Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[David Woolley]

On 07/02/17 19:19, Marco Boeringa wrote:

Lastly, the lack of proper multipolygon creation, means that other types
of renderers and styles than Carto, and GIS's like QGIS and ArcGIS, that
do not stack features based on size but need multipolygons to deal with
polygon-within-polygon problems, have many older detailed features
covered up by these new ones, as the original data may be hidden beneath
the newly added ones.


That' a problem with the renderers.  Multipolygons are difficult for 
both (human) editors and (machine) renderers, so only be used where 
strictly necessary.


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

Re: [Talk-dk] Vedr. indlæsning af data vedr. hastigshedsgrænser

[Morten Rüsz]

Hej Niels.

Julian er i gang med/har tilbudt at lave en WMS-løsning, som viser
OSM-hastighedsdata samt de hastighedsdata som kommunerne har registreret i
Vejman.dk. Vi har dog kun data fra statsvejnettet (som allerede er
opdateret) samt nogle mangelfulde data fra Viborg Kommune - dem forsøger vi
nu at få fingrene i.

> Personligt synes jeg det ville være dejligt med noget enkelt
JSON-data, som man kunne arbejde på med python-scripts og Leaflet.

Her er vi ude over min tekniske indsigt. Ved ikke hvordan WMS-løsninger
konstrueres.

Mvh Morten



Den 7. februar 2017 kl. 21.48 skrev Niels Elgaard Larsen :

> På Tue, 7 Feb 2017 06:40:49 +0100
> Morten Rüsz  skrev:
> > Hej Jørgen.
> >
> > Det lyder som en god idé med kildehenvisning (må indrømme, at jeg
> > ikke var så opmærksom på, da jeg opdaterede hastighedsdata for Viborg
> > Kommune). Der vil formentig være tale om en høj grad af sofa-mapping
> > i dette tilfælde.
>
> source:maxspeed er endnu vigtigere efter min mening.
>
> > Som det ser ud nu, som det også fremgår af itoworld, så er der meget
> > få hastighedsdata, så sandsynligheden for at korrekte oplysninger
> > rettes til forkerte er relativt lille.
>
> Jeg er ikke sikker på at der er så få i forhold til hvor mange, der
> burde være.
>
> Vi har i det store og hele kun mappet udtagelser fra defaultværdierne
> for vejtyperne.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed#Denmark
>
> Og jeg tror at vi har fået en pænt stor del af dem på plads.
>
> > Dertil kommer, at vi i vores
> > projekt forventer at indsamle oplysninger om uoverensstemmelser
> > mellem den faktiske hastighedsgrænse og OSM-hastighedsgrænsen. Det
> > giver mulighed for hurtigt at samle op på og rette fejl.
>
> Ja.
>
> > Man skal desuden være opmærksom på, at der er fire former for
> > hastighedsgrænser:
> >
> >
> >- Gældende hastighed – Er i princippet den generelle hastighed med
> >mindre der er skiltet eller variable tavler.
> >- Generel hastighed – Er den generelle hastighed hvis der ikke er
> >skiltet.
> >- Skiltet hastighed – Er den skiltede hastighed.
> >- Variable tavler – Hvis der er variable tavler ændres hastigheden
> >løbende.
> >
> >
> > Hvordan håndteres sidstnævnte i OSM?
>
> Et eksempel er:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24449368
>
> > Hvis jeg kan indsamle data i Shape-format (som angiveligt skulle være
> > et gængs GIS-format), er det så muligt at indlæse i en WMS-løsning?
>
>
> Måske. Men kan du ikke finde ud af hvad du kan få og uploade et
> eksempel.
>
> Personligt synes jeg det ville være dejligt med noget enkelt
> JSON-data, som man kunne arbejde på med python-scripts og Leaflet.
>
> Lidt som jeg gør med FVST restauranter:
>  http://digitalfrihed.dk/restaurants/all.html
>
> > Mvh Morten
> >
> > Den 6. februar 2017 kl. 15.12 skrev Jørgen Elgaard Larsen
> > :
> >
> > > Morten Rüsz skrev:
> > >
> > >> hvis man ved at klikke et nyt lag af data (kommunale
> > >> hastighedsgrænser) frem og så kan sammenligne med farvekoder og
> > >> ændre, så kan det ikke gøres meget lettere.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ja, det ville være godt.
> > >
> > > Vi har jo en tradition for at sætte kilde på hastighedsgrænser. Har
> > > man f.x. sat den efter at have set et skilte, sætter man
> > >   source:maxspeed=sign.
> > >
> > > Det kunne være godt, hvis vi kunne finde en konsistent måde at
> > > angive, at kilden er sofamapning fra kommunale grænser. Eksempelvis
> > >   source:maxspeed:Viborg Kommune VejMan
> > >
> > > Men det kræver jo, at et overlay på en eller anden måde er markeret
> > > med kildeoplysninger. Kan det lade sig gøre? Evt. kan man have et
> > > overlay pr. kilde.
> > >
> > >
> > > I alle tilfælde: Når man sofamapper, skal man naturligvis være
> > > forsigtig, hvis der er sat en anden hastighedsgrænse på en vej i
> > > OSM end den, der fremgår af kommunens data. Især hvis der er sat
> > > source:maxspeed=sign. I det tilfælde kan der være tale om:
> > >
> > >  1. Der har engang stået et skilt, men det er nu fjernet/udskiftet.
> > >  2. Der står stadig et skilt, men kommunen har ikke registreret det.
> > >  3. Den oprindelige mapper har lavet en fejl.
> > >
> > > Det overordnede princip er jo, at vi mapper den fysiske verden, så
> > > hvis man ikke kan afgøre, hvad der er korrekt, må man kigge på
> > > Mapillary eller tage ud i virkeligheden og kigge. Alternativt må
> > > man angive, at hastigheden er usikker, f.x. med
> > >   fixme:maxspeed=Municipal data says 60km/h. Check sign on site.
> > >
> > > Der er ikke noget mere irriterende end hvis man har været ude i
> > > virkeligheden for at observere vejskilte, og så en sofamapper
> > > ændrer ens arbejde, fordi noget fejlbehæftet offentlig data siger
> > > noget andet end virkeligheden.
> > >
> > > - Jørgen
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Talk-dk mailing list
> > > Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
> > > 

