[OSM-ja] 10/17 京都！街歩き！マッピングパーティ：第21回 Re:永観堂

[yasunari yamashita]

山下です。
皆さんこんにちわ。

京都！街歩き！マッピングパーティ
コロナもそろそろ収まるかと活動を再開します。
次回第21回は、4月に企画して延期した、京都でも屈指のもみじの名所禅林寺永観堂

ゆるーり街歩きしてサーベイ（現地調査）
向日市の会議室で OpenStreetMap にマッピング（地図編集）、
マッピングの後は激辛懇親会！！
https://openstreetmap-kyoto.connpass.com/event/190422/

皆様の参加をお待ちしています！

※※
状況によっては直前に中止にしたり、内容を変更する可能性があります。
ご承知おきください
-- 
山下康成＠京都府向日市
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging modal filters and school streets

[Stephen Colebourne]

Here is the outline proposal:

"""
The traffic_intervention tag is used to identify locations where roads
have been closed to general traffic for the purpose of preventing
undesirable through traffic.

The traffic_calming tag covers many use cases where the road is open
but something physical has been added to slow down traffic. Sometimes
however, the local traffic authority goes further and closes a road to
through traffic - traffic_intervention is used to record these
interventions. Mappers should ensure that all normal tags are still
applied to the relevant road segment, traffic_intervention is intended
to be used in addition to existing tags to capture the semantic
meaning.

traffic_intervention=modal_filter
A modal filter is a road closure that is designed to allow certain
modes of transport through, typically bicycles and pedestrians. It is
intended for short sections of road that used to be open to general
traffic and are no longer. The standard modal filter that allows
cycles should be mapped as follows:
* A way representing the section of road that is closed to general traffic:
highway=cycleway, traffic_intervention=modal_filter, other tags as
necessary, especially including the road name.
* A barrier in the middle of the way representing what is being used
to close the road. For example:
barrier=bollard, foot=yes, bicycle=yes

traffic_intervention=bus_gate
A bus gate is a short section of road that has been closed to general
traffic but is open to buses, bicycles and pedestrians. It should be
mapped as a bus road would be, but with the additional
traffic_intervention tag.
* A way representing the section of road that is closed to general traffic:
highway=service, bus=yes, bicycle=yes, foot=yes, traffic_intervention=bus_gate

traffic_intervention=school_street
A school street is a section of road near a school that is closed to
general traffic, often only at certain times of day. The access
restrictions are normally mapped using motor_vehicle:conditional.
Simply use traffic_intervention=school_street to add the additional
semantic meaning.

Mappers may additionally specify the year, month or full date when the
road was restricted if known:
traffic_intervention:date=
traffic_intervention:date=
traffic_intervention:date=

"""

Example modal filter: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/851872727
Example bus gate: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/851872729

What do people think? Should this be put forward to the tagging list?
Would anyone here use this scheme?

Stephen



On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 18:20, Stephen Colebourne  wrote:
>
> Given we have hundreds of existing and new modal filters* and school
> streets**, I think we could do with having a *high level* tag for them
> that captures the concept.
>
> Currently, these are hard to find as they can be represented in many
> ways. eg. for modal filters:
> - highway=cycleway
> - highwat=footway
> - highway=service/residential with motor_vehicle=no
> - plus potential associated barrier=xxx
>
> School streets are no more than a motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (xxx)
> which again loses the semantic meaning.
>
> What I'd like is a new tag that captures the high level concept. It
> would be a bit like traffic_calming, but I don't think that adding
> more values to that is appropriate. Any new value would go on the way
> that is no longer open. These are generally verifiable on the ground,
> even for filters that were added in the 1970s.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have a great name. "traffic_restrictions" is
> taken as is "traffic_control". My best suggestion is
> "traffic_intervention=modal_filter"/"school_street", as they are
> essentially interventions by local government to better manage the
> street space.
>
> Any thoughts?
> Stephen
>
> * a "modal filter" is a place where the road is closed, or made one
> way for the purposes of controlling traffic, such as to stop rat
> running. It is commonly linked to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)
> but they have been around for 50 years, and are generally easy to
> spot.
>
> ** a "school street" is a street that is only accessible by residents
> at school drop-off and pick-up time

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Listed status / scheduled monument

[Dave Dunford]

The most logical and consistent scheme would seem to me to be - contrary 
to Key:listed_status 
 and 
established consensus:


    <*heritage*_status=Scheduled Monument> (which would also work for 
, etc.)
     (in line with other numeric referencing systems; my 
understanding is that HE don't use any other number systems, though you 
sometimes see their pre-NHLE numbers quoted, which could be tagged 
appropriately)


 feels internally contradictory.
 is inconsistent with other referencing schemes.

But it's an awfully well-established consensus...

