoughts:

I'd want to talk to a Philippine lawyer, because frankly, these two
sentences seem to contradict each other:
*No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the
Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office
wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such
work for profit*

What would be the consequences of not getting permission? A violation of
the government's non-copyright rights? Rights of what? I didn't think the
Philippines had database rights, but there could well be some other
non-copyright law.

Looking online, I found this on the National Mapping authority's website:
Can I edit and use the NAMRIA maps for business? Article III of NAMRIA
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that "the second party shall use the
digital data acquired from NAMRIA only for its own authorized purpose and
not for commercial purpose. If digital is sold to other parties, the Second
Party shall pay the full cost of the digital data and its royalties". This
applies only to digital maps (scanned/vector) purchased from NAMRIA.
http://www.namria.gov.ph/faq.aspx

So one question I would have is whether the data source in question is
digital data acquired from NAMRIA?

I also found this list
http://www.geoportal.gov.ph/resources/PGPDataInventorywithSW which
seems to indicate that at least some government geodata has no restrictions
on it. With respect to at least those datasets, it would seem that
*explicit permission with respect to OSM* is unnecessary. I didn't see a
source for the letters mentioned in this list, but it's possible that some
of the data restrictions would not be a problem for OSM, but they'd have to
be examined on a letter by letter basis.

Best,
-Kathleen


On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:17 PM Erwin Olario  wrote:

> Recently, some edits in the country came to the  attention of the
> community and have been found to be derived from government data.
> Volunteers in the community, after advising the DWG of the process and
> action plan, are undertaking the rollback of affected edits.
>
> In our community, the current practice follows the general recommendation,
> that  no (Philippine government) data should be added into OpenStreetMap,
> unless explicit permission has been obtained from the originating
> agency/office/owners that the data will be added in OSM, under ODbL.
>
> The relevant local law on government data, states Republic Act 8293
> ,
> section 176:
> "*Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any
> work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the
> government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary
> for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among
> other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior
> approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of
> statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons,
> addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of
> justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in
> meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)"*
>
> In the discussions by contributors, there are some who expressed favor a
> more liberal interpretation of this section of the law, that government
> data is ineligible to copyright, hence no permission is necessary from the
> government. And if the end-user has commercial plans for said data, it is
> up to them to apply for said permission from the relevant government
> agencies.
>
> However, this government permission requirement appears to oppose the OSM
> license, wherein OSM data users are only required to attribute, and not
> seek any additional permissions. Hence, our promoted practice of seeking
> the informed consent of data owners.
>
> While the interpretation of the law is not a question of popularity,
> there's no doubt that a more liberal interpretation is desirable for our
> community but I'm wondering if somebody from the licensing WG can provide
> us specific guidance whether a liberal interpretation of this law is
> aligned with the OSM license.
>
> /Erwin
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> » 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
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-us] Coconino National Forest boundary isn't rendering anymore?

[Paul White]

Regarding the Coconino NF, if you zoom all the way to level 19, or export
the area as an image, the boundary disappears. It still appears on lower
zoom levels.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The tiles that I can see are currently showing the boundary of the
> Coconino National Forest, which was last edited 24 days ago:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10956348#map=9/34.9479/-111.5195 -
> at what zoom level do you notice a problem?
>
> The Klamath National forest is not currently rendering on the Standard
> layer:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11239975#map=13/41.6816/-122.9490
> - loading it in JOSM, I see that It's tagged as leisure=nature_reserve +
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 so we would expect it to render
> in the OpenStreetMap Carto style. The validator complains that there are
> nodes shared between parts of the outer ring. I thought this wasn't usually
> a problem which would prevent rendering, however?
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:01 PM Paul White  wrote:
> >
> > Does anybody know why the Coconino National Forest doesn't render on
> osm.org anymore? I don't see any recent changes that would've messed
> anything up but it's gone. I also noticed that the Klamath National Forest
> is gone, as well.
> >
> > If anyone knows how to fix this, let me know.
> >
> > Paul
> > ___
> > 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

[OSM-legal-talk] local copyright law on government data and OSM license

[Erwin Olario]

Recently, some edits in the country came to the  attention of the community
and have been found to be derived from government data. Volunteers in the
community, after advising the DWG of the process and action plan, are
undertaking the rollback of affected edits.

In our community, the current practice follows the general recommendation,
that  no (Philippine government) data should be added into OpenStreetMap,
unless explicit permission has been obtained from the originating
agency/office/owners that the data will be added in OSM, under ODbL.

The relevant local law on government data, states Republic Act 8293
,
section 176:
"*Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work
of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the
government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary
for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among
other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior
approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of
statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons,
addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of
justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in
meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)"*

In the discussions by contributors, there are some who expressed favor a
more liberal interpretation of this section of the law, that government
data is ineligible to copyright, hence no permission is necessary from the
government. And if the end-user has commercial plans for said data, it is
up to them to apply for said permission from the relevant government
agencies.

However, this government permission requirement appears to oppose the OSM
license, wherein OSM data users are only required to attribute, and not
seek any additional permissions. Hence, our promoted practice of seeking
the informed consent of data owners.

While the interpretation of the law is not a question of popularity,
there's no doubt that a more liberal interpretation is desirable for our
community but I'm wondering if somebody from the licensing WG can provide
us specific guidance whether a liberal interpretation of this law is
aligned with the OSM license.

/Erwin


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

Re: [talk-au] How do you tag a registered club?

[Bren Barnes]

Morning, apparently it's amenity=licensed_club according to tagging
guidelines.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Licensed_Club

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 20:54, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> A question for the brains trust: how do you tag a registered club?
>
> There are a number of these in Canberra and they have been tagged
> community_centre, pub, nightclub, restaurant, etc.
>
> How are you tagging these? Does it depend on if the club is sports
> based, RSL, ethnic group, and so on? Or is it based on the facilities on
> the site?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-it] Cancelliamo gli opening_hours:covid19 ?