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Cartographie des églises

[Gaël SIMON]

Bonjour à tous,
désormais 49858 lieux de culte en France !
Après la Bretagne, les Pays-de-la-Loire, la Corse et Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes,
la Nouvelle-Aquitaine rejoint le club des régions dont la majorité des
communes possèdent désormais au moins un lieu de culte.
Je m'attaque maintenant à l'Île-de-France, déjà bien fournie, avant un
séjour, potentiellement prolongé, dans les Hauts-de-France (où 413 communes
sont à traiter).

Le suivi global : https://framapic.org/Zxkwbm9piZ9I/ZkzKoMeuG9NI.PNG
Les noms en Nouvelle-Aquitaine :
https://framapic.org/94LDs8srkkiX/3rp2ZSUY9f4d.PNG

Le 20 janvier 2017 à 15:39, Gaël SIMON  a écrit :

>
> Bonjour,
> voici quelques copies d'écran de mon outil de suivi (malheureusement non
> partageable simplement).
> Page d'accueil synthétique du tableau de bord : https://framapic.org/
> SlOcpLo3mVZN/j2xztpK2RQCC.PNG
> Détails de localisation, avec les noms / sans nom : https://framapic.org/
> U0OFac5IZEwK/ohKlsTSfUoJe.PNG
> Répartition des noms dans département : https://framapic.org/
> f90tlVcSq8Mk/BbcJlclR3bPb.PNG
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-it] Utente Fredie e modifiche grossolane

[Fabrizio Tambussa]

Sono senza parole.
Questa e' stata la sua risposta alle mie segnalazioni:


HI Sbir

I've deleted your post without reading.

I've done reflections on my work since you shouted me heavily by just
changing a ridiculous amount of your work.
To be honest I must give in that when using OSM data on Navi, me myself
never interested in the background, just only the conections available.
So I wonder why I do a lot of effort to add landshape despite I don't
use it. Indeed I prefer g_earth for planning my biketours. Those sat
data give me far better feedback about the scale of the roads. OSM here
sucks a lot.
So all that landshape is only a timestamp of 2016 and of very fast
expiring time, needs a lot of invest to keep actual, I 've decided to
stopp my work along river PO now and here.
That doesn't mean that I allow to revert my work. It covers only small
region and you can do what any mapper can do: edit and change whatever
you think is incorrect.

In future I move back to the roots of OSM mapping, searching for missing
connectivity, classifying tracks, adding major waterways, reduce
landshape to wood and farmyard only.
Further on I won't touch or delete other data, wrong or not, so as you
correctly accused.
I apologize for this, no intention to discredit any mappers' work.
Not yet decided to keep on working region Po plaines or moving to Asia
where there is a increasing community of bike travelers coming up recently.

Let's be friends in mapping

yours

Fredie
-

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Truc bizarre dans le rendu

[pepilepi...@ovh.fr]

Le 07/02/2017 à 23:20, Christian Quest a écrit :
> Je pense que le inner ayant le même tag landuse que le outer, il se
> peut qu'osm2pgsql se mélange les pinceaux sans regarder les autres tags.

Hypothèse plausible...

>
> Pas de problème sur le rendu FR (les types sont en plus bien
> différenciés par le rendu):
> http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/~cquest/leaflet/bano.html#14/44.8239/5.3700
> 

Mais c'est super beau, ça !

Comment on peut avoir ce rendu par défaut ?

> J'ai vérifié les polygones dans la base et ils sont tout les deux bien
> là, d'où le rendu correct, mais on n'a pas forcément exactement la
> même config osm2pgsql.

