On 15/08/15 20:57, Paul Norman wrote:
The obvious question is that given tilemill is not longer being
maintained, what are the preferred alternatives?
Kosmtik is the preferred alternative to Tilemill, but both of these are
style design programs, not programs for serving tiles to others. I have
On 8/15/2015 2:09 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
The simple answer seems to be that there is no standard when it comes to
mapping applications and everybody creates their own personal special
such as kosmtik rather than working with established standards:(
Kosmtik is a standard. But it's a development
El 15/08/2015 10:26 am, Jochen Topf escribió:
Hi!
Taginfo got an update this week. Together with Cristopher Baines I
worked on
making it a bit more mobile friendly. Some bugs were fixed and some
parts that
were rather slow are much faster now. But the biggest news is the new
taglist
feature:
On 15/08/2015 10:08 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
On 15/08/15 12:55, Colin Smale wrote:
Good question. We assume they were not entered from sources without a
suitable licence. Should we delete them? I certainly don't need to know
where the gas pipelines are.
But someone buying a house close by may
On 15/08/15 23:04, Paul Norman wrote:
17 117 occurences is not 'not in the database'.
No, a key not in
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/openstreetmap-carto.style
is not in the database. landcover is not in that list, so is not in the
database.
The data is in
On 8/15/2015 1:15 PM, Ruben Maes wrote:
17 117 occurences is not 'not in the database'.
No, a key not in
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/openstreetmap-carto.style
is not in the database. landcover is not in that list, so is not in the
database.
On 15 August 2015 16:29:56 GMT+01:00, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Are we even talking about the same thing? Let's assume that you made a
s mple t po.
Don't those last two words look a little weird with missing bits?
Shouldn't those letters be there? Shouldn't the dismantled bits of a
On 16/08/2015 1:29 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Warin writes:
On 15/08/2015 3:46 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Railway=dismantled. Doesn't get rendered except where it should be,
do you still want railway=disused to remain?
Are we even talking about the same thing? Let's assume that you made a
On 16/08/2015 1:35 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Serge Wroclawski writes:
Our project's policy thusfar has been in contrast to other projects in that
each and every one of us is empowered to make changes to anything we see.
You're starting to understand! You should make changes to things you
On 15/08/2015 7:19 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I would like to argue for a general
do-not-remove-if-you-do-not-have-the-original-mapper's-ok-beforehand
policy for these and similar cases.
I have myself mapped a couple of abandoned railways where the remains
were often no longer recognizable
So who decides what is good data and what is bad data?
And visibility on the ground needs nuancing. Are we to remove
underground pipelines/power lines? Or boundaries? Visible and/or
verifiable might be better. A rule that needs loads of exceptions, is
not a well formed rule.
An abandoned
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
So who decides what is good data and what is bad data?
The community as a whole decides what is good and bad data. That starts
with the local community and moves up to the OSM community as a whole in
terms of whether or
I would like to argue for a general
do-not-remove-if-you-do-not-have-the-original-mapper's-ok-beforehand policy
for these and similar cases.
I have myself mapped a couple of abandoned railways where the remains were
often no longer recognizable individually as traces of a former railway,
but as a
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to argue for a general
do-not-remove-if-you-do-not-have-the-original-mapper's-ok-beforehand policy
for these and similar cases.
Then you are (whether or not you intend it) arguing in favor of
dis-empowering
On 15/08/2015 3:46 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Mateusz Konieczny writes:
In another case where railway tracks that were removed, embankment
demolished and somebody build there houses. In that case railway
track should not be mapped in OSM because this feature is gone.
Railway=dismantled.
On 15 August 2015 14:16:06 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO it would rather encourage mappers to make more sense out of these
than it is now. I'm myself adding a pointless landuse=forest for every
landcover=trees now (for the renderer), and I guess most other
On 15 August 2015 14:23:09 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to the
natural (as in nature) and managed idea. Usually the distinction
between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
I'm not sure how TileMill fits within your rendering stack here. Do you
mean Mapnik?
If you talk about carto-based style development the best alternative for
TileMill right now is Kosmtik (https://github.com/kosmtik/kosmtik),
which is developed and maintained by Yohan Boniface. Some if not
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 13:50 schrieb Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
The question is how much is actually gained from this when
landuse=forest and natural=wood are practically identical anyway and
mean the same, namely 'this area is densely covered by trees'.
W dniu 15.08.2015 15:23, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to
the natural (as in nature) and managed idea. Usually the distinction
between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
natural and landuse is about
On 15/08/15 14:39, Andy Townsend wrote:
There's lots of discussion on Openstreetmap-Carto's github about this, which
explains what's possible with the standard style right now, but if you're
not subject to those restrictions you can certainly render leaf_type now -
I've been doing it for my
On 2015-08-15 13:15, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
So who decides what is good data and what is bad data?