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Ciao,

On 14/07/20 14:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

On 14. Jul 2020, at 13:13, Francesco Ansanelli  wrote:

Gli orari di apertura covid andrebbero trasformati in orari di apertura o 
assumi che sia tutto come prima?

assumo che sia tutto come prima.
Se pensate che avrebbe senso lasciare i tag un altro po’, potrebbe anche andare 
bene. non è detto che in una seconda fase gli orari saranno gli stessi.


Secondo me non cè particolare fretta di toglierli... anche se 
attualmente, almeno in Italia, hanno perso la loro utilità. Sia per 
questo tag sia per gli altri collegati al COVID19 (e.g. 
delivery:covid19) bisognerà cmq pensare a cosa fare. Visto il tipo di 
emergenza globale (ancora pienamente in atto), credo che sarebbe il caso 
di provare a stimolare una discussione in lista internazionale... ma 
come dicevamo, prob è presto.Ale




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

Re: [Talk-us] Coconino National Forest boundary isn't rendering anymore?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: "recursion limits of the geometry assembler." - is this merely due to
the large number of inner and outer ways?

Is it related to the nodes that are shared by 2 outer ways?

– Joseph E.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:24 PM Paul Norman via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 2020-07-15 3:00 p.m., Paul White wrote:
>
> Does anybody know why the Coconino National Forest doesn't render on
> osm.org anymore? I don't see any recent changes that would've messed
> anything up but it's gone. I also noticed that the Klamath National Forest
> is gone, as well.
>
> I assume you're talking about
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10956348#map=15/35.1483/-111.6705?
> It is rendered - you can see the green outline and text.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11239975 is a different issue. It
> looks like it might be complex enough that it hits the recursion limits of
> the geometry assembler.
> ___
> 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-GB] (no subject)

[Cj Malone]

Passenger does a lot of good stuff. There down stream customers use
OSM, and credit it [0]. They release more up to date NaPTAN formatted
data that NaPTAN its self [1]. Honestly it's a bit of a shame the OSM
bus stop data is so neglected.


Cj

[0] https://www.islandbuses.info/explore
[1] https://www.islandbuses.info/open-data



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

Re: [Talk-GB] POI files of Pub/Restaurant chain

[Cj Malone]

Hey,

You'd have to contact them to ask what license those files are
published under, or get explicit permission for it to be used in OSM.

If you do make contact it may be better to ask for permission to use
the store data from whole website which will include phone number,
opening times, toilets/accessible toilets etc.

If they don't respond or refuse a compatible license, you can still get
address data from FHRS Open Data [0], along with linking it so clients
could show it's hygiene score to end users. See my edit of it [1].

Cj

[0] https://ratings.food.gov.uk/
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88052606



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

Re: [Talk-us] Coconino National Forest boundary isn't rendering anymore?

[Paul Norman via Talk-us]

On 2020-07-15 3:00 p.m., Paul White wrote:
Does anybody know why the Coconino National Forest doesn't render on 
osm.org  anymore? I don't see any recent changes that 
would've messed anything up but it's gone. I also noticed that the 
Klamath National Forest is gone, as well.


I assume you're talking about 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10956348#map=15/35.1483/-111.6705? 
It is rendered - you can see the green outline and text.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11239975 is a different issue. It 
looks like it might be complex enough that it hits the recursion limits 
of the geometry assembler.


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

[Talk-us] Coconino National Forest boundary isn't rendering anymore?

[Paul White]

Does anybody know why the Coconino National Forest doesn't render on osm.org
anymore? I don't see any recent changes that would've messed anything up
but it's gone. I also noticed that the Klamath National Forest is gone, as
well.

If anyone knows how to fix this, let me know.

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

[Talk-GB] (no subject)

[Andy Mabbett]

OSM gets a mention:

   "As the Department for Transport begins its journey to
review and redesign NaPTAN, we’re open sourcing
our Bus Stop Checker tool to help build back greener."

   
https://www.discoverpassenger.com/2020/07/13/passengers-bus-stop-checker-data-quality-tools-now-open-source/

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-at] JOSM Adresshelfer Fehler:nullpointerexception

[Stefan Kopetzky]

On 15.07.20 21:21, vari...@mailbox.org wrote:
> habs gerade mit JOSM 16731 ausprobiert, gleicher Fehler unter Linux.
> Aber es gibt auf Github bereits ein Issue dazu, da könnte man ja upvoten
> oder entsprechend ein Kommentar dazu abgeben, vielleicht wirds dann ja was.
> Wär schade, kann man immer wieder brauchen, den helper :)

Exakt! Hoff ich auch...

https://github.com/JOSM/austriaaddresshelper/issues/12

Im Prinzip ist das scheinbar kein Fehler im Programm. Es ist einfach die
Backend-DB nicht (mehr) verfügbar.

Vielleicht findet sich ja wer, der den Betrieb der DB (evtl. mit
aktuellen Updates der Daten) machen kann...?

LG,
Stefan


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

[Talk-it] conferma utilizzo CTR Emilia Romagna in OSM

[Gianni G]

Salve a tutti,
sono un mappatore occasionale in e della Toscana, la quale ha autorizzato
l'uso del geoscopio wms,
ora, passato il confine con l'Emilia stavo per utilizzare la CTR 5k della
regione Emilia per ricalcare qualche fosso-corso d'acqua di montagna,
vedendo anche che su wiki sarebbe autorizzato l'uso per ricalco
Emilia Romagna WMS CTR WMS CTR

[image:
Utilizzabile in OSM] 
Aut.

[image:
Compatibilità sconosciuta]
 Solo
ricalco Raster
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Potenziali_fonti_di_dati

ma mi sono fermato poiché l'autorizzazione che vedo è del 2008 in
riferimento ad una mappatura di Ferrara,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ferrara/Mapping_Party#Autorizzazione_Regione_Emilia-Romagna

anche se la risposta del funzionario regionale,
*" Vista la Sua richiesta in data 4 aprile 2008 in merito alla
pubblicazione di dati derivati dalla Carta tecnica regionale1:5000
nell'ambito del progetto OpenStreetMap si autorizza l'uso dei suddetti dati
regionali, senza oneri di diritto all'uso" *
sembra essere una liberatoria generale all'uso della CTR 5k in OSM,
è così?
*Si può usare liberamente la CTR 5k wms dell'Emilia *(licenza cc by)* per
ricalco-recupero informazioni in tutta l'Emilia e non solo per quel
progetto di Ferrara?*
Per quanto non credo proprio la regione Emilia avrebbe da obiettare
sull'uso della sua ctr per derivarne dei fossi di montagna da inserire in
OSM,
vorrei esserne sicuro.
Come la vedete?