Ma question étant "Quelqu'un saurait-il m'expliquer ?" ceci est une
réponse, merci

Bonne journée,

JP

>
>
>
> Le 7 février 2017 à 22:56,  > a écrit :
>
>
>
> Le 07/02/2017 à 22:35, pepilepi...@ovh.fr
>  - pepilepi...@ovh.fr
>  a écrit :
>> Le 07/02/2017 à 22:10, Jean-Yvon a écrit :
>>>
>>> On est d'accord.
>>>
>>> J'ai regardé : le trou est tracé dans le sens trigo, au moins un
>>> bare-rock est dans le sens des aiguilles d'une montre.
>>>
>>> ça vaut le coup d'essayer.
>>
>> J'ai déjà essayé. Dès que l'autre Jean-Yvon me l'a suggéré. Il y
>> a une demie heure, et ça n'a rien changé.
>>
> Je deviens schizophrène ? ;-) J'avais peur de ne pas avoir assez
> suggéré.
>>
>> J'ai aussi remarqué que le multipolygone englobant était mal
>> foutu (membres dans le désordre). Je l'ai corrigé. Nihil novi sub
>> sole (si j'ose dire à 22:30...)
>>
> Fais tourner ta mappemonde !
> Autre soucis : des membres outer ont des leave_type incompatibles
> avec la relation (l'avant dernier au moins).
> Dernier espoir : un conflit forest. Est-ce que ce bout ne devrait
> être un wood ?
>> Je viens de mettre tous les inner dans le sens trigo. On verra
>> (mais je n'y crois pas trop)
>>
>> Bonne soirée !
> Moi non plus, mais ça réduit les possibilités.
> Je crains en fait que le leave_type de la relation déteigne mais
> alors ce serait plutôt double affichage que pas du tout.
> Bonne nuit puisque l'heure tourne (à moins que ce ne soit le soleil).
>
> Jean-Yvon
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> 
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>
>
> ___
> 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] Truc bizarre dans le rendu

[pepilepi...@ovh.fr]

Le 07/02/2017 à 22:56, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :
>
>
>
> Le 07/02/2017 à 22:35, pepilepi...@ovh.fr - pepilepi...@ovh.fr a écrit :
>> Le 07/02/2017 à 22:10, Jean-Yvon a écrit :
>>>
>>> On est d'accord.
>>>
>>> J'ai regardé : le trou est tracé dans le sens trigo, au moins un
>>> bare-rock est dans le sens des aiguilles d'une montre.
>>>
>>> ça vaut le coup d'essayer.
>>
>> J'ai déjà essayé. Dès que l'autre Jean-Yvon me l'a suggéré. Il y a
>> une demie heure, et ça n'a rien changé.
>>
> Je deviens schizophrène ? ;-) J'avais peur de ne pas avoir assez suggéré.
>>
>> J'ai aussi remarqué que le multipolygone englobant était mal foutu
>> (membres dans le désordre). Je l'ai corrigé. Nihil novi sub sole (si
>> j'ose dire à 22:30...)
>>
> Fais tourner ta mappemonde !
> Autre soucis : des membres outer ont des leave_type incompatibles avec
> la relation (l'avant dernier au moins).

Je viens de le corriger. On verra...

> Dernier espoir : un conflit forest. Est-ce que ce bout ne devrait être
> un wood ?
>> Je viens de mettre tous les inner dans le sens trigo. On verra (mais
>> je n'y crois pas trop)
>>
>> Bonne soirée !
> Moi non plus, mais ça réduit les possibilités.
> Je crains en fait que le leave_type de la relation déteigne mais alors
> ce serait plutôt double affichage que pas du tout.
> Bonne nuit puisque l'heure tourne (à moins que ce ne soit le soleil).
>
> 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: [Talk-it] Utente Fredie e modifiche grossolane

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Ciao,


On 07/02/2017 21:48, Alberto wrote:

Per l'origine dei dati usa le le ortofoto di Google e le confronta con quelle 
di Bing.
Scusate, ma non basterebbe questo (se confermato, e mi pare sia qui la 
questione) per fare un revert?
Bisogna anche spiegargli che non può derivare dati da Google per mappare 
in OSM?

Ale

--
--

Alessandro Sarretta

skype/twitter: alesarrett
Web: ilsarrett.wordpress.com 

Research information:

 * Google scholar profile
   
 * ORCID 
 * Research Gate 
 * Impactstory 

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

[Talk-es] SPAM en la wiki

[Alejandro S.]

Hola,

Acabo de encontrar esta edición [0] en la wiki con toda la pinta de ser
spam. ¿Que os parece? ¿Alguien puede denunciar al usuario y que revientan
sus cambios?

[0]:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Encuesta_osm-es=next=1371751

Saludos,
Alejandro Suárez
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

[talk-au] LPI sources, not the Base Map

[Warin]

Hi,

I have come across a boundary between 2 state forests that are not shown 
on the LPI Base Map .. yet the source tag claims that is where it comes 
from.


I think the source is the LPI admin boundary data .. and that is 
probably where they have come from.


It is Way: 387068735, most of it is a creek, but specifically the 
following nodes have no line on them


4094553049, 4094553050, 4094553051, 4094553086, 4094553087, 4094553088, 
4094553189.

I would think that where the source is not directly from the LPI Base Map ... 
then that should be stated in the source tag.
In this case it should be 'LPI Admin Boundary State Forest'?

Thoughts?
Note .. I'm as guilty as the rest. But think these should be changed for truth.