Incidentally, some structures are both Listed Buildings and Scheduled 
Monuments (notably crosses and bridges, in my experience), or you get 
Listed Buildings (defined by HE as a single point) within scheduled 
monuments (defined by HE as an area). Yours is a case in point: the 
Priory building is a Grade I listed building 
(https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1062210) and 
the Priory Farmhouse is Grade II 
(https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1360390) and 
both are within the area defined as a scheduled monument.


Third observation - whatever we do, we should t call them "Scheduled 
Monuments" as HE do, rather than the dated "Scheduled Ancient Monuments" 
(quite a lot of them - e.g. Victorian lead mines in my part of the world 
- aren't that ancient).


Dave

On 26/09/2020 13:43, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all

I'd like to map St Leonard's Priory, Stamford, Lincs:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1007690

This is a 'scheduled monument'.

 1. The wiki is a bit inconsistent on *how to tag* this.
 1. Key:listed_status

suggests I should tag it .
 2. The table at Key:HE_ref
 would suggest
that may not be the right tag, as  is only
given for listed buildings - a different legal category.
 3. I've found plenty of the former in the map, so I'm assuming
that's correct and the table at HE_ref needs amplifying

 2. I've also got a puzzle about *how to give the ref. number*.
 1. Key:listed_status
 invites
me to use .
 2. Key:heritage
 invites
me to use 

I've tried using overpass-turbo to get relative frequencies of
those two tags. I get the following (for most but not all of
England, so ymmv: north of ~Barnard Castle not in my bounding
box, but that wasn't a political decision...).

I can't interpret it fully, but it looks like ref:he may be
worth deleting from the wiki as obsolete?

/*HE_ref=**/
Loaded – nodes: 46397, ways: 5541, relations: 124
Displayed – pois: 591, lines: 634, polygons: 4770

/*ref:he=**/
Loaded – nodes: 2274, ways: 176, relations: 1
Displayed – pois: 31, lines: 10, polygons: 166

Thanks for any help.

Edward / eteb3

___
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-it] Digest di Talk-it, Volume 166, Numero 54

[Carlo A. Nicolini]

Come detto da Federico le ‘mappe’ non hanno una rispondenza geometrica 
attendibile che comunque potrebbe secondo me avere uno sviluppo diverso 
considerati quasi 30 anni ( e sono una vita, parlo per me) di rilievi 
celerimetrici scusate sono sul cellulare... ciao

C@N


> Il giorno 26 set 2020, alle ore 20:21, talk-it-requ...@openstreetmap.org ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Invia le richieste di iscrizione alla lista Talk-it all'indirizzo
>talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> 
> Per iscriverti o cancellarti attraverso il web, visita
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
> oppure, via email, manda un messaggio con oggetto `help' all'indirizzo
>talk-it-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> Puoi contattare la persona che gestisce la lista all'indirizzo
>talk-it-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> Se rispondi a questo messaggio, per favore edita la linea dell'oggetto
> in modo che sia più utile di un semplice "Re: Contenuti del digest
> della lista Talk-it..."
> 
> 
> Argomenti del Giorno:
> 
>   1. Re: Cambio licenza mappe catastali (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>   2. Re: Cambio licenza mappe catastali (Matteo Fortini)
>   3. Re: Cambio licenza mappe catastali (Luca Delucchi)
>   4. Re: Cambio licenza mappe catastali (Federico Cortese)
>   5. Re: Cambio licenza mappe catastali (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>   6. Re: Cambio licenza mappe catastali (Federico Cortese)
>   7. Re: Vecchi sentieri CAI (Martin Koppenhoefer)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 15:41:51 +0200
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali
> Message-ID: <98a554fa-b48a-4fcf-9600-27b8f71d2...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 26. Sep 2020, at 07:18, Federico Cortese  wrote:
>> 
>> a livello geometrico sono indicative, servono per altri scopi
> 
> 
> lo scopo non è quello di poter registrare la suddivisione ed i proprietari 
> dei terreni? Mi sembra strano che nemmeno le geometrie delle particelle sono 
> affidabili.
> Al meno la versione online mi sembra di non riportare tutte le suddivisioni 
> con sufficiente dettaglio per poter registrare i proprietari (parlo proprio 
> dei vicini miei, dove conosco bene la situazione)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 15:48:23 +0200
> From: Matteo Fortini 
> To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> A me piacerebbe un sacco poterle usare per separare i differenti edifici
> nel centro del mio Comune (la regione ha caricato solo i volumi complessivi
> nel centro storico, ovviamente molto meglio di niente), ma purtroppo la
> sovrapposizione con OSM è molto piena di errori. Ci sono ovviamente i
> problemi di licenza,  ma superati quelli, farei fatica lo stesso ad
> utilizzarli.
> 
> Tra l'altro avrei un dataset con le altezze di tutti gli edifici, ma sempre
> su base catastale.
> 
> Il sab 26 set 2020, 15:42 Martin Koppenhoefer  ha
> scritto:
> 
>> 
>> sent from a phone
>> 
>>> On 26. Sep 2020, at 07:18, Federico Cortese 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> a livello geometrico sono indicative, servono per altri scopi
>> 
>> 
>> lo scopo non è quello di poter registrare la suddivisione ed i proprietari
>> dei terreni? Mi sembra strano che nemmeno le geometrie delle particelle
>> sono affidabili.
>> Al meno la versione online mi sembra di non riportare tutte le
>> suddivisioni con sufficiente dettaglio per poter registrare i proprietari
>> (parlo proprio dei vicini miei, dove conosco bene la situazione)
>> ___
>> Talk-it mailing list
>> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>> 
> -- parte successiva --
> Un allegato HTML è stato rimosso...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/attachments/20200926/b3a638ea/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 15:55:29 +0200
> From: Luca Delucchi 
> To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 15:42, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> sent from a phone
>> 
>>> On 26. Sep 2020, at 07:18, Federico Cortese 
>&g