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

Re: [Talk-at] JOSM Adresshelfer Fehler:nullpointerexception

[various]

habs gerade mit JOSM 16731 ausprobiert, gleicher Fehler unter Linux. Aber es 
gibt auf Github bereits ein Issue dazu, da könnte man ja upvoten oder 
entsprechend ein Kommentar dazu abgeben, vielleicht wirds dann ja was.
Wär schade, kann man immer wieder brauchen, den helper :)

> martin ringer  hat am 15.07.2020 19:46 
> geschrieben:
> 
> 
> Wieder einmal kommt die Warnung bei JOSM wenn man mit dem AT Adresshelfer 
> arbeiten will:
> java.lang.N ullPointerException
> 
> Gibt es eine Lösung des Problems?
> 
>  
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> 
> Virenfrei. www.avg.com 
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> ___
> Talk-at mailing list
> Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
> 
___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Désaccord sur un highway=footway

[Éric Gillet]

Le 02/06/2020 à 10:11, Éric Gillet a écrit :

Le 01/06/2020 à 22:31, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :


Donc si on revient sur le coin d'où on est parti :

- y a-t-il un panneau autorisant les cycles ? Non
- y a-t-il un panneau interdisant les cycles ? Non

De partout on arrive sur ce qui ressemble soit à un trottoir soit à 
une place piétonne.


Dans le premier cas bicycle=no (implicite, c'est un footway).

Dans le second cas bicycle=yes (implicite c'est un pedestrian).

Et comme c'est pas clair on met bicycle=permissive : pas fait pour 
mais personne ne dit rien.
J'ai l'impression d'avoir suivi ta logique et j'aboutis à une 
solution qui semblait convenir aussi à Eric.


highway=footway/pedestrian + bicycle=permissive me semble en effet le 
bon compromis entre la légalité/l'intention de l'urbanisme et ce que 
les gens font en général dans cette zone.


Après avoir laissé décanter j'ai pris la solution qui a fait le moins de 
vagues pour indiquer les zones grises : access=permissive.


Merci pour l'échange !


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

Re: [Talk-at] JOSM Adresshelfer Fehler:nullpointerexception

[Johann Haag]

Hallo Martin,
das an und für sich gut gedachte Projekt austriaddresshelper ist seit
seiner ersten Revision integrierte Duplikatsprüfung praktisch unbrauchbar
geworden. Durch das Versäumnis die zugrundeliegende Adressbasis regelmäßig
zu aktualisieren, und der mangelnden Versionspflege mit immer wieder
auftretenden JAVA Fehlern, ist das Projekt inzwischen defekt.
Wende Dich daher für aktuelle Adressen besser direkt an das jeweilige
Gemeinde oder an ein Stadtbauamt. Diese können Dir legal aktuelle Adressen
per AGWR XML Export zur Verfügung stellen.
Das gesamte Prozedere widerspricht aber diametral der von Frederik Ramm
hochgehaltenen Diktion: An OSM element should represent a single
on-the-ground feature once and only.
Daher erachte ich die Adresserfassung unter den gegebenen Umständen
einstweilen für unmöglich.

Ref:
https://www.statistik.at/web_de/services/adress_gwr_online/handbuch/index.html

Für den Editor JOSM aufbereitete Adressdaten, Österreich nicht mehr ganz
aktuell:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PyNDYjo288Lwc5YpAb9faCdMq8nfoqK2?usp=sharing

Lg Johann


Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 19:49 Uhr schrieb martin ringer <
martinrin...@hotmail.com>:

> Wieder einmal kommt die Warnung bei JOSM wenn man mit dem AT Adresshelfer
> arbeiten will:
> java.lang.NullPointerException
>
> Gibt es eine Lösung des Problems?
>
>
> 
>  Virenfrei.
> www.avg.com
> 
> <#m_-6847398658786262102_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> Talk-at mailing list
> Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
>


-- 
Elektronikermeister Johann Haag
Innsbruckerstraße 42
6380 St. Johann in Tirol
ÖSTERREICH
Tel: +43 664/174 7414
Mailto:johannh...@hxg.at
___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Référencer la production alimentaire locale

[chris-ren]

Bonjour.

En complément :

J'avais pris le temps de regarder ceci il y a 1 an, et j'ai résumé ici :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:WikiProject_CircularEconomy (paragraphe 
sur "produits alimentaires locaux")

Il y a plusieurs sites exemples, basés sur osm :

1. Marchés, magasins et distributeurs automatiques de produits alimentaires sur 
le site Web Farmshops.eu : 
https://farmshops.eu 
Tags utilisés : 
shop=farm 
amenity=vending_machine and tags supplémentaires vending=milk et vending=food 
amenity=marketplace 

2. Les marchés avec Wo ist markt :
https://wo-ist-markt.de/ 

Et si je résume :
Fermes qui font de la vente directe : shop=farm avec produce=* (ne pas utiliser 
product=* pour les produits peu ou pas transformés) 
Bio : organic=yes and organic=only