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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Andrew Harvey]

What about simply landcover=grass
 and foot=yes?
Along with mapping out the pipeline separately?

On 8 February 2017 at 11:29, Adam Horan  wrote:

> My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves.
>
> I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access
> for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some
> others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those,
> I'd really like to show those ones with public access.
>
> examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/
> 145.20073
>
> I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the
> ground have just been tagged highway=path.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> ___
> 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-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Ross Scanlon]

On 08/02/17 11:17, Warin wrote:

On 08-Feb-17 12:10 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:

On 08/02/17 11:00, Warin wrote:


Some pipe lines cross farms, residential areas ... so ?

I will ask on the tagging list as it is not Australian specific.

I note the pipeline is not visible ... I assume underground and the 
location is not evident so you cannot map the pipe line itself.


As far as most people are concerned it is a park, so that is 
appropriate.


I don't think park=pipeline_reserve would be best .. as you would 
then need something similar where the pipeline crosses a farm etc.


Why would you need that?


For the same reason you need to tag the pipe line reserve in the park.
Most of the time it has no effect on the attributes of the place.
However it is an added attribute that is verifiable and can be mapped.



But you don't have to have it where it crosses other areas.  In this 
case we are talking about what type of park it is.  Not what type of 
pipeline, which to me is what you are trying to do.


The area shown by Adam is the whole area not a sub area of it.  It 
appears to be a park and locals probably consider it as a park. However 
it is still a pipeline reserve so that's what type of park it is.






By tagging it park=pipeline_reserve your describing the type of park 
not the type of pipeline.


A pipe line reserve is not necessarily a park.


Yes, but in this case the park is a pipeline reserve, so describe what 
type of park it is.







On 08-Feb-17 11:31 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:


park=pipeline_reserve



On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote:
My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline 
reserves.


I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public 
access for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing 
golf...) Some others appear to be across private land, and i'm 
less interested in those, I'd really like to show those ones with 
public access.


examples: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073


I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on 
the ground have just been tagged highway=path.


Any ideas?

Thanks,

Adam


___
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





___
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





___
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-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Warin]

On 08-Feb-17 12:10 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:

On 08/02/17 11:00, Warin wrote:


Some pipe lines cross farms, residential areas ... so ?

I will ask on the tagging list as it is not Australian specific.

I note the pipeline is not visible ... I assume underground and the 
location is not evident so you cannot map the pipe line itself.


As far as most people are concerned it is a park, so that is 
appropriate.


I don't think park=pipeline_reserve would be best .. as you would 
then need something similar where the pipeline crosses a farm etc.


Why would you need that?


For the same reason you need to tag the pipe line reserve in the park.
Most of the time it has no effect on the attributes of the place.
However it is an added attribute that is verifiable and can be mapped.



By tagging it park=pipeline_reserve your describing the type of park 
not the type of pipeline.


A pipe line reserve is not necessarily a park.






On 08-Feb-17 11:31 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:


park=pipeline_reserve



On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote:
My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline 
reserves.


I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public 
access for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing 
golf...) Some others appear to be across private land, and i'm less 
interested in those, I'd really like to show those ones with public 
access.


examples: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073


I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on 
the ground have just been tagged highway=path.


Any ideas?

Thanks,

Adam


___
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





___
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



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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Ross Scanlon]

On 08/02/17 11:00, Warin wrote:


Some pipe lines cross farms, residential areas ... so ?

I will ask on the tagging list as it is not Australian specific.

I note the pipeline is not visible ... I assume underground and the 
location is not evident so you cannot map the pipe line itself.


As far as most people are concerned it is a park, so that is appropriate.

I don't think park=pipeline_reserve would be best .. as you would then 
need something similar where the pipeline crosses a farm etc.


Why would you need that?

By tagging it park=pipeline_reserve your describing the type of park not 
the type of pipeline.





On 08-Feb-17 11:31 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:


park=pipeline_reserve



On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote:
My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline 
reserves.


I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public 
access for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing 
golf...) Some others appear to be across private land, and i'm less 
interested in those, I'd really like to show those ones with public 
access.


examples: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073


I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on 
the ground have just been tagged highway=path.


Any ideas?

Thanks,

Adam


___
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





___
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-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Adam Horan]

Yes, correct some pipelines cross private land and some across land with
public access. In general near me the pipe is not visible, and it's not
even always clear if it's gas, water or sewage etc.
I'm most interested in showing public access of 'open' land in or near the
residential areas. So yes most people would look at it and consider it to
be a park, or some other form of common land.
I'm also not sure if the land ownership rests with councils or the
utilities, and so who is permitting public access and under what terms or
by-laws.

I'll stick with leisure=park for now.


On 8 February 2017 at 12:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Some pipe lines cross farms, residential areas ... so ?
>
> I will ask on the tagging list as it is not Australian specific.
>
> I note the pipeline is not visible ... I assume underground and the
> location is not evident so you cannot map the pipe line itself.
>
> As far as most people are concerned it is a park, so that is appropriate.
>
> I don't think park=pipeline_reserve would be best .. as you would then
> need something similar where the pipeline crosses a farm etc.
>
> On 08-Feb-17 11:31 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>
> park=pipeline_reserve
>
>
>
> On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves.
>
> I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access
> for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some
> others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those,
> I'd really like to show those ones with public access.
>
> examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/
> 145.20073
>
> I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the
> ground have just been tagged highway=path.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> ___
> 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-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Ross Scanlon]

There's no real issue with heading out on your own with this type of tag.