Re: [Talk-it] Vecchi sentieri CAI

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Sep 2020, at 12:19, Danilo via Talk-it  
> wrote:
> 
> O meglio indicare quelli di cui si è certi al 100 per 100 che sono gestiti 
> CAI e lasciare indeterminati gli altri.


+1
nel dubbio ci lascerei i tag già esistenti e ci metterei un tag note o fixme 
(secondo la gravità). Ovviamente, se un sentiero, anche uno ufficialmente 
gestito, non è percorribile, cercherei di mappare questo fatto. Spesso si 
tratta di problemi puntuali, che non giustificano la rimozione di tutto il 
percorso, e ovviamente anche durante l’anno la situazione può cambiare 
(cespugli, rovi e erba alta potrebbero essere tagliati, ecc.)

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

Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Federico Cortese]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 6:31 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> per le strade sono d’accordo, ma in che senso le scuole non devono esserci? 
> Oppure intendi non è inusuale?

No, dovrebbero esserci, ma non è inusuale che manchino edifici anche
importanti o che risultino ancora in mappa edifici demoliti da
decenni.

Ciao,
Federico

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

Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Sep 2020, at 16:30, Federico Cortese  wrote:
> 
> A parte questi dettagli non è per nulla strano che una scuola che
> esiste da decenni non sia accatastata o che una strada statale a
> quattro corsie costruita 60 anni fa non sia ancora frazionata.


per le strade sono d’accordo, ma in che senso le scuole non devono esserci? 
Oppure intendi non è inusuale?

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

[Talk-TW] weeklyOSM reminders dominating list

[積丹尼 Dan Jacobson]

Actually, Talk-TW originally was for talking.
Now it is 99% just these
[Talk-TW] weeklyOSM #523 2020-07-21-2020-07-26   weeklyteam
[Talk-TW] weeklyOSM #524 2020-07-28-2020-08-03   weeklyteam
[Talk-TW] weeklyOSM #527 2020-08-11-2020-08-17   weeklyteam
reminders.

I checked https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
and didn't see any reminders.

So maybe Talk-TW should be unsub*scribed too.
Let each user personally sub*scribe to the reminders if they want.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Federico Cortese]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 3:42 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> lo scopo non è quello di poter registrare la suddivisione ed i proprietari 
> dei terreni? Mi sembra strano che nemmeno le geometrie delle particelle sono 
> affidabili.
> Al meno la versione online mi sembra di non riportare tutte le suddivisioni 
> con sufficiente dettaglio per poter registrare i proprietari (parlo proprio 
> dei vicini miei, dove conosco bene la situazione)

Per quanto riguarda le suddivisioni delle particelle, quelle sono
indicative nel senso che la mappa non ha valore metrico ma solo
descrittivo.
Dal punto di vista metrico quello che fa fede sono gli atti di
frazionamento presentati dalle parti.
Se non vedi le suddivisioni sulla mappa può essere che si tratta di
particelle urbane e che le pertinenze scoperte siano divise
nell'elaborato planimetrico urbano.
A parte questi dettagli non è per nulla strano che una scuola che
esiste da decenni non sia accatastata o che una strada statale a
quattro corsie costruita 60 anni fa non sia ancora frazionata.

Ciao,
Federico

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

That is a good point and if the councils agree to publish under OGL, 
that would be ideal. Perhaps need to consider what data should be 
requested as a standard submission? For example, apart from the UPRN 
related data (i.e. whether parent/child, historic, provisional) the 
request could perhaps justifiably ask for a list of council land and 
property with addresses?