Christian

 Message d'origine 
> De : Vincent Bergeot 
> À : talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> Sujet : Re: [OSM-talk-fr]  Référencer la production alimentaire locale
> Date : 15/07/2020 18:45:06 Europe/Paris
> 
> Bonjour,
> je reprends le fil de cette discussion !
> 
> Le 05/02/2020 à 19:35, Vincent Bergeot a écrit :
> > pour référencer les lieux de productions alimentaires (les fermes en 
> > particulier) et pour pouvoir "comparer" avec d'autres listes, 
> > j'aimerai bien ajouter la ref siret, mais sur quel objet ?
> >
> > Quand il y a un lieu de vente le shop=farm semble approprié (à voir si 
> > il n'y a pas 2 siret différents,à creuser).
> >
> > Mais quand il n'y a pas de lieu de vente !
> >
> > Sur le farmyard ? 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:landuse%3Dfarmyard
> Le 05/02/2020 à 20:35, marc marc a écrit :
> > sur l'objet décrit par le siret :)
> > un office=company ou landuse=farmyard me semble bien
> 
> effectivement je n'avais pas imaginé office=company mais la ferme et 
> l'exploitation agricole se recoupe souvent donc je pense tendre vers 
> landuse=farmyard.
> 
> 
> > place=farm ne semble pas vraiment correspondre 
> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dfarm)
> 
> taginfo / landuse=farmyard (plus de 800 000 occurrences) par rapport au 
> place=farm (un peu plus de 125 000).
> 
> donc c'est sans doute sur landuse=farmyard que le siret est le plus 
> approprié / le siret correspondant souvent à une EARL (exploitation 
> agricole à responsabilité limitée).
> 
> votre avis ?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Vincent Bergeot
> 
> 
> ___
> 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-at] JOSM Adresshelfer Fehler:nullpointerexception

[martin ringer]

Wieder einmal kommt die Warnung bei JOSM wenn man mit dem AT Adresshelfer 
arbeiten will:
java.lang.NullPointerException

Gibt es eine Lösung des Problems?

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]
 Virenfrei. 
www.avg.com
___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Référencer la production alimentaire locale

[Vincent Bergeot]

Bonjour,
je reprends le fil de cette discussion !

Le 05/02/2020 à 19:35, Vincent Bergeot a écrit :
pour référencer les lieux de productions alimentaires (les fermes en 
particulier) et pour pouvoir "comparer" avec d'autres listes, 
j'aimerai bien ajouter la ref siret, mais sur quel objet ?


Quand il y a un lieu de vente le shop=farm semble approprié (à voir si 
il n'y a pas 2 siret différents,à creuser).


Mais quand il n'y a pas de lieu de vente !

Sur le farmyard ? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:landuse%3Dfarmyard

Le 05/02/2020 à 20:35, marc marc a écrit :

sur l'objet décrit par le siret :)
un office=company ou landuse=farmyard me semble bien


effectivement je n'avais pas imaginé office=company mais la ferme et 
l'exploitation agricole se recoupe souvent donc je pense tendre vers 
landuse=farmyard.



place=farm ne semble pas vraiment correspondre 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dfarm)


taginfo / landuse=farmyard (plus de 800 000 occurrences) par rapport au 
place=farm (un peu plus de 125 000).


donc c'est sans doute sur landuse=farmyard que le siret est le plus 
approprié / le siret correspondant souvent à une EARL (exploitation 
agricole à responsabilité limitée).


votre avis ?


--
Vincent Bergeot


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Cheers for clarifying the 'segregated' issue. I hadn't considered the
benefit of having a positive surface tag even where it matches the default,
so I'll start doing that when I map.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 15:20 Martin - CycleStreets, <
list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> > I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does
> > seem garbled at points
>
> Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly
> intended
> as a starting point, to set out the ideal case of having those metadata
> tags present, but things like surface should have been better written.
>
> I've fixed up the points noted, which I agree with. Obviously I hope
> others
> can enhance the section too.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure#Checklist_of_attributes_to_tag_for_good_cycle_routing
>
>
> > Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
> > physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather
> than
> > the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?
>
> Sorry, yes, fixed.
>
>
> > Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does
> > marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
>
> Have fixed this also. The intention was to ensure that the surface is
> considered when tagging - which is suprisingly still poor data in some
> places. A fair proportion of route feedback we get comes down to cases
> where routing has gone over a 'cycleway' that turns out to be some kind of
> muddy or badly-surfaced track. These are obviously easy to fix in OSM once
> the value is known.
>
> My general feeling on surface is that, while asphalt is of course assumed
> by all routing engines I'm aware of, the amount of stuff in the UK that
> isn't asphalt makes it worthwhile putting the surface in explicitly. This
> demonstrates to future mappers that the value is actually known (rather
> than assumed/unknown/ambiguous).
>
>
> Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
> Developer, CycleStreets **  https://www.cyclestreets.net/
> ___
> 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] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Martin - CycleStreets]

Mike Baggaley wrote:

There should be no need for a tag to indicate whether a cycleway is 
separated from the road, as if the cycleway is part of the road it should 
not be tagged as highway=cycleway at all - it should be tagged as 
highway=(something else) + cycleway=*.  The 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle page in the wiki is quite 
clear that there is only one way to map cycle lanes (i.e. not separated 
from road) whereas there are two ways to map cycle tracks (separated from 
a road).


Agreed; a painted lane on the road should always be an attribute of the 
road. It's a lane by definition.


The problem arises with 'hybrid' cycle lane/track stuff, for which a 
discussion was started at:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-June/024612.html

Are these lanes or tracks? :

https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/108979/
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/143810/
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/143794/

My general view is that where there is such partial physical segregation, 
but it is part of the road, it is probably best to use cycleway=track, 
oneway=yes as attributes on the main highway, but the stronger the 
segregation, the more I would lean to using a separate highway=cycleway, 
not least because it's easier then to put proper metadata on it.



Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
Developer, CycleStreets **  https://www.cyclestreets.net/


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Martin - CycleStreets]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote:

I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does 
seem garbled at points 


Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly intended 
as a starting point, to set out the ideal case of having those metadata 
tags present, but things like surface should have been better written.


I've fixed up the points noted, which I agree with. Obviously I hope others 
can enhance the section too.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure#Checklist_of_attributes_to_tag_for_good_cycle_routing


Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the 
physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than 
the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?


Sorry, yes, fixed.


Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does 
marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...


Have fixed this also. The intention was to ensure that the surface is 
considered when tagging - which is suprisingly still poor data in some 
places. A fair proportion of route feedback we get comes down to cases 
where routing has gone over a 'cycleway' that turns out to be some kind of 
muddy or badly-surfaced track. These are obviously easy to fix in OSM once 
the value is known.