What you are doing is describing the type of park.

So in this case the park is a pipeline reserve so therefore 
park=pipeline_reserve would be acceptable.


People still regard it as a park which is the major tag.


On 08/02/17 10:56, Adam Horan wrote:
There's only a few hundred examples of park=* in taginfo, and none are 
for pipeline_reserve. I don't really want to head out on my own if 
there's already a convention.

I'm not even sure if leisure=park is an accurate description :)

On 8 February 2017 at 11:31, Ross Scanlon > wrote:


park=pipeline_reserve



On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote:

My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline
reserves.

I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public
access for walking at least. (One local one has a sign
disallowing golf...) Some others appear to be across private
land, and i'm less interested in those, I'd really like to show
those ones with public access.

examples:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073


I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on
the ground have just been tagged highway=path.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Adam


___
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
 


___
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-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Warin]

Some pipe lines cross farms, residential areas ... so ?

I will ask on the tagging list as it is not Australian specific.

I note the pipeline is not visible ... I assume underground and the 
location is not evident so you cannot map the pipe line itself.


As far as most people are concerned it is a park, so that is appropriate.

I don't think park=pipeline_reserve would be best .. as you would then 
need something similar where the pipeline crosses a farm etc.


On 08-Feb-17 11:31 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote:


park=pipeline_reserve



On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote:

My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves.

I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public 
access for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing 
golf...) Some others appear to be across private land, and i'm less 
interested in those, I'd really like to show those ones with public 
access.


examples: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073


I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the 
ground have just been tagged highway=path.


Any ideas?

Thanks,

Adam


___
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



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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Adam Horan]

There's only a few hundred examples of park=* in taginfo, and none are for
pipeline_reserve. I don't really want to head out on my own if there's
already a convention.
I'm not even sure if leisure=park is an accurate description :)

On 8 February 2017 at 11:31, Ross Scanlon  wrote:

> park=pipeline_reserve
>
>
>
> On 08/02/17 10:29, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves.
>
> I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access
> for walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some
> others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those,
> I'd really like to show those ones with public access.
>
> examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/
> 145.20073
>
> I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the
> ground have just been tagged highway=path.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> ___
> 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-au] Harmonisation of the source tag for LPI Base Map

[Andrew Harvey]

Absolutely, per
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
the plans must be first documented and discussed. Since this affects
the local NSW community it should have been posted here on talk-au.

The example you gave of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/442899224/history is precisely one
reason why this process must be followed.

In my opinion we should have all their changesets reverted, and then
proper notice should be first given to give a chance to discuss the
changes proposed and it's implications before moving ahead.

On 8 February 2017 at 11:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> One mapper (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/LPISourceTagFix) has taken on
> themselves to 'harmonise' all the source tags that they consider should be
> 'NSW LPI Base Map'.
>
> No consultation - mass mechanical edit.
>
>
>
> I had some source tagged LPI Hydrology .. these too have been changed.
>
> See Way: Tomalla Creek (442899224) as an example.
>
>
> I don't appreciate the edits, I see no benefit from them.
>
> There are many more that could be done along these lines .. the major
> example would be Bing, bing, BING, bing  and bing  mm (where  is
> the numerical year and mm is the numerical month). But I would similarly see
> no point in it.
>
>
> I think this should be discussed here .. rather than some page that you may
> only come across in some distant future.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[talk-au] Tagging for Pipeline Reserves

[Adam Horan]

My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves.

I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access for
walking at least. (One local one has a sign disallowing golf...) Some
others appear to be across private land, and i'm less interested in those,
I'd really like to show those ones with public access.

examples:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370388062#map=17/-38.15997/145.20073

I've tagged them as leisure=park previously, and paths evident on the
ground have just been tagged highway=path.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

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

Re: [talk-au] Parks Vic data

[Adam Horan]

I have often wondered where the existing National Park data comes from. In
general it seems to exist in OSM in quite high fidelity however the
boundaries are usually not evident on the ground or imagery. Yet whenever
I've looked back through histories I can't find any reasonable source or
attribution tags.

However there is data at
https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/parks-and-conservation-reserves-parkres
which is described as:
*Parks and Conservation Reserves (PARKRES)*

*PARKRES is a spatial representation of the Parks and Reserves Information
Management System (PRIMS). This database lists Parks and Conservation
Reserves under the policy control of the DELWP Parks and Protected Areas
Branch. These include areas scheduled under the National Parks Act 1975,
Nature Conservation Reserves, Natural Features Reserves, Regional Parks,
Phillip Island Nature Park, Historic & Cultural Features Reserves, and
Metropolitan Open Space Parks. Many of these areas are managed by Parks
Victoria under a management agreement between the Minister for Environment
and the Parks Victoria Board. PRIMS and PARKRES define the areas covered by
this agreement. The aim of this layer is to eventually map all areas
represented in PRIMS at 1:25,000 or better scale. This dataset updated from
time to time, so is a snapshot of the parks and reserves system.*

Included in the accuracy statement is: *Validation of the land manager
attribute is continuing. This dataset does not provide definitive
boundaries for areas scheduled under the National Parks Act 1975*

Attribution to DELWP under CC BY 4.0

However I've no idea if this license is fully compatible, or if we have
specific permission.