On 26/09/2020 14:27, Lester Caine wrote:

On 26/09/2020 13:46, David Woolley wrote:
OS are in a funny position, in that they are in the public sector, 
but are expected to be self funding. To the extent that they succeed 
in the latter, they don't owe a duty to the taxpayer.


But since the vast majority of the UPRN data is actually collected and 
managed by the relevant councils, the question is do they have the 
right to restrict access when it is council taxes that pay for the 
management of that data and not OS! SHOULD we perhaps be asking the 
various councils for direct access to the raw data under the open data 
umbrella?




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

Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Luca Delucchi]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 15:42, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 26. Sep 2020, at 07:18, Federico Cortese 
> wrote:
> >
> > a livello geometrico sono indicative, servono per altri scopi
>
>
> lo scopo non è quello di poter registrare la suddivisione ed i proprietari
> dei terreni? Mi sembra strano che nemmeno le geometrie delle particelle
> sono affidabili.
> Al meno la versione online mi sembra di non riportare tutte le
> suddivisioni con sufficiente dettaglio per poter registrare i proprietari
> (parlo proprio dei vicini miei, dove conosco bene la situazione)
>

eh, quello è che lo stato sa che esiste, poi la realtà è leggermente
diversa :-(
Ho controllato un po' a Genova e le cose più importanti ed eclatanti ci
sono, alcuni fabbricati più o meno abusivi mancano.

-- 
ciao
Luca

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

Re: [Talk-it] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Matteo Fortini]

A me piacerebbe un sacco poterle usare per separare i differenti edifici
nel centro del mio Comune (la regione ha caricato solo i volumi complessivi
nel centro storico, ovviamente molto meglio di niente), ma purtroppo la
sovrapposizione con OSM è molto piena di errori. Ci sono ovviamente i
problemi di licenza,  ma superati quelli, farei fatica lo stesso ad
utilizzarli.

Tra l'altro avrei un dataset con le altezze di tutti gli edifici, ma sempre
su base catastale.

Il sab 26 set 2020, 15:42 Martin Koppenhoefer  ha
scritto:

>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 26. Sep 2020, at 07:18, Federico Cortese 
> wrote:
> >
> > a livello geometrico sono indicative, servono per altri scopi
>
>
> lo scopo non è quello di poter registrare la suddivisione ed i proprietari
> dei terreni? Mi sembra strano che nemmeno le geometrie delle particelle
> sono affidabili.
> Al meno la versione online mi sembra di non riportare tutte le
> suddivisioni con sufficiente dettaglio per poter registrare i proprietari
> (parlo proprio dei vicini miei, dove conosco bene la situazione)
> ___
> 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] Cambio licenza mappe catastali

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Sep 2020, at 07:18, Federico Cortese  wrote:
> 
> a livello geometrico sono indicative, servono per altri scopi


lo scopo non è quello di poter registrare la suddivisione ed i proprietari dei 
terreni? Mi sembra strano che nemmeno le geometrie delle particelle sono 
affidabili.
Al meno la versione online mi sembra di non riportare tutte le suddivisioni con 
sufficiente dettaglio per poter registrare i proprietari (parlo proprio dei 
vicini miei, dove conosco bene la situazione)
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Lester Caine]

On 26/09/2020 13:46, David Woolley wrote:
OS are in a funny position, in that they are in the public sector, but 
are expected to be self funding.  To the extent that they succeed in the 
latter, they don't owe a duty to the taxpayer.


But since the vast majority of the UPRN data is actually collected and 
managed by the relevant councils, the question is do they have the right 
to restrict access when it is council taxes that pay for the management 
of that data and not OS! SHOULD we perhaps be asking the various 
councils for direct access to the raw data under the open data umbrella?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[David Woolley]

On 26/09/2020 13:06, Russ Garrett wrote:

There is no legal obligation for FoI responses to be openly licensed.
The point of FoI is to make information available for inspection, but
not (necessarily) for reuse.


To expand on that.

Larger UK companies tend to be very intellectual property based, so 
making information freely available is never going to be a government 
objective.


The actual objective will be more towards open government; ensuring that 
decisions, and the information behind them are open to scrutiny.  A 
secondary purpose is probably to try to ensure that the taxpayers have 
the results of work paid for from their taxes.


OS are in a funny position, in that they are in the public sector, but 
are expected to be self funding.  To the extent that they succeed in the 
latter, they don't owe a duty to the taxpayer.


Although FoI is often used as a tactic for obtaining information for 
republication, as the response points out, that republication isn't 
actually authorised by the FoIA; the information is provided for the 
personal use of the requestor.


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

[Talk-GB] Listed status / scheduled monument

[Edward Bainton]

Hi all

I'd like to map St Leonard's Priory, Stamford, Lincs:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1007690

This is a 'scheduled monument'.