The community as a whole decides what is good and bad data. That starts with
the local community and moves up
To clarify, I'm not advocating the use of landcover=* tag (I'm on the
fence).
However I've never liked that fact that an attribute of tree areas
(managed) was differentiated with primary key tags instead of sub-tags
such as:
landuse/landcover=wood/trees
managed=yes/no
landcover=trees is
I meant it a bit rhetorically... Let's live and let live, instead of
deleting stuff that *we* don't happen to be interested in. Which brings
us back to Russ's original point.
On 2015-08-15 14:08, Lester Caine wrote:
On 15/08/15 12:55, Colin Smale wrote:
Good question. We assume they
W dniu 15.08.2015 13:50, Christoph Hormann napisał(a):
The suggestion of using landcover=trees is generally based on the idea
that both landuse=forest and natural=wood have a distinct meaning and
there are tree covered areas which are neither of these. But in
reality this is not the case and
I realize that I was not clear with my comment.
My point is that we cannot resolve this issue by simply deleting data.
Former railroads, or for former (historic) streets (as in Roman Street) or
former important road routes (like historic Route 66) could best be handled
by relations.
To take as an
Hi
Does the combined wood/forest update include landcover=trees? If not it
needs to be included all three should render the same (IMO).
Cheers
Dave F.
On 15/08/2015 03:27, Paul Norman wrote:
This email is also in user diary form at osm.org/user/pnorman/diary/35589
where issue numbers
The woodland change looks much better, but would it not be possible to
render broadleaved, needleleaved and mixed using different tree
images, as seen on other maps? This would, I think, give people more
incentive to add this information when mapping woodland.
Regards
Tony
On 15 August 2015 at
On 15/08/15 12:55, Colin Smale wrote:
Good question. We assume they were not entered from sources without a
suitable licence. Should we delete them? I certainly don't need to know
where the gas pipelines are.
But someone buying a house close by may be interested? A number of
pipelines have
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 12:31 schrieb Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com:
1. Visible on the ground but difficult to detect (ie require specialized
knowledge)
or
2. No longer visible at all.
no, the second case would be mistagged with railway=abandoned in most of the
There's lots of discussion on Openstreetmap-Carto's github about this, which
explains what's possible with the standard style right now, but if you're not
subject to those restrictions you can certainly render leaf_type now - I've
been doing it for my own use for some time (I wrote a diary
On 15/08/15 12:15, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
So who decides what is good data and what is bad data?
The community as a whole decides what is good and bad data. That starts
with the local community and moves up to the OSM community as a whole in
terms of whether or not data belongs in OSM
I'm on the fence about this. Does the 'general purpose' mapnik rendering
need such distinctions? Would the vast majority of end users really
care. Could it even make it more confusing for them?
Cheers
Dave F.
On 15/08/2015 12:45, tony wroblewski wrote:
The woodland change looks much better,
On Saturday 15 August 2015, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
Does the combined wood/forest update include landcover=trees? If not
it needs to be included all three should render the same (IMO).
The question is how much is actually gained from this when
landuse=forest and natural=wood are practically
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 12:31 schrieb Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com:
The problem that we have in some parts of the world is a lack of data, but in
other parts, we have an abundance of bad imports, and a general timidness
around the removal of data that we can't find the
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 13:55 schrieb Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
What about roman roads which are no longer visible without remote sensing or
ground penetrating radar? Are we suggesting they also have no place in OSM?
actually I am living in an area with a lot of
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 14:58 schrieb Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl:
In my opinion suggestion of using landcover=trees is based on the lack of
clarity of these tags. Forest suggests it is curated somehow (landuse),
wood suggests it is not (natural), but nobody is sure anymore what
On 15 August 2015 at 17:14, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The obvious question is that given tilemill is not longer being
maintained, what are the preferred alternatives?
Depending on what you need exactly, Kosmtik might be an alternative:
https://github.com/kosmtik/kosmtik
--
W dniu 15.08.2015 15:16, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
IMHO it would rather encourage mappers to make more sense out of these
than it is now. I'm myself adding a pointless landuse=forest for every
landcover=trees now (for the renderer), and I guess most other mappers
do the same. I will
Not getting much help on the GB list so I thought I'd widen the
question. A couple of years back I had my own server setup working with
a base of OSRM and routing covering the UK. While the map server is
still working, routing has packed up and some of the alternate base maps
are no longer
Hi
I think that discussion should have been titled Stop tagging
natural=wood and landuse=forest differently.
As I've said have a unified render just covers up that we're tagging
incorrectly. There should only be one primary tag to describe large area
of trees.
Whether it be landcover or
Hi!