For existing parks and lack of source, look at Mornington Peninsula NP
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3361243/history#map=17/-38.44856/144.95120
in that location the shape is completely non-obvious on the ground, and
there's no attribution I can see. See also
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176328417#map=16/-38.4744/144.8905

regards,

Adam


On 8 February 2017 at 10:49, nwastra  wrote:

> Hi
> I have found many problems with the Heathcote-Graytown National Park in
> Victoria.
> Is there a place from which I can download the boundary as we have done
> with the NSW LPI NPWSReserve - public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries, so I
> sort out where the gazetted boundary is and then fix the boundary in the
> osm?
>
>
> ___
> 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

[talk-au] Harmonisation of the source tag for LPI Base Map

[Warin]

Hi,


One mapper (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/LPISourceTagFix) has 
taken on themselves to 'harmonise' all the source tags that they 
consider should be 'NSW LPI Base Map'.


No consultation - mass mechanical edit.



I had some source tagged LPI Hydrology .. these too have been changed.

See Way: Tomalla Creek (442899224) as an example.


I don't appreciate the edits, I see no benefit from them.

There are many more that could be done along these lines .. the major 
example would be Bing, bing, BING, bing  and bing  mm (where 
 is the numerical year and mm is the numerical month). But I would 
similarly see no point in it.



I think this should be discussed here .. rather than some page that you 
may only come across in some distant future.



Thoughts?






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

Re: [talk-au] Parks Vic data

[Andrew Harvey]

On 8 February 2017 at 11:08, Ross Scanlon  wrote:
> capad

The links for this are:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Collaborative_Australian_Protected_Areas_Database_(CAPAD)
http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

Public Rights of Way mapping is one of my OSM hobbies, and I've done
quite a bit in my local area of Norfolk and Suffolk. I've also put
together a tool to compare OSM coverage with official (OGL-licensed)
data from the two councils:
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . (As an aside, I'd be
happy to add other GIS data to the tool if/when it is available under
a suitable licence and I have time.)

Since this topic has come up, I thought I'd share my current practices
for mapping Rights of Way, particularly where the actual route on the
ground differs from the legal Definitive Line. I use a range of tags
on Rights of Way and de facto paths:

* highway=* to record the physical state of the route. I'd typically
use highway=path for an indistinct cross-field path whose route is
nevertheless obvious from signs/stiles. I use highway=no on ways on
the definitive line that are obstructed, i.e. there isn't a 'highway'
of any sort present and the route isn't used in practice. (To omit the
highway tag completely could look like an error, and means there's no
way to distinguish between a way that's been surveyed and found not to
be a highway, and one that hasn't been surveyed yet.)

* designation=* to record the official status of a route -- one of
public_footpath, public_bridleway, restricted_byway,
byway_open_to_all_traffic for PRoWs. I'd only use this on the
Definitive Line. If the actual route used on the ground differs, the
used route get this tag. I don't think that an erroneous sign on the
ground confers PRoW status. If an unrecorded route is being (or could
be) claimed, then suspected:designation=* can be used.

* prow_ref=* to record the right of way parish and number, e.g.
prow_ref=Dibley FP 1. (This can then be used by tools checking on PRoW
mapping progress.)

* foot=*, horse=*, etc. used to indicated legal access rights on a
route. I use *=designated for the main forms of transport on the
definitive line (see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table ). Where the
Definitive Line isn't accessible, and there's a reasonable alternative
route to take, I'll typically tag the latter with *=yes, since AFAIK
there is a legal right to take a reasonable diversion in this case
(though technically only if it's on the same land-owner's property).

* foot:physical=*, etc. to tag the physical accessibility if this
differs from the legal rights. e.g. foot=designated + foot:physical=no
on a Definitive Line that's blocked.

* prow:obstructed=yes as a tentatively suggested machine-readable tag
for ways on the definitive line that aren't accessible.

* note=* to record a human-readable note to explain any special situations.

* source:*=* to record the source of Definitive Lines and other PRoW
information.

So where a route follows the Definitive Line, I'd tag the way with
something like:

highway=track
designation=public_footpath
prow_ref=Dibley FP 2
foot=designated
source:prow_ref=oxfordshire_county_council_prow_gis_data

If a section is obstructed, with an alternative route available around
the obstruction, I'd create a way for each bit on this section and tag
the two bits along the following lines:

highway=path
foot=yes
note=Reasonable diversion to avoid obstruction on Dibley FP 2

highway=no
designation=public_footpath
prow_ref=Dibley FP 2
foot=designated
foot:physical=no
prow:obstructed=yes
source=oxfordshire_county_council_prow_gis_data;survey
note=Definitive Line, but obstructed by deep ditch and impassible

Doing this records the actual route that people can and do use (thus
helping routers and mapping what is actually on the ground) and also
maps the legal situation including legal access rights and PRoW
number.