   1. The wiki is a bit inconsistent on *how to tag* this.
  1. Key:listed_status
  
  suggests I should tag it .
  2. The table at Key:HE_ref
   would suggest that
  may not be the right tag, as  is only given for listed
  buildings - a different legal category.
  3. I've found plenty of the former in the map, so I'm assuming that's
  correct and the table at HE_ref needs amplifying

  2. I've also got a puzzle about *how to give the ref. number*.
  1. Key:listed_status
   invites
  me to use .
  2. Key:heritage
   invites me
  to use 

  I've tried using overpass-turbo to get relative frequencies of those
  two tags. I get the following (for most but not all of England, so ymmv:
  north of ~Barnard Castle not in my bounding box, but that wasn't a
  political decision...).

  I can't interpret it fully, but it looks like ref:he may be worth
  deleting from the wiki as obsolete?

  *HE_ref=**
  Loaded – nodes: 46397, ways: 5541, relations: 124
  Displayed – pois: 591, lines: 634, polygons: 4770

  *ref:he=**
  Loaded – nodes: 2274, ways: 176, relations: 1
  Displayed – pois: 31, lines: 10, polygons: 166

Thanks for any help.

Edward / eteb3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Edward Bainton]

Are there grounds to appeal that decision?

I don't know for sure, but I would have thought the point of FOI is to make
info generally accessible.

If payment allows you to do nothing useful with the data because it's
wrapped in restrictive licence conditions (which I'm sure it would be),
then it's not "accessible" in the relevant sense.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020, 11:29 Nick,  wrote:

> The update on the FOIA request
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr
> is worth a read!! Makes you wonder at the value of releasing open data that
> has limited value to the public?
> On 01/08/2020 20:24, Nick wrote:
>
> As a follow up, Robert Whittaker also submitted an FOI asking for "... a
> list of all UPRNs that are classified as 'historic', and a separate list of
> all those classified as a 'parent' ". the logicto me was that this
> would help users of Open Data to then filter these out. The response that
> this was "exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA" - if you
> are interested follow the link to
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr
>
> I was also interested regarding the details of the batch allocation to
> each custodian. So apart from the commercial value, this is unlikely to be
> published as apparently this might be misleading due to the randomness of
> the data and likely to be out of date quickly.
>
> So much for the potential for collaboration with the various authorities.
> On 06/07/2020 15:10, Nick wrote:
>
> Hi Jez
>
> To clarify, what I did was to find a 'suspicious' UPRN (two pins on one
> building with different address details). I then looked up the address on
> an online system (e.g. OneScotlandGazetteer or the local authority online
> Planning system) to check the details (UPRN and address). That allowed me
> to have details, which in this instance I then checked property sites (e.g.
> ESPC) to verify the 'likely' error.
>
> If you want more details of the example, let me know and I can put a bit
> more detail together.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nick
> On 06/07/2020 12:34, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> Sorry, i mean 'findmyaddress'.
>
> Also, from this Twitter thread
> https://twitter.com/jnicho02/status/1279821108783579139?s=20 I note that
> some streets have a UPRN. Existing services filter them out.
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:29 Jez Nicholson,  wrote:
>
>> Do you mean that you looked up the UPRN on findmystreet and it's
>> supposedly in a different location to the latlon in the file?
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:26 Nick,  wrote:
>>
>>> So I have just started with my crude system and already found one UPRN
>>> that looks as if it is in the wrong location (wrong postcode 6BT > 6ST ~
>>> and wrong county). If I am correct, then this demonstrates the value of
>>> opening up data to more 'eyes'. Not sure how we could collate all lists
>>> of anomalies to demonstrate this to government.
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2020 12:09, Nick wrote:
>>> > I went for the crude approach as my computer is not that powerful, so
>>> > I split the CSV into chunks and imported batches into QGIS with
>>> > county/postcode boundaries as my interest is trying to understand how
>>> > the UPRNs have been batched. Not elegant but means that I now can
>>> > focus on our area and identify those UPRNs that are most useful to me
>>> > for plotting missing rural properties. I can then write a script to
>>> > only give me those UPRNs of interest. As I say, crude but useful to me
>>> > as I can now start to match addresses to UPRN when I add properties.
>>> >
>>> > On 05/07/2020 20:56, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>>> >> On 05.07.2020 18:45, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>>> >>> On 05.07.2020 17:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>>  Naive question - can that be added as a layer in JOSM? If so, how?
>>> >>> I'll have to check whether I can manage that anyway with the new
>>> server
>>> >>> now. Will come back to this.
>>> >> Meh. 3 hours in, every possible lead I had didn't bring me closer to
>>> >> setting up the UPRN data in the same way.
>>> >>
>>> >> Having 6 GiB of GeoPackage or 2 GiB of MySQL data doesn't make working
>>> >> with the data any easier.
>>> >>
>>> >> I will look out for help from the GeoServer people during the week,
>>> >> watch this space :)
>>> >>
>>> >> 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
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> 

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

The update on the FOIA request 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr 
is worth a read!! Makes you wonder at the value of releasing open data 
that has limited value to the public?