Taginfo got an update this week. Together with Cristopher Baines I worked on
making it a bit more mobile friendly. Some bugs were fixed and some parts that
were rather slow are much faster now. But the biggest news is the new taglist
feature: Taginfo can now automatically generate the tags
Warin writes:
On 15/08/2015 3:46 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Railway=dismantled. Doesn't get rendered except where it should be,
do you still want railway=disused to remain?
Are we even talking about the same thing? Let's assume that you made a
s mple t po.
Don't those last two words look a
Serge Wroclawski writes:
Our project's policy thusfar has been in contrast to other projects in that
each and every one of us is empowered to make changes to anything we see.
You're starting to understand! You should make changes to things you
see. Things you don't see require a higher
On 15/08/15 16:29, Russ Nelson wrote:
Now, I'm sure somebody will, at some point say, Russell, just go off
to OpenHistoricalMap and put your data there. That's fine, except for
those pesky implementation details where THEY ARE IN TWO DISPARATE
DATABASES, UNCONNECTED. How, exactly, do you make
On 15/08/15 16:31, Dave F. wrote:
Whether it be landcover or landuse or whatever, I'm not that concerned
about but it really should only be one option.
I think that there is a European definition for 'landuse' as part of the
standards?
Certainly the documentation I have for the NLPG database
Am 14.08.2015 um 14:00 schrieb Flaimo:
Hallo,
Erklär das bitte im Detail. Wieso sollte es programmatisch nicht
feststellbar sein, dass Schienen auf der Straße liegen, wenn sie die
gleiche explizite oder implizite Layer-Angabe besitzen und die gleichen
Nodes haben?
Das gilt nur für den
On 8/15/2015 8:13 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
I asked about it here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128702817
but the issue is closed now without too detailed discussion
The issue was closed because it was solved - the rendering was unified.
The
On 15/08/15 18:18, nebulon42 wrote:
I'm not sure how TileMill fits within your rendering stack here. Do you
mean Mapnik?
tilemill allows me to serve tiles and play with the tile sheets and I
have it working via nginx as well.
If you talk about carto-based style development the best alternative
On 8/15/2015 4:45 AM, tony wroblewski wrote:
The woodland change looks much better, but would it not be possible to
render broadleaved, needleleaved and mixed using different tree
images, as seen on other maps?
Not at the moment. See
On 8/15/2015 8:14 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
Not getting much help on the GB list so I thought I'd widen the
question. A couple of years back I had my own server setup working with
a base of OSRM and routing covering the UK. While the map server is
still working, routing has packed up and some of
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
As I've said have a unified render just covers up that we're tagging
incorrectly. There should only be one primary tag to describe large area of
trees.
Whether it be landcover or landuse or whatever, I'm
On 8/15/2015 4:26 AM, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
Does the combined wood/forest update include landcover=trees? If not
it needs to be included all three should render the same (IMO).
No. Nor are there any issues created about rendering landcover=trees. As
the landcover key is currently not in the
W dniu 15.08.2015 21:42, Paul Norman napisał(a):
On 8/15/2015 8:13 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
I asked about it here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128702817
but the issue is closed now without too detailed discussion
The issue was closed because it
Saturday 15 August 2015 12:59:55, Paul Norman:
On 8/15/2015 4:26 AM, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
Does the combined wood/forest update include landcover=trees? If not
it needs to be included all three should render the same (IMO).
No. Nor are there any issues created about rendering
Please, remember to change the subject when the subject shift occurs...
W dniu 15.08.2015 22:15, Ruben Maes napisał(a):
17 117 occurences is not 'not in the database'. Sure, it's only 0.12%
of all landuses, but this is a key that isn't even rendered on the
default style.
Paul was talking
On 15/08/15 20:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
For rendering purposes, I would use a fill mainly for the landcover, while
the names (and no fill) would come from natural. Landuse would be mainly for
specialist maps, but of course this is up to the rendering style devs to
ultimately decide.
Bonjour,
Le 15/08/2015 23:25, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :
Osmose tique assez logiquement sur des bâtiments fractionnés.
Quand un même bâtiment se trouve sur deux parcelles cadastrales, doit-on
le fusionner ou indiquer faux positif ?
Bonjour
Osmose tique assez logiquement sur des bâtiments fractionnés.
Quand un même bâtiment se trouve sur deux parcelles cadastrales, doit-on
le fusionner ou indiquer faux positif ?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Osmose/issues#1
est peu bavard sur le sujet !
Jean-Yvon
Si physiquement ce n'est qu'un bâtiment, le découper en parcelles n'a pas
de sens, il faut donc fusionner.
Parfois cela correspond à des bâtiments séparés et cela a du sens de les
laisser tels quels. L'exemple le plus évident est celui des immeubles en
ville.