I hope some of these ideas are useful to people,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [talk-au] Parks Vic data

[Ross Scanlon]

capad



On 08/02/17 09:49, nwastra wrote:

Hi
I have found many problems with the Heathcote-Graytown National Park in 
Victoria.
Is there a place from which I can download the boundary as we have done with 
the NSW LPI NPWSReserve - public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries, so I sort out 
where the gazetted boundary is and then fix the boundary in the osm?


___
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

[Talk-es] Grupo de trabajo Importación Catastro

[Gonzalo Pesquero Serrano]

Hola a todos,


En la reciente reunión mensual de OSM-ES se ha acordado crear un
grupo de trabajo para elaborar una propuesta de importación de los
números de portal y edificios del Catastro. En dicho grupo estamos
de momento Santiago Crespo y yo como coordinador. 


He creado la 
sala(https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osm-es-importacion-catastro:matrix.org)
en Riot para coordinar este grupo de trabajo a la que estáis todos
invitados.


De primeras voy a elaborar una propuesta de importación de los datos
basada en los “Servicios ATOM de conjuntos de datos predefinidos
INSPIRE” que podéis encontrar aquí [1]. Una descripción detallada
de los datos está aquí [2]. En cuanto esté colgada la propuesta en
la wiki lo comunicaré en esta lista.

Un saludo y buen mapeo!!


Gonzalo Pesquero
[1] http://www.catastro.minhap.gob.es/webinspire/index.html

[2] http://www.catastro.minhap.gob.es/webinspire/documentos/inspire-ATOM.pdf

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

[talk-au] Parks Vic data

[nwastra]

Hi
I have found many problems with the Heathcote-Graytown National Park in 
Victoria. 
Is there a place from which I can download the boundary as we have done with 
the NSW LPI NPWSReserve - public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries, so I sort out 
where the gazetted boundary is and then fix the boundary in the osm?


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

[Talk-GB] OSM UK: Notice of general meeting

[Rob Nickerson]

All,

The notice of the first general meeting of OSM UK has been sent out to all
members. We have a provision for non-members to attend (AoA Article 39),
thus here is the notice details for those who did not receive it. I will
find a way to share the dial-in number and passcode (keep an eye on our
Loomio group).

---

The initial general meeting of OpenStreetMap United Kingdom C.I.C will take
place on Wednesday, February 22nd 2017 at 8pm (GMT). The venue is a
telephone conference call.

The meeting will be chaired by one of the Directors, who will have agreed
beforehand who this will be.

   1.

   Welcome.
   2.

   To identify and agree the attendance of any non-members present.
   3.

   To accept the resignations of all the founding Directors (Rob Nickerson,
   Adam Hoyle, Brian Prangle, Gregory Marler and Robert Whittaker) and thank
   them for their services.
   4.

   To appoint as new Directors Brian Prangle, Jonathan Harley, Gregory
   Marler, Rob Nickerson, and Adam Hoyle; these being the only nominations
   received.
   5.

   *Resolution 1:* The Financial Year of the Company shall commence on
   April 1st and run until March 31st.
   6.

   *Resolution 2:* To establish the "Cooperative Bank Social Enterprise
   Directplus Account" as the main bank account of the Company subject to all
   Directors meeting the criteria and appropriate due diligence.
   7.

   *Resolution 3:* As permitted by Article 6.6, the Company affiliates to
   the OpenStreetMap Foundation as a local chapter.
   8.

   *Resolution 4:* Membership fees are set until further notice as:


   -

   Members £5 per annum
   -

   Associate members:


   -
  -

  SMEs (annual turnover< £5m) together with public bodies, charities
  and other not-for-profit organisations £50 per annum.
  -

  Corporate for-profit organisations (annual turnover>£5m) £500 per
  annum.

To take effect once a payment system has been established.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Kontrola schématu hromadné dopravy

[jzvc]

Cus,

ja se ani moc nedivim ze to moc nefunguje ...

schvalne jestli neco nevidim ...

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport

1) trasa (jako top level prvek) je definovama master relaci (kvuli 
variantnim trasam predevsim) 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route_master


2) soucasti ty relace jsou vyhradne relace (variant) tras 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route


3) soucasti relace trasy jsou uz silnice a zastavky  ale zadny relace

4) jenze zastavka muze byt definovana jako relace o mnoha prvcich 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_area


5) ovsem ta relace neni definovana jako soucast niceho

Vysledek je, ze v trase jsou zastavky/nastupiste/... a podobnej hnuj, 
coz vedek tomu, ze kazdou zastavku vidim v tom grafu 2x ... asi podle 
toho co vsechno tam je. Ale tak to odpovida tomu, co je na wiki.



Dne 4.2.2017 v 14:39 Jan Macura napsal(a):

Zkoušel jsem kombinaci
network: "MHD Mariánské Lázně"
ref: "7"
a fungovalo to.
Plzeň mi to taky nechtělo sežrat..

H.