On 01/08/2020 20:24, Nick wrote:


As a follow up, Robert Whittaker also submitted an FOI asking for "... 
a list of all UPRNs that are classified as 'historic', and a separate 
list of all those classified as a 'parent' ". the logicto me was 
that this would help users of Open Data to then filter these out. The 
response that this was "exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the 
FOIA" - if you are interested follow the link to 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr


I was also interested regarding the details of the batch allocation to 
each custodian. So apart from the commercial value, this is unlikely 
to be published as apparently this might be misleading due to the 
randomness of the data and likely to be out of date quickly.


So much for the potential for collaboration with the various authorities.

On 06/07/2020 15:10, Nick wrote:


Hi Jez

To clarify, what I did was to find a 'suspicious' UPRN (two pins on 
one building with different address details). I then looked up the 
address on an online system (e.g. OneScotlandGazetteer or the local 
authority online Planning system) to check the details (UPRN and 
address). That allowed me to have details, which in this instance I 
then checked property sites (e.g. ESPC) to verify the 'likely' error.


If you want more details of the example, let me know and I can put a 
bit more detail together.


Cheers

Nick

On 06/07/2020 12:34, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Sorry, i mean 'findmyaddress'.

Also, from this Twitter thread 
https://twitter.com/jnicho02/status/1279821108783579139?s=20 I note 
that some streets have a UPRN. Existing services filter them out.


On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:29 Jez Nicholson, > wrote:


Do you mean that you looked up the UPRN on findmystreet and it's
supposedly in a different location to the latlon in the file?

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:26 Nick, mailto:n...@foresters.org>> wrote:

So I have just started with my crude system and already
found one UPRN
that looks as if it is in the wrong location (wrong postcode
6BT > 6ST ~
and wrong county). If I am correct, then this demonstrates
the value of
opening up data to more 'eyes'. Not sure how we could
collate all lists
of anomalies to demonstrate this to government.

On 06/07/2020 12:09, Nick wrote:
> I went for the crude approach as my computer is not that
powerful, so
> I split the CSV into chunks and imported batches into QGIS
with
> county/postcode boundaries as my interest is trying to
understand how
> the UPRNs have been batched. Not elegant but means that I
now can
> focus on our area and identify those UPRNs that are most
useful to me
> for plotting missing rural properties. I can then write a
script to
> only give me those UPRNs of interest. As I say, crude but
useful to me
> as I can now start to match addresses to UPRN when I add
properties.
>
> On 05/07/2020 20:56, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>> On 05.07.2020 18:45, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>>> On 05.07.2020 17:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:
 Naive question - can that be added as a layer in JOSM?
If so, how?
>>> I'll have to check whether I can manage that anyway with
the new server
>>> now. Will come back to this.
>> Meh. 3 hours in, every possible lead I had didn't bring
me closer to
>> setting up the UPRN data in the same way.
>>
>> Having 6 GiB of GeoPackage or 2 GiB of MySQL data doesn't
make working
>> with the data any easier.
>>
>> I will look out for help from the GeoServer people during
the week,
>> watch this space :)
>>
>> 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

___
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-it] Vecchi sentieri CAI

[Danilo via Talk-it]

La situazione sentieri é molto fluida ... direi che è meglio descrivere al meglio il sentiero nelle relazioni cone specificato nella wiki del CAI e non inoltrarsi a indicare se gestito o non gestito CAI. O meglio indicare quelli di cui si è certi al 100 per 100 che sono gestiti CAI e lasciare indeterminati gli altri.Danilo___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Vecchi sentieri CAI

[MicheleOSM3]

Il 26/09/2020 10.57, MicheleOSM3 ha scritto:
Come si può capire se un sentiero é ancora gestito rispetto a uno che 
non lo é ?
Ci sono tracce dei segnavia CAI sul sentiero (a volte sbiadite) a 
volte anche vecchi cartelli CAI, poi ci sono informazioni su internet.



Mi correggo:

se un sentiero CAI è gestito, nella mia regione di solito è elencato 
qui: https://www.cai-fvg.it/ e di solito sul sentiero ci sono sia i 
cartelli che i segnavia


se un sentiero CAI non è più gestito ci sono tracce dei segnavia CAI sul 
sentiero (a volte sbiadite) a volte anche vecchi cartelli CAI, poi ci 
sono informazioni su internet.