My general feeling on surface is that, while asphalt is of course assumed 
by all routing engines I'm aware of, the amount of stuff in the UK that 
isn't asphalt makes it worthwhile putting the surface in explicitly. This 
demonstrates to future mappers that the value is actually known (rather 
than assumed/unknown/ambiguous).



Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
Developer, CycleStreets **  https://www.cyclestreets.net/___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Lot Talk-fr, Vol 168, Parution 50

[Gilles]

On 15/07/2020 14:08, talk-fr-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

Ça marche aussi en moins de 25 secondes si on optimise un peu :

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/W6Y


Merci. J'ai toujours un timeout. Je vais essayer un autre serveur.


Si tu veux juste le nombre pourquoi demander les autres infos ? Pourquoi
récupérer les fils/enfants ? (>;)


Parce que je sais pas faire autrement


HAND pas OSM, mais Gaël Musquet est un peu connu d'OSM France^^.
OpenStreetMap est qualifié de "Google Maps de passionnés".

https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/chacun-sa-route/chacun-sa-route-15-juillet-2020


A 22:35

https://media.radiofrance-podcast.net/podcast09/21204-15.07.2020-ITEMA_22382865-2020F40013S0197-1779455909.mp3


Oui, TagInfo ;)
Le nombre est approximatif car il est calculé 1 x par jour me semble-t-il.

Par exemple pour tous les cinémas dans le monde : 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=cinema 28 308
En France : https://taginfo.openstreetmap.fr/tags/amenity=cinema 0 (car le 
serveur est planté)

Merci.

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

[Talk-GB] POI files of Pub/Restaurant chain

[osm]

Hey all,

I just accidentally found that the Pub next to "curious 20602512" is operated 
by a chain with quite a few places. They provide four different POI file 
formats with all their locations.

As this data is pretty much openly accessible, I think there'd be no major 
issue with asking them if this data could be used to check all the places 
against OSM data and, if needed correct and/or create them, right?

K

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le nombre d'objets ?

[Yves P.]

> En France 1931 car Yves n'a pas suivi l'astuce pour trouver la valeur :
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.fr/search?q=amenity%3Dcinema 
> 
Merci pour l'astuce :)

J'en profite pour faire du nettoyage :
amenity=cinema;restaurant 
 à Montparnasse
amenity=cinema;restaurant au Chili
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/659958790
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7716881925
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7716881926
__
Yves___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] HAND sur France Inter 13:44

[Percherie OnDaNet]

Je vois qu'on écoute les même émissions ;-p

Le 15/07/2020 à 13:47, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :

HAND  pas OSM, mais Gaël Musquet est un peu connu d'OSM France^^.

OpenStreetMap est qualifié de "Google Maps de passionnés".

https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/chacun-sa-route/chacun-sa-route-15-juillet-2020 



Jean-Yvon



___
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] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le nombre d'objets ?

[osm . sanspourriel]

En France 1931 car Yves n'a pas suivi l'astuce pour trouver la valeur :

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.fr/*search*?q=amenity%3Dcinema


Le 15/07/2020 à 14:01, Yves P. - yves.prat...@gmail.com a écrit :

*En France* : https://taginfo.openstreetmap.fr/tags/amenity=cinema 0
(car le serveur est planté)

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] HAND sur France Inter 13:44

[osm . sanspourriel]

> L'invité est la juriste en droit international Valérie Cabanes

Exact. Et comme indiqué dans le titre à 13:44 il est question de HAND.

Jean-Yvon



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le nombre d'objets ?

[Yves P.]

> Tout est dans le titre : y a-t-il un moyen plus léger d'interroger OSM pour 
> connaitre le nombre d'objets pour une clé=valeur donnée ?
Oui, TagInfo ;)

Le nombre est approximatif car il est calculé 1 x par jour me semble-t-il.

Par exemple pour tous les cinémas dans le monde : 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=cinema 28 308
En France : https://taginfo.openstreetmap.fr/tags/amenity=cinema 0 (car le 
serveur est planté)

__
Yves

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] HAND sur France Inter 13:44

[Yves P.]

> HAND  pas OSM, mais Gaël Musquet est un peu connu d'OSM France^^.
> 
> OpenStreetMap est qualifié de "Google Maps de passionnés".
> 
> https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/chacun-sa-route/chacun-sa-route-15-juillet-2020
Il n'y a pas eu de changement de dernière minute ?
Ou tu t'ai trompé de lien ?

L'invité est la juriste en droit international Valérie Cabanes

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

[OSM-talk-fr] HAND sur France Inter 13:44

[osm . sanspourriel]

HAND  pas OSM, mais Gaël Musquet est un peu connu d'OSM France^^.

OpenStreetMap est qualifié de "Google Maps de passionnés".

https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/chacun-sa-route/chacun-sa-route-15-juillet-2020

Jean-Yvon



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le nombre d'objets ?

[osm . sanspourriel]

Ça marche aussi en moins de 25 secondes si on optimise un peu :

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/W6Y

En général quand ça ne passe pas, je mets 2 0 de plus (2500). Mais ici
c'est inutile.

rel(47796);
map_to_area -> .searchArea;

=>

{{geocodeArea:Pays-Bas}}->.searchArea;

C'est plus lisible (et rapide).

2150 POI, il y a aussi une relation !

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7205742

Si tu veux juste le nombre pourquoi demander les autres infos ? Pourquoi
récupérer les fils/enfants ? (>;)

Et là en moins de 25 secondes :

{
  "type": "count",
  "id": 0,
  "tags": {
    "nodes": "2150",
    "ways": "81",
    "relations": "1",
    "areas": "0",
    "total": "*2232*"
  }
}

Le 15/07/2020 à 12:43, Gilles - codecompl...@free.fr a écrit :

=== Réponse bidouillée puisque l'interface web est HS et que j'avais
désactivé la réception des mails

Topographe Fou >  Ce n'est pas satisfaisant pour plus d'une clé et
d'un pays mais dans ton cas simple tu peux utiliser l'instance Taginfo
des Pays-Bas de Geofabrik :

Donat ROBAUX > Il suffit d'augmenter le timeout, tout simplement. 120
sec pour une telle requête est en effet un peu faible. Sinon si une
instance overpass est trop chargée (ca peut arriver), il faut changer
le serveur, via paramètres Overpass.