2017-02-04 13:02 GMT+01:00 Petr Holub >:

Hoj,

> padlo to na posledním qartálním pivě v Plzni a teď jsem to náhodou našel. 
Takže pro všechny,
> které to zajímá: tenhle nástroj vykreslí libovolnou linku MHD zmapovanou 
pomocí nového
> schématu jako graf.
>
>http://www.overpass-api.de/public_transport.html


zkusil to nekdo pouzit v Brne? Mne prijde, ze se pomoci toho neda
temer nic vykreslit - kdyz zadam treba
network=cz:IDS JMK
line number=1
tak se to ocividne neprokouse rekurzivne z tech route_master na relace
pro jednotlive smery

Petr


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





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




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

Re: [Talk-cz] Data z magistratu Brna - poštovní schránky

[jzvc]

Cus,
a co takovej ... v pravde silenej ... napad ...

kazdej postak ma telefon, s nevyssi pravdepodobnosti vcetne fotaku a gps 
... a kdo ze objizdi ty schranky? No prece postaci. A vsechny.


Pricemz defakto zcela jiste vedi i z pameti +- polohu vetsiny z nich.

Navic by se ty souradnice zcela jiste hodily i poste, pokud je tedy nema 
a jen si je nekde nesysli pro sebe.



Dne 1.2.2017 v 21:10 Jan Dudík napsal(a):

To přiřazování by bylo zajímavé, ale ten jejich seznam nemá žádné ID,
kterým by se dala schránka jednoznačně identifikovat. Schránek je 22084
a lokalizaci mají např.
* ČB, E. Beneše 655/19  (u tf. budky)
* Branišovice
* Parkhotel, Masarykova 602
* Bratkovice č.p. 41, U Kafků
* Partyzána Svobody 134 Dobříš


více vesnic se stejným jménem  v okrsku jednoho depa také není nijak
rozlišeno

TAkže by v prvním kole přiřazování šlo o to, že by člověk v určitém
obvodu naklikal hrubě polohy alespoň podle obcí  a následně by se
dohledávaly přesné souřadnice


Třeba by v té vrtvě mohly být puntíky, po najetí by se ukázala "adresa"
* červené puntíky - nasypané body jen k příslušnému depu, pokud by to
šlo, tak k příslušné obci
* modré puntíky - nahrubo umístěné (dle adresy) bez přiřazeného bodu v OSM
* zelené puntíky - schránky s ověřenou polohou zanesené v mapě a
spárované s bodem (interní ID?)

JAnD


---
Ing. Jan Dudík
projekce dopravních staveb
tel. 777082195

Dne 1. února 2017 16:00 Petr Vozdecký > napsal(a):

Dopřesnění - na území města Brna je ca 310 poštovních schránek vč.
ca 40 na budovách pošt. Přes 90 pct z nich je v databázi České Pošty
definováno nejbližším adresním bodem.

VOP

-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Petr Vozdecký >
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic >
Datum: 1. 2. 2017 14:43:30
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Data z magistratu Brna - poštovní schránky


Ahoj,

díky Laďovi Nešněrovi i Mirkovi Suchému za energii. Moje
poznámka k poštovním schránkám

Poštovní schtánky existují jako seznam k downloadu na webu České
pošty. Záměrně říkám seznam, nikoliv databáze. Ke stažení zde:

https://www.ceskaposta.cz/documents/10180/3738087/xls_prehled_schranek.zip/be6a4753-271b-4eec-9472-c6753e6e6bb1



Zkoušel jsem to na zkoušku mapovat u nás na sídlišti, ale
ukázalo se, že je nutno prakticky všechny schránky napřed
fyzicky najít, v zásadě se asi nedá ani rozumě naimportovat
nějaký "přibližný stav" a ten pak domapovat. Přikládám ukázku dat:

Položka definující místo je popsána často velmi obecně,
výjimečně pak dle blízkého č.p.:

Struktura záznamu:
PSČ, Charakter, 5. Poštovní směrovací číslo provozovny, která
zajišťuje výběr poštovní schránky
ZKRNAZ_POS, Charakter, 25, Zkrácený název provozovny
MÍSTO, Charakter, 50, Místo – adresa, na které je poštovní
schránka umístěna
ČAS, Charakter, 5, Doba výběru poštovní schránky
OMEZENÍ, Charakter, 60,Dny, ve které se poštovní schránka vybírá

59302
Bystřice n/Pernšt. D II
náves, Vojetín
09:00
1-5 - pracovní dny (pondělí až pátek)

59302
Bystřice n/Pernšt. D II
Malé Tresné, č. 7
10:00
1-5 - pracovní dny (pondělí až pátek)

Každopádně ale lze udělat nějaký projekt tohoto typu a schránky
"lovit" stejně jako rozcestníky... :o) Do OSM bychom vložili
nejprve něco jako "slepý údaj", který by se přirozeně nikde
nerenderoval vyjma speciální vrstvy na osmap.cz
 obdobně jako "chybějící rozcestník" apod. A
ten by teprve mappeři jednotlivě opravili jak pokud jde o
souřadnice, tak i s opravou tagu (např. z lost=post_box na
amenity=post_box). Protože by ale došlo k využití cizí databáze