Re: [Talk-us] Currently available good GPS for use with OSM mapping in the USA?
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Joseph R. Justice wrote: I see the eTrex 30 currently for $219 (down from $299) as a Black Friday > special direct from Garmin, and for $199 from GPSCity. (And the 199 price > is the same as Garmin retail for the eTrex 20, tho I'm sure GPSCity's price > for that one is less than Garmin's also.) Online web shopping doesn't show > me any cheaper prices, so... And GPSCity has the recommended Garmin case > for it available for less also, and free shipping, so... > For anyone curious, I ended up going for the Garmin eTrex 30 *plus also* the Garmin GLO, plus accessories (cases and belt clips and the like), from GPSCity. Basically, I got the two main items from GPSCity for the same price as Garmin's normal list retail for just the eTrex 30 by itself. And, that was still within / at the upper limit I'd originally set for what I was thinking about spending. I dithered about it for a little while, but decided that this way I would have a dedicated GPS device capable of communicating with Android devices if after getting some experience I decided that was the better way to go. It took them a few days to ship, because one of the items I ordered was backordered, but it was finally shipped today and I should receive it on Dec 9. Yay. Again, thanks for all the responses. > Ibid. Joseph ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.
Well, to add a second role to an item in a relation would require an entire overhaul of relations, the editors, and even the OSM database I would think to do it. That's why I suggested doing the ";" or "|" because data consumers already know how to deal with the ";" at least in the ref tags on normal ways (look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields based off the ref tags on ways). Heck, maybe even a ":" might work (role = north:unsigned). -James > From: m...@rtijn.org > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State > highways. > To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast wrote: > > Martijn, > > > > How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for > > completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info > > into the main tags of the relation)? We would still need a way to keep the > > direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the > > relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the > > route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a > > dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk > > on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in > > one piece. > > My idea was to just use > > role=north/east/south/west > > for the regularly signposted sections and > > role=north/east/south/west > role:signed=no > > for the hidden sections. > > It feels contrived but I also don't see a much better solution in > terms of striking a balance between keeping relation complexity in > check and information redundancy / ease of maintenance. > > > > > If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe use > > the ";" or "," instead? I could see the ";" working just as good as the > > "|". > > I just want to follow whatever practice is most common for more > specific information related to a tag, and thinking of the lanes and > access tagging systems I thought the role:signed approach would make > the most sense. > > > > > I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" instead > > of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one > > covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag. Annoying and easily > > broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact > > same route on some segments. > > I agree 100%. > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] a reminder for armchair mappers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 06.12.2013 22:51, Richard Welty wrote: > i'm thinking maybe we need an agreed upon way of marking these > areas so that the usual editors (id, potlatch2, josm) can flag > them as places where aerial imagery is out of date. I have lost track of the various initiatives to record aerial imagery offsets but what you are asking for here is very similar - a note to users of a certain aerial imagery source in a certain area, that should ideally be popped up by the editor once the user gives the impression of wanting to work in that area and has the imagery in question on screen. The simplest and most generic of these suggestions was to simply place nodes with a specific tagging somewhere in the general area for the editor to pick up and warn the user or auto-adjust aerial imagery. The disadvantage obviously being that you'll miss the note if your edit area doesn't include it, and that the database gets polluted with meta objects (cf. discussion about "aerial imagery boundary" objects). This could be improved to allow "remarks" that cover whole areas and not only points (and btw. it needn't even be aerial imagery related - once established, people might even put it to (mis?)use by drawing a rectangle that pops up a message "mapping party here next weekend, contact u...@domain.com", and/or a different server could be used for such meta data. A few months ago, Zverik launched a small project that would allow you to chat with nearby other mappers active in the same area - technologically it should be very easy to piggyback some generic "area related messaging" function onto that because it already implements the "editor sends area being edited to server, server checks if others are in the same area and sends back a notify message" bit. A very interesting field that, if done well, can make mapping much more collaborative (you may say "social" if you're so inclined) than it is now! I'm not sure why none of the aerial imagery offset correction ideas has really established itself yet; I fear the process might have been over engineered and the perfect is the enemy of the good. Bye Frederik - -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSonjuAAoJEOx/uhGAJu9HwaYH/RybYdgMeiWDI5yarwcU2Cli 3KMi6WZPtuooA6JHcAogETjShewwxx6wj/0vik6q3YBoVW6T9xuQehhiTqt6dtgE z5T8pDOWD89byuPQFhLwsYT3izj9i04gnjK/v4qjfqp4dxbbhJoHTQWwP8ZxDpfV owqgLAQFGK8GkmSXL44Zt03VoqhZEjypEfK/wRS1Rc6+sOKiHUSgzs6gM3YiFFBa QLqpP82OC8gOCDSmI/Z0i9wJy5uY62sjGRogPy5LLSsh0B/46GfcuuKw8UoFDGj2 HRw4yK0Nczoo6Ynaa+TOV9IRuDe95bZp2eCpULzEsn/nvdgk5QdVeAgdJOZUi4Y= =GMnf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] a reminder for armchair mappers