Merci !

==

Bonjour,


Tout est dans le titre : y a-t-il un moyen plus léger d'interroger OSM
pour connaitre le nombre d'objets pour une clé=valeur donnée ?

Par exemple, je voulais connaître le nombre de boutiques de vélo aux
Pays-Bas, mais time out même à 120 secondes :

An error occured during the execution of the overpass query! This is
what overpass API returned:

runtime error: Query timed out in "query" at line 9 after 121 seconds.


[out:json][timeout:120];

//NL 47796
rel(47796);
map_to_area -> .searchArea;

(
node[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
way[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
);

out body;

;

out skel qt;



Merci.

PS : Pour une raison inconnue, je ne peux plus poster via l'interface web

http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html

You Cannot Post Here
Sorry, but you can't create new topics here.
Note that you may still be able to reply to posts.
You may request permission to post here or contact Raven if
you have questions.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Jez Nicholson]

Whilst we are on USRNs (and UPRNs), I have updated
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData to include
them. The whole discussion on how they join up could merit a wiki section
or page of its own...somewhere to collect together all the snippets of
information.just a gentle reminder that if we don't document stuff then
it disappears into the ether. Sure, it's on Talk-GB archive, but it's still
just talk.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 11:06 Mark Goodge,  wrote:

>
>
> On 15/07/2020 09:05, Phillip Barnett wrote:
> > Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the
> > street and ASK them the name? And then use that local knowledge?
>
> In this case, there are no doors on the street as it's just an access road!
>
> What might work would be to contact a local councillor, say, and ask
> them for the name of the street. Their local knowledge can then be used
> in OSM.
>
> If you wanted to pursue the FOI route, another option would be to ask
> for documentation from the time when the road was named, showing the
> decisions made. It would probably date from the time when the entire
> estate was built. But the council may no longer have those records, as
> it is some time ago.
>
> 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

[Talk-de] Wikipedia, bessere Unterstützung von Geoinformationen

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Es läuft derzeit bei Wikipedia eine Abstimmung, welches Projekt man fördern 
sollte:

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Umfragen/Technische_Wünsche_2020_Themenschwerpunkte

Vielleicht teilt der eine oder andere von Euch ja meine Präferenz „bessere 
Unterstützung von Geoinformationen“ und will noch mitstimmen. Das Projekt führt 
derzeit nur ganz knapp...


Gruß Martin 






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

[talk-au] How do you tag a registered club?

[Andrew Davidson]

A question for the brains trust: how do you tag a registered club?

There are a number of these in Canberra and they have been tagged 
community_centre, pub, nightclub, restaurant, etc.


How are you tagging these? Does it depend on if the club is sports 
based, RSL, ethnic group, and so on? Or is it based on the facilities on 
the site?


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

Just a thought, is there any value aligning with Wikidata ('heritage 
designation') https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1435 or at least 
have links?


On 15/07/2020 11:16, Brian Prangle wrote:

I use listed_status =Scheduled Monument

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 10:19 Tony OSM, > wrote:


Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found
Scheduled Monuments. They are described in the Historic England
list as Heritage Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry
Number.

Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade:
(I, II*, II) and a list entry number.

I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for
Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories
(Protected Wreck Site,
Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of
Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)

Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines?

I have looked at:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref

For a building or similar I presently use

HE_ref=1072653
heritage=2
heritage:operator= Historic England
historic= heritage
listed_status=Grade II
name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
barrier=gate
start_date= mid C19
website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653

Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?


Tony Shield -  TonyS999

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le nombre d'objets ?

[Gilles]

=== Réponse bidouillée puisque l'interface web est HS et que j'avais 
désactivé la réception des mails


Topographe Fou >  Ce n'est pas satisfaisant pour plus d'une clé et d'un 
pays mais dans ton cas simple tu peux utiliser l'instance Taginfo des 
Pays-Bas de Geofabrik :


Donat ROBAUX > Il suffit d'augmenter le timeout, tout simplement. 120 
sec pour une telle requête est en effet un peu faible. Sinon si une 
instance overpass est trop chargée (ca peut arriver), il faut changer le 
serveur, via paramètres Overpass.


Merci !

==

Bonjour,


Tout est dans le titre : y a-t-il un moyen plus léger d'interroger OSM 
pour connaitre le nombre d'objets pour une clé=valeur donnée ?


Par exemple, je voulais connaître le nombre de boutiques de vélo aux 
Pays-Bas, mais time out même à 120 secondes :


An error occured during the execution of the overpass query! This is 
what overpass API returned:


runtime error: Query timed out in "query" at line 9 after 121 seconds.


[out:json][timeout:120];

//NL 47796
rel(47796);
map_to_area -> .searchArea;

(
node[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
way[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
);

out body;

;

out skel qt;



Merci.

PS : Pour une raison inconnue, je ne peux plus poster via l'interface web

http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html

You Cannot Post Here
Sorry, but you can't create new topics here.
Note that you may still be able to reply to posts.
You may request permission to post here or contact Raven if you 
have questions.




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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le nombre d'objets ?

[Donat ROBAUX]

Bonjour Gilles,

Il suffit d'augmenter le timeout, tout simplement. 120 sec pour une telle
requête est en effet un peu faible.
Sinon si une instance overpass est trop chargée (ca peut arriver), il faut
changer le serveur, via paramètres Overpass.