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

Re: [OpenStreetMap Serbia] Pitanje

[Thomas via Talk-rs]

 Ćao Vladan
ovde, na OSMu https://www.openstreetmap.org/message/new/SunCobalt ili pišaj me 
na thomas.bar...@gmail.com
PozdraviThomas (SunCobalt)

Am Samstag, 26. September 2020, 08:25:45 MESZ hat Vladan Petrovic 
 Folgendes geschrieben:  
 
  
Kako da direktno kontaktiram nekog od korisnika?
 
Konkretno treba mi SunCobalt.
 
  
 
Srdačan pozdrav/Best regards,
 
  
 
Vladan Petrović
 
  
 ___
Talk-rs mailing list
Talk-rs@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-rs
  ___
Talk-rs mailing list
Talk-rs@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-rs

Re: [Talk-it] Vecchi sentieri CAI

[MicheleOSM3]

Il 26/09/2020 10.46, Danilo via Talk-it ha scritto:

Intanto vorrei capire perche si parla di sentieri ex CAI ?
Perché questo è quello che ho trovato su OSM, fatto da altri prima di 
me, a me non mi sembrava sbagliato, secondo te sarebbe da togliere ogni 
riferimento al CAI?
Come si può capire se un sentiero é ancora gestito rispetto a uno che 
non lo é ?
Ci sono tracce dei segnavia CAI sul sentiero (a volte sbiadite) a volte 
anche vecchi cartelli CAI, poi ci sono informazioni su internet.



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

Re: [Talk-it] Vecchi sentieri CAI

[Danilo via Talk-it]

Intanto vorrei capire perche si parla di sentieri ex CAI ?Come si può capire se un sentiero é ancora gestito rispetto a uno che non lo é ?Immagino sappiate che il CAI sta organizzando il catasto generale italiano dei sentieri mediante la piattaforma Infomont in fase di realizzazione.DaniloIl 26 Set 2020 10:04, MicheleOSM3  ha scritto:
Ciao a tutti,
  Ho qualche dubbio su come sono stati impostati alcuni sentieri che
  una volta erano sentieri CAI ma che adesso non sono più CAI.
  Ho comunicato privatamente con l'utente Cascafico che mi ha
  seguito inizialmente e che ringrazio in quanto ha dedicato
  tantissimo tempo per aiutarmi ed è stato estremamente competente,
  gentile e disponibile.
  Tuttavia ho ancora qualche dubbio.
  Ho visto cosa avevano fatto altri prima di me, e spesso hanno
  impostato i tag come in questo esempio:

  disused:operator=Club Alpino Italiano
disused:osmc:name=Ex651
disused:osmc:symbol=red:red:white_stripe:Ex651:black
network=lwn
old_ref=651
route=hiking
type=route

Le mie domande:

Credo che usare il prefisso "disused:" sia corretto e si
riflette sul rendering in modo credo efficace. Secondo voi va
bene?Il tag "old_ref" è ridondante?Usare il prefisso "Ex" prima del numero del sentiero, credo
che non vada bene, non sarebbe meglio lasciare il numero del
sentiero intatto? Comunque c'è il tag "disused:" che indica che
non viene più usato  e il tag
"disused:osmc:symbol=red:red:white_stripe:651:black" evita che
venda visualizzato il simbolo e il numero in Way Marked Trail
ciao
  Michele


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

[Talk-it] Vecchi sentieri CAI

[MicheleOSM3]

Ciao a tutti,
Ho qualche dubbio su come sono stati impostati alcuni sentieri che una 
volta erano sentieri CAI ma che adesso non sono più CAI.
Ho comunicato privatamente con l'utente Cascafico che mi ha seguito 
inizialmente e che ringrazio in quanto ha dedicato tantissimo tempo per 
aiutarmi ed è stato estremamente competente, gentile e disponibile.

Tuttavia ho ancora qualche dubbio.
Ho visto cosa avevano fatto altri prima di me, e spesso hanno impostato 
i tag come in questo esempio:


   disused:operator=Club Alpino Italiano
   disused:osmc:name=Ex651
   disused:osmc:symbol=red:red:white_stripe:Ex651:black
   network=lwn
   old_ref=651
   route=hiking
   type=route

Le mie domande:

1. Credo che usare il prefisso "disused:" sia corretto e si riflette
   sul rendering in modo credo efficace. Secondo voi va bene?
2. Il tag "old_ref" è ridondante?
3. Usare il prefisso "Ex" prima del numero del sentiero, credo che non
   vada bene, non sarebbe meglio lasciare il numero del sentiero
   intatto? Comunque c'è il tag "disused:" che indica che non viene più
   usato  e il tag "disused:osmc:symbol=red:red:white_stripe:651:black"
   evita che venda visualizzato il simbolo e il numero in Way Marked Trail

ciao
Michele


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] OSMdata

[Denis Chenu]

Merci,

Et oui : l'idée n'était que de donner un exemple de type de remontée :).
C'est bien ce que je ne trouve pas clair :
- remontée erreur de carte (contributions OSM)
- remontée problème de recherche : github ou loomio (à vous d voir)
- remontée code : github

Parfait !