Imagery is only out of date if something was (de)constructed since the imagery was collected that would affect how that area is accurately mapped. Therefore to me it makes more sense to tag the newer objects rather than entire areas with a specific tag that editors would pick up and act upon appropriately (highlight, emit a warning when you change geometry or delete it, something like that) On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > I believe at some point there was, or at least there was discussion of > implementing, a way to mark areas where the aerial imagery is out-of-date. > Unfortunately I'm drawing a blank on any further development from there, but > that would seem to be the best solution all-around (having cleaned up a > similar issue in my area a few weeks ago). > > > Chris > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Richard Welty > wrote: >> >> i'm thinking maybe we need an agreed upon way of marking these >> areas so that the usual editors (id, potlatch2, josm) can flag them >> as places where aerial imagery is out of date. >> >> also, Mike N had suggested highway:disused. instead, maybe >> something like highway:removed=yes would work. >> >> i'd recommend highway:removed over highway=removed >> because some rendering engines will display a line for >> highway=removed, but ignore highway:removed because >> they don't recognize the tag. a local mapper here in Albany >> had added highway=proposed for a few proposals dating >> back to the 50s and 60s that will never be built. i changed >> them to highway=unbuilt, but that didn't make them go >> away, so they are now all highway:unbuilt=motorway (or >> whatever.) i left them in so they didn't get put back in using >> inappropriate tagging. >> >> richard >> >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > > > -- > Chris Lawrence > > Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/ > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Martijn van Exel President, US Chapter OpenStreetMap http://openstreetmap.us/ http://osm.org/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] a reminder for armchair mappers
I believe at some point there was, or at least there was discussion of implementing, a way to mark areas where the aerial imagery is out-of-date. Unfortunately I'm drawing a blank on any further development from there, but that would seem to be the best solution all-around (having cleaned up a similar issue in my area a few weeks ago). Chris On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > i'm thinking maybe we need an agreed upon way of marking these > areas so that the usual editors (id, potlatch2, josm) can flag them > as places where aerial imagery is out of date. > > also, Mike N had suggested highway:disused. instead, maybe > something like highway:removed=yes would work. > > i'd recommend highway:removed over highway=removed > because some rendering engines will display a line for > highway=removed, but ignore highway:removed because > they don't recognize the tag. a local mapper here in Albany > had added highway=proposed for a few proposals dating > back to the 50s and 60s that will never be built. i changed > them to highway=unbuilt, but that didn't make them go > away, so they are now all highway:unbuilt=motorway (or > whatever.) i left them in so they didn't get put back in using > inappropriate tagging. > > richard > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Chris Lawrence Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] a reminder for armchair mappers
i'm thinking maybe we need an agreed upon way of marking these areas so that the usual editors (id, potlatch2, josm) can flag them as places where aerial imagery is out of date. also, Mike N had suggested highway:disused. instead, maybe something like highway:removed=yes would work. i'd recommend highway:removed over highway=removed because some rendering engines will display a line for highway=removed, but ignore highway:removed because they don't recognize the tag. a local mapper here in Albany had added highway=proposed for a few proposals dating back to the 50s and 60s that will never be built. i changed them to highway=unbuilt, but that didn't make them go away, so they are now all highway:unbuilt=motorway (or whatever.) i left them in so they didn't get put back in using inappropriate tagging. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] a reminder for armchair mappers
Putting notes in the tags may be helpful, but in the "simple" tagging mode in P2 (does anyone still use that? I do, b/c I don't like iD), you can't see them and some mapper might not get the message in the note. Personally, pretty much all my edits are armchair mapping, but it's generally in my local area, so I often have knowledge of things on the ground before I go adding or deleting it from OSM. -Compdude On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Natfoot wrote: > I also agree that putting notes in the tags are helpful to some of us that > are armchair mappers. I will see the tags sooner than the history data. I > tend to map around railroads using the imagery and Tiger data and tags. > -Nathan > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > >> That is a great point and something I feel strongly about, having >> created armchair mapper's tools like Battle Grid and Maproulette. >> >> I will make some time to put in a warning notice into these tools that >> would pop up the first time folks use it. What would a good, concise, >> cautionary note look like? >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Richard Welty >> wrote: >> > if you see a discrepancy between aerial imagery and OSM, before you >> > go adding/changing stuff, check on the history of the stuff that's there >> > and see if another mapper has worked on things recently (for some >> > value of recently.) i have done a bunch of work in the past month >> > adding in a new traffic circle on US 4 in Rensselaer County, NY, >> > using GPS traces. as part of the process, i removed a slip ramp >> > from I-90 that was taken out by DOT when they built