PS: Moi non plus, je ne peux plus poster via l'interface web. Ca arrive à
d'autres?
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html


> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Gilles 
> To: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:35:22 +0200
> Subject: [OSM-talk-fr] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le
> nombre d'objets ?
> Bonjour,
>
> Tout est dans le titre : y a-t-il un moyen plus léger d'interroger OSM
> pour connaitre le nombre d'objets pour une clé=valeur donnée ?
>
> Par exemple, je voulais connaître le nombre de boutiques de vélo aux
> Pays-Bas, mais time out même à 120 secondes :
>
> An error occured during the execution of the overpass query! This is
> what overpass API returned:
>
> runtime error: Query timed out in "query" at line 9 after 121 seconds.
> 
>
> [out:json][timeout:120];
>
> //NL 47796
> rel(47796);
> map_to_area -> .searchArea;
>
> (
> node[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
> way[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
> );
>
> out body;
>  >;
> out skel qt;
>
> 
>
> Merci.
>
> PS : Pour une raison inconnue, je ne peux plus poster via l'interface web
>
> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html
>
> You Cannot Post Here
> Sorry, but you can't create new topics here.
> Note that you may still be able to reply to posts.
> You may request permission to post here or contact Raven if you
> have questions.
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Brian Prangle]

I use listed_status =Scheduled Monument

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 10:19 Tony OSM,  wrote:

> Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled
> Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage
> Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number.
>
> Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I,
> II*, II) and a list entry number.
>
> I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for Scheduled
> Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories (Protected Wreck Site,
> Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of
> Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)
>
> Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines?
>
> I have looked at:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref
>
> For a building or similar I presently use
> HE_ref=1072653 heritage=2 heritage:operator= Historic England historic=
> heritage listed_status=Grade II name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
> barrier=gate
> start_date= mid C19 website=
> https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653
>
> Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?
>
>
> Tony Shield -  TonyS999
> ___
> 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] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Mark Goodge]

On 15/07/2020 09:05, Phillip Barnett wrote:

Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the
street and ASK them the name? And then use that local knowledge?


In this case, there are no doors on the street as it's just an access road!

What might work would be to contact a local councillor, say, and ask 
them for the name of the street. Their local knowledge can then be used 
in OSM.


If you wanted to pursue the FOI route, another option would be to ask 
for documentation from the time when the road was named, showing the 
decisions made. It would probably date from the time when the entire 
estate was built. But the council may no longer have those records, as 
it is some time ago.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Mark Goodge]

On 15/07/2020 08:35, o...@poppe.dev wrote:


We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information. 
This can found via: 
http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html You

are free to use this information for your own use, including for
non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the
purposes of news reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example
publishing the information, issuing copies to the public or
marketing, will require our permission as copyright holder. If you
intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to
us. ***


This is the FOI get-out; they can refer you to existing published 
information and therefore don't need to give a direct answer in the 
response. Unfortunately, that doesn't help with finding an 
ODbL-compliant source of the name.



Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks,
that this road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn.


Well, it would, because the Adopted Roads list will match the NSG. In 
fact, it's the source of the information that Ealing submits to the NSG.



So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to
re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is
this a process that I want to go through (given, I ever find out who
"us" is) and then put the answer under
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions?


I suspect it would be fruitless anyway. They'll just refer you to the 
existing mechanisms for getting access to the NSG. But even if you were 
to pay the cost of that, it won't deliver the data in a suitable licence.


In any sane world, of course, the idea that the names of roads should be 
subject to any form of restrictive license would be deemed utterly 
absurd. In fact, I'm reasonably confident that it wouldn't survive a 
legal challenge in this world. While the creation of a map, is, clearly, 
a work subject to copyright, a simple fact - and the name of a road is a 
fact - isn't. And a list of road names, created for the benefit of those 
who use and maintain the roads, has no independent economic value and 
therefore doesn't meet the criteria for database right.


The rulings by the European Court of Justice in the William Hill and 
Fixtures Marketing cases are relevant here - essentially, the court 
concluded that if a list of facts (eg, a list of football matches, or 
horses entered in a race) is a necessary part of administering the 
competition, then that list of facts isn't subject to database right as 
it has no existence independently of the competition's functioning. And 
I'm pretty sure that a court would apply the same judgment to a list of 
street names. Councils have a legal obligation to maintain the canonical 
list of street names in their territory, and, in any case, having such a 
list is essential to the way that the council operates. So the list has 
no independent existence apart from that legal and operational 
necessity, and therefore doesn't qualify for database right.


But, of course, OSM can't include data on the basis of a legal opinion. 
It would take an actual court case to establish the fundamental openness 
of street names, and OSM doesn't want to be the organisation which is 
part of that case. So, at the moment, we're still stuck as far as 
directly reusing names from the NSG is concerned.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Nick]

Not sure if this is of help - in Scotland there is this link 
https://www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-and-support/listing-scheduling-and-designations/scheduled-monuments/types-of-scheduled-monument/ 
which translates to 'Category' (e.g. Roman: camp) in the gis data set.


On 15/07/2020 10:18, Tony OSM wrote:


Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled 
Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage 
Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number.


Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I, 
II*, II) and a list entry number.


I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for 
Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories 
(Protected Wreck Site,
Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of 
Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)


Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines?

I have looked at:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref

For a building or similar I presently use

HE_ref=1072653
heritage=2
heritage:operator= Historic England
historic= heritage
listed_status=Grade II
name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
barrier=gate
start_date= mid C19
website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653

Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?


Tony Shield -  TonyS999


___
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] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le nombre d'objets ?

[Topographe Fou]

Bonjour,

Ce n'est pas satisfaisant pour plus d'une clé et d'un pays mais dans ton cas 
simple tu peux utiliser l'instance Taginfo des Pays-Bas de Geofabrik : 

https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/netherlands/keys/shop#values

2233 objets en l'occurence.

Sinon il y a sûrement moyen de modifier la requête pour passer le timeout mais 
je ne maîtrise pas le barbarisme des codes de sortie Overpass.

LeTopographeFou


  Message original  


De: codecompl...@free.fr
Envoyé: 15 juillet 2020 11:36 AM
À: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
Répondre à: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
Objet: [OSM-talk-fr] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le nombre 
d'objets ?


Bonjour,

Tout est dans le titre : y a-t-il un moyen plus léger d'interroger OSM
pour connaitre le nombre d'objets pour une clé=valeur donnée ?

Par exemple, je voulais connaître le nombre de boutiques de vélo aux
Pays-Bas, mais time out même à 120 secondes :

An error occured during the execution of the overpass query! This is
what overpass API returned:

runtime error: Query timed out in "query" at line 9 after 121 seconds.