Le 24/09/2020 à 10:25, Nelson Tayou a écrit :
> Bonjour, 
>
> Merci pour toutes ces remarques !
>
> Pour connaître la requête exécutée pour une couche c'est sur son
> bouton "i".
> Capture 2.png
> Capture.png
> Pour les piscines, c'est/ leisure='swimming_pool' AND
> (tags->'access'='yes' OR tags->'access'='customers')./
> /
> /
> Je trouve les emails compliqués pour échange sur les requêtes des
> couches ou leurs pictos, surtout qu'ils conduisent très rapidement à
> des débats. Une issue sur github
>  ou Loomio
>  permettrait de
> débattre problématique par problématique et garder une trace plus
> facile à retrouver.
>
>   * L'ouverture de la plateforme ne se fait plus sur la thématique
> "Tourisme et loisirs", ca avait été fait pour permettre aux
> visiteurs d'ajouter une couche en un seul clic ^^
>   * Bonne idée pour le changement de "Fond de carte" à "Plus de fonds
> carte" 
>   * Tous les titres ont basculé vers "Data OSM"
>   * Il est possible d'envisager une plus grande échelle à la fin
> d'année lorsque QGIS aura sorti une version permettant de faire
> des WMS tuilés avec des gutter (pour éviter les cassures des
> icônes/étiquettes)
>   * J'ai listé d'autres remarques d'ici dans les issues de git
>
> Bonne journée à tous
>
> Karl
>
>
> Le jeu. 24 sept. 2020 à 08:07, Denis Chenu  > a écrit :
>
> Bonjour,
>
> Non, selon le wiki ce n'est pas le cas.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dswimming
>
> Il existe :  leisure=swimming_area et leisure=water_park  pour les
> 2 cas dont tu parle.
> Si il faut que cela soit autrement : cela doit être dans le wiki.
>
> Denis
>
>
> Le 23/09/2020 à 18:10, Philippe Verdy a écrit :
>> sur  "leisure=sports_centre + sport=swimming", cela n'indique pas
>> nécessairement le contour de la piscine mais l'emprise de la zone
>> sportive qui inclue une piscine, ou un bassin protégé ça peut
>> être zone délimitée d'un étang naturel ou artificiel ou d'un lac,
>> et ne concerner qu'une partie du bassin, le reste étant pour
>> d'autres activités comme la pratique de sports en eau vive avec
>> une autre organisation.
>> De plus même si le sport principal c'est la natation, on peut y
>> trouver une zone dédié au plongeon, à l'entrainement à la
>> plongée, il peut y avoir aussi une utilisation mixte (genre
>> bassin qui peut être couvert d'un plancher mobile, et servir à
>> d'autres sports, sans compter aussi des salles de culture
>> physique et même dans un parc autour de l'athlétisme, un terrain
>> de tennis. S'il y a unen tribune, ce peut être aussi une salle de
>> spectacle; dans certains cas c'est aussi un musée où la piscine
>> est conservée pour sa beauté architecturale, ses céramiques: la
>> maintenir en eau permet de préserver l'équilibre de l'édifice et
>> le bassin n'avoir plus qu'une fonction ornementale qui servira
>> seulement à certaines occasions de prestige après un controle de
>> l'eau et un peu de rangement autour...)
>>
>> Le lun. 21 sept. 2020 à 11:34, Denis Chenu  a écrit :
>>
>> Quand je parle des erreurs, cela peut être sur la carte ou
>> sur la façon
>> de les récupérer. Donc 2 liens différents : comment contribuer à
>> openstreetmap et comment remonter les erreurs ici(cf exemple).
>>
>> Denis
>> exemple : les piscines ne remonte pas toutes, pas celle en
>> leisure=sports_centre + sport=swimming
>>
>>
>> Donc si c'est biuen une piscine, autant la délimiter en tant que
>> tel à l'intérieur du centre sportif. Enfin des centres sportifs
>> consacrés à la natation peuvent ne plus être qu'un point de
>> rassemblement d'un club, l'activité étant ailleurs (surtout je
>> pense pour les clubs liés aux équipes de compétition, ou la
>> préparation sportive hors eau). 
>>
>> ___
>> 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 list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org

[OpenStreetMap Serbia] Pitanje

[Vladan Petrovic]

Kako da direktno kontaktiram nekog od korisnika?
Konkretno treba mi SunCobalt.

Srdačan pozdrav/Best regards,

Vladan Petrović

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