the new >> > circle. i just now discovered that another mapper added the slip >> > ramp back in, presumably because it's in the Bing imagery, which >> > is at this point 2 or 3 years old. >> > >> > this isn't the first time i've been through this; a year or so back >> > a couple of armchair mappers repeatedly changed a part of Troy >> > to match obsolete imagery and i kept having to ask them not to >> > and put back in the recent changes. i now put README tags on >> > the ways but if i delete something i have no place to put a >> > README tag. >> > >> > imagery goes out of date. armchair mappers must never forget >> > that. if the imagery doesn't match the map, contact a local mapper >> > if you can identify one. you could be fixing something that wasn't >> > actually broken. >> > >> > thanks, >> >richard >> > >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > Talk-us mailing list >> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Martijn van Exel >> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ >> http://openstreetmap.us/ >> >> ___ >> 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 > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2013-12-04
These are based off of Lambertus's work here: http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit. Downloads: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2013-12-04 Map to visualize what each file contains: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2013-12-04/kml/kml.html FAQ Why did you do this? I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact of doing a large join on Lambertus's server. I've also cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently on removable media. http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2013-12-04 Can or should I seed the torrents? Yes!! If you use the .torrent files, please seed. That web server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this side of the Atlantic. Why is my map missing small rectangular areas? There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the red rectangles), I don't see any at the moment, so you may want to update if you had issues with the last set. Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card? If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from the factory. I had to reformat it to let me create a >2GB file. Does your map cover Mexico/Canada? Yes!! I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario in to the USA. Some areas of North America that are close to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps. This might not happen forever, and if you would like your non-US area to get included, let me know. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.
Thanks for the reply Martijn. There is a lot of talk about capture unsigned/signed information in the relation. And I've read some proposals of adding to the role field--delimiting values by a pipe or semi-colon. I think that if there is interest to capture information about a way/node's relationship (i.e., signed or unsigned, direction, etc ) to the relation it is a member of, then why not either modify the role data type to capture tags (hstore) or add another field to the table of a relations' members to capture such information (hstore, again)? I acknowledge that many applications depend on the existing OSM data model. Changing the data type of existing fields would cause issues in existing applications. That said, I think it may be worth exploring *adding* a field to the existing data model. After all we are talking about adding information to existing relations about highway direction and whether or not they are signed. Something I've been thinking about while following these conversations. Best, Kristen --- OSM Profile → http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK -Original Message- From: mve...@gmail.com [mailto:mve...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martijn van Exel Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:04 PM To: Kam, Kristen -(p) Cc: James Mast; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways. Ways are objects in their own right, so they can have tags, but members only exist as a reference on a relation, so there is not really a model for tags on members. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p) wrote: > Hi All: > > > > I have a question: Why can’t there be member tag values? There are > tag values for ways, so why not members? Just a thought. > > > > Best, > > > > Kristen > > > > --- > > > > OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK > > > > From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM > To: Martijn van Exel > Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & > State highways. > > > > Martijn, > > How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this > just for completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can > add this info into the main tags of the relation)? We would still > need a way to keep the direction for the unsigned segment of the route > in the role so that the relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) > would be able to know that the route is still going North/East or > South/West, especially on a dual-carriageway (like what happens with > US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, > PA) and would let you know it's still in one piece. > > If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", > maybe use the ";" or "," instead? I could see the ";" working just as > good as the "|". > > I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" > instead of having to have two separate relations for it's signed > segment and one covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag. > Annoying and easily broken by new users who don't know why there are > two relations for the exact same route on some segments. > > -James > >> From: m...@rtijn.org >> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700 >> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com >> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & >> State highways. >> >> Hi James, >> >> I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense >> to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM >> tagging practice to use role:signed = yes/no? >> >> I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you >> can add a paragraph to the wiki page >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_S >> tates with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure >> if we could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;) >> http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg >> >> Best >> Martijn >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast >> >> wrote: >> > We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of >> > a route so we don't have to have two separate relations for >> > highways that have segments that are hidden. >> > >> > Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's >> > on >> > I-94 >> > and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376. >> > Both states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow >> > said Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to >> > them till when they leave the Interstates. I'm thinking that we >> > could possibly tag the roles for them in the relations this way: >> > role=north|unsigned. This would also help for the renders that use >> > the relations to add the shields. >> > They >> > would be able to use the
Re: [Talk-us] a reminder for armchair mappers
I also agree that putting notes in the tags are helpful to some of us that are armchair mappers. I will see the tags sooner than the history data. I tend to map around railroads using the imagery and Tiger data and tags. -Nathan On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > That is a great point and something I feel strongly about, having > created armchair mapper's tools like Battle Grid and Maproulette. > > I will make some time to put in a warning notice into these tools that > would pop up the first time folks use it. What would a good, concise, > cautionary note look like? > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Richard Welty > wrote: > > if you see a discrepancy between aerial imagery and OSM, before you > > go adding/changing stuff, check on the history of the stuff that's there > > and see if another mapper has worked on things recently (for some > > value of recently.) i have done a bunch of work in the past month > > adding in a new traffic circle on US 4 in Rensselaer County, NY, > > using GPS traces. as part of the process, i removed a slip ramp > > from I-90 that was taken out by DOT when they built the new > > circle. i just now discovered that another mapper added the slip > > ramp back in, presumably because it's in the Bing imagery, which > > is at this point 2 or 3 years old. > > > > this isn't the first time i've been through this; a year or so back > > a couple of armchair mappers repeatedly changed a part of Troy > > to match obsolete imagery and i kept having to ask them not to > > and put back in the recent changes. i now put README tags on > > the ways but if i delete something i have no place to put a > > README tag. > > > > imagery goes out of date. armchair mappers must never forget > > that. if the imagery doesn't match the map, contact a local mapper > > if you can identify one. you could be fixing something that wasn't > > actually broken. > > > > thanks, > >richard > > > > > > > > ___ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > > > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > http://openstreetmap.us/ > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] a reminder for armchair mappers
That is a great point and something I feel strongly about, having created armchair mapper's tools like Battle Grid and Maproulette. I will make some time to put in a warning notice into these tools that would pop up the first time folks use it. What would a good, concise, cautionary note look like? On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > if you see a discrepancy between aerial imagery and OSM, before you > go adding/changing stuff, check on the history of the stuff that's there > and see if another mapper has worked on things recently (for some > value of recently.) i have done a bunch of work in the past month > adding in a new traffic circle on US 4 in Rensselaer County, NY, > using GPS traces. as part of the process, i removed a slip ramp > from I-90 that was taken out by DOT when they built the new > circle. i just now discovered that another mapper added the slip > ramp back in, presumably because it's in the Bing imagery, which > is at this point 2 or 3 years old. > > this isn't the first time i've been through this; a year or so back > a couple of armchair mappers repeatedly changed a part of Troy > to match obsolete imagery and i kept having to ask them not to > and put back in the recent changes. i now put README tags on > the ways but if i delete something i have no place to put a > README tag. > > imagery goes out of date. armchair mappers must never forget > that. if the imagery doesn't match the map, contact a local mapper > if you can identify one. you could be fixing something that wasn't > actually broken. > > thanks, >richard > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] a reminder for armchair mappers
if you see a discrepancy between aerial imagery and OSM, before you go adding/changing stuff, check on the history of the stuff that's there and see if another mapper has worked on things recently (for some value of recently.) i have done a bunch of work in the past month adding in a new traffic circle on US 4 in Rensselaer County, NY, using GPS traces. as part of the process, i removed a slip ramp from I-90 that was taken out by DOT when they built the new circle. i just now discovered that another mapper added the slip ramp back in, presumably because it's in the Bing imagery, which is at this point 2 or 3 years old. this isn't the first time i've been through this; a year or so back a couple of armchair mappers repeatedly changed a part of Troy to match obsolete imagery and i kept having to ask them not to and put back in the recent changes. i now put README tags on the ways but if i delete something i have no place to put a README tag. imagery goes out of date. armchair mappers must never forget that. if the imagery doesn't match the map, contact a local mapper if you can identify one. you could be fixing something that wasn't actually broken. thanks, richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