La majorité du temps, il faut
Bonjour à tous,
J'ai remarqué que dans les grandes villes, les numéros des bâtis étaient
indiqués partout partout partout et ça c'est super.
En revanche dans des villes moyennes comme Dieppe, ils ne sont pas
renseignés.
Pourquoi ?
- Est-ce parce qu'elles ne sont pas disponibles dans la BANO ?
C'est en général un défaut, de temps, même avec une armée de volontaire, on ne
peut pas tout faire. Le site cadastre.openstreetmap.fr permet de faciliter le
positionnement. Cependant dans certains cas les numéros de rues ne sont pas
présents sur le cadastre (Laroquebrou par exemple). Il faut
Effectivement, le '.' n'était pas bien pris en compte dans la comparaison
OSM/Route500.
C'est corrigé.
Le 14 août 2015 07:11, didier2020 didier2...@free.fr a écrit :
slt,
je pense qu'il y a une amélioration a faire sur les route avec indice
comme ici :
cool !
j'en profite pour te remercier de ces dernieres idees qui sont une aide
précieuse pour les ajouts/corrections
Le samedi 15 août 2015 à 13:23 +0200, Christian Quest a écrit :
Effectivement, le '.' n'était pas bien pris en compte dans la
comparaison OSM/Route500.
C'est corrigé.
Le
El 19 de agosto es miercoles, intentare asistir.
El día 15 de agosto de 2015, 12:05, hyan...@gmail.com
hyan...@gmail.com escribió:
Estimados maperos:
Buenos días. Me place informarles que el próximo jueves 19 de agosto se
estará llevando a acabo el evento Día Mundial Humanitario en la ciudad
À noter que les indices (plus souvent affichés d'ailleurs en exposants sur
les panneaux...) sont aussi des lettres comme D 142.B, parfois de
chiffres pour différencier par exemple des bretelles d'accès à sens unique
par exemple D 142.B2.
Normalement dans osm il n'y a pas de point séparateur mais
Va a ser genial que esa experiencia se comparta ! Porfa si graban o tienen
documentos de la presentación se los agradezco!
Un abrazo desde Sierra Leona
Luis
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
From: Artesano arttes...@gmail.com
Date:2015/08/15 17:49 (GMT+00:00)
To:
Le 15 août 2015 11:25, Aurélien kinj...@gmail.com a écrit :
Bonjour à tous,
J'ai remarqué que dans les grandes villes, les numéros des bâtis étaient
indiqués partout partout partout et ça c'est super.
En revanche dans des villes moyennes comme Dieppe, ils ne sont pas
renseignés.
いいだです。
OSM Cartoの v.2.33.0がリリースされ、osm.orgに適用されました。
今回の更新での大きな変更点は以下のとおりです。
* 森林のレンダリングが統一された
landuse=forest と natural=woodの色合いが統一されました。
そのため、京都・神戸・奈良と他の地域の森林地域レンダリングの色合いが異なる、という点が、
少なくともレンダリングの観点からは解消されました。
* pathとfootwayのレンダリング統一
pathのレンダリングが、footwayの色合いとなりました。
京都の山下です。皆さんこんにちわ。
京都世界遺産マッピングパーティ
第５回上賀茂神社はいよいよ来週、8/22 です。
皆さんどうぞお越しください！！
// ９月以降の日程、ターゲットをちょこちょこ調整しています。
// ご確認ください
In message 20150722.235933.01376017.yasun...@yamasita.jp
yasun...@yamasita.jp writes
京都の山下です。皆さんこんにちわ。
京都の世界遺産を毎月一か所ずつターゲットにして、
楽しみながら 自由な地図である OpenStreetMap
Hi!
Taginfo hat die Woche ein Update bekommen. Zusammen mit Christopher Baines
habe ich an der Mobil-Fähigkeit der Webseite gearbeitet. Einige Bugs wurden
gefixt und einige Abfragen, die sehr langsam waren, sind jetzt sehr schnell.
Aber die größten Neuigkeiten betreffen das neue Taglist-Feature:
Si superpones el shp rural, el hueco de la localidad de 33 queda definiendo
el limite de 33 y villa sara. A efectos practicos lo comento.
El 11/08/2015 10:23, aml...@adinet.com.uy aml...@adinet.com.uy escribió:
Estimados: dado que tenemos algunos problemitas de definición de
límites de
Bona tarda a tots,
com es pot fer un mapa on visualitzar algunes etiquetes concretes que en
els mapes habituals no surten? Per exemple llocs on hi hagi wifi gratis.
Algo similar a la web http://www.osmhydrant.org/ on es visualitzen els
hidrants i les estacions de bombers.
Moltes gràcies
73 matches
Mail list logo