[out:json][timeout:120];

//NL 47796
rel(47796);
map_to_area -> .searchArea;

(
node[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
way[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
);

out body;
>;
out skel qt;



Merci.

PS : Pour une raison inconnue, je ne peux plus poster via l'interface web

http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html

You Cannot Post Here
Sorry, but you can't create new topics here.
Note that you may still be able to reply to posts.
You may request permission to post here or contact Raven if you
have questions.


___
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] Envoyer une requête à OSM juste pour connaitre le nombre d'objets ?

[Gilles]

Bonjour,

Tout est dans le titre : y a-t-il un moyen plus léger d'interroger OSM 
pour connaitre le nombre d'objets pour une clé=valeur donnée ?


Par exemple, je voulais connaître le nombre de boutiques de vélo aux 
Pays-Bas, mais time out même à 120 secondes :


An error occured during the execution of the overpass query! This is 
what overpass API returned:


runtime error: Query timed out in "query" at line 9 after 121 seconds.


[out:json][timeout:120];

//NL 47796
rel(47796);
map_to_area -> .searchArea;

(
node[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
way[shop=bicycle](area.searchArea);
);

out body;
>;
out skel qt;



Merci.

PS : Pour une raison inconnue, je ne peux plus poster via l'interface web

http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html

You Cannot Post Here
Sorry, but you can't create new topics here.
Note that you may still be able to reply to posts.
You may request permission to post here or contact Raven if you 
have questions.



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

[Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Tony OSM]

Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled 
Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage 
Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number.


Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I, 
II*, II) and a list entry number.


I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for 
Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories 
(Protected Wreck Site,
Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of 
Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)


Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines?

I have looked at:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref

For a building or similar I presently use

HE_ref=1072653
heritage=2
heritage:operator= Historic England
historic= heritage
listed_status=Grade II
name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
barrier=gate
start_date= mid C19
website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653

Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?


Tony Shield -  TonyS999

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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Phillip Barnett]

Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the street and 
ASK them the name?
And then use that local knowledge?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 15 Jul 2020, at 08:36, o...@poppe.dev wrote:
> 
> 
>> I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could 
>> also do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street.
> 
> Getting back to something fun, this is what turned up yesterday:
> 
> ***
> Your request:
> In the ELTHORNE ward, SOA E01001248, there’s a small road-stub  between the 
> area ROYAL GDNS. and BOSTON GDNS., that runs approximately between the 
> WGS84-coordinates 51.4981160°N 0.3283307°W and 51.4984358°N 0.3273347°W 
> (OSGB36 between  516136/179011 and 516205/179048).
> As an editor in OpenStreetMap I am looking for the NAME of this street stub, 
> that is available under the Open Government License or any other 
> OpenDatabaseLicense-compliant form of publication.
> 
> Your request has been assessed and the following information is provided in 
> response:
> 
> We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information.  
> This can found via:
> http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html
> You are free to use this information for your own use, including for 
> non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the purposes of 
> news reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example publishing the 
> information, issuing copies to the public or marketing, will require our 
> permission as copyright holder.   
> If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us.
> ***
> 
> Firstly, that reply came mere hours after I changed the way to "noname=yes" 
> and closing the note so that StreetComplete wouldn't complain any longer 
> (adding ref:usrn=20602512 of course) after I had spoken to a local mapper and 
> he went to the street and thoroughly checked again, that there's really no 
> street name signed whatsoever. This adds to impecable timing in my life over 
> the last few weeks *sic*
> 
> Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks, that 
> this road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn.
> 
> So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to re-use this 
> information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is this a process that I 
> want to go through (given, I ever find out who "us" is) and then put the 
> answer under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions?
> 
> K
> 
> ___
> 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] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Mike Baggaley]

>> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
>> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
>> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
>> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
>> shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

>+1  (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians)
>+1 for "segregated" referring to separate (or not) pedestrian and cycle lanes 
>in a shared cycleway

There should be no need for a tag to indicate whether a cycleway is separated 
from the road, as if the cycleway is part of the road it should not be tagged 
as highway=cycleway at all - it should be tagged as highway=(something else) + 
cycleway=*.  The https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle  page in the wiki 
is quite clear that there is only one way to map cycle lanes (i.e. not 
separated from road) whereas there are two ways to map cycle tracks (separated 
from a road). 

Regards,
Mike



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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[osm]

> I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could 
> also do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street.

Getting back to something fun, this is what turned up yesterday:

***
Your request:
In the ELTHORNE ward, SOA E01001248, there’s a small road-stub  between the 
area ROYAL GDNS. and BOSTON GDNS., that runs approximately between the 
WGS84-coordinates 51.4981160°N 0.3283307°W and 51.4984358°N 0.3273347°W (OSGB36 
between  516136/179011 and 516205/179048).
As an editor in OpenStreetMap I am looking for the NAME of this street stub, 
that is available under the Open Government License or any other 
OpenDatabaseLicense-compliant form of publication.

Your request has been assessed and the following information is provided in 
response:

We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information.  
This can found via:
http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html
You are free to use this information for your own use, including for 
non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the purposes of news 
reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example publishing the information, 
issuing copies to the public or marketing, will require our permission as 
copyright holder.   
If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us.
***

Firstly, that reply came mere hours after I changed the way to "noname=yes" and 
closing the note so that StreetComplete wouldn't complain any longer (adding 
ref:usrn=20602512 of course) after I had spoken to a local mapper and he went 
to the street and thoroughly checked again, that there's really no street name 
signed whatsoever. This adds to impecable timing in my life over the last few 
weeks *sic*

Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks, that this 
road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn.

So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to re-use this 
information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is this a process that I 
want to go through (given, I ever find out who "us" is) and then put the answer 
under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions?

K

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

>On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 22:07, ael

> wrote:  >On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM >+0100, 
>Adam Snape wrote:
>> 
>> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
>> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
>> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
>> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
>> shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

>+1  (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians)
+1 for "segregated" referring to separate (or not) pedestrian and cycle lanes 
in a shared cycleway

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> 
> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
> shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

+1  (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians)


___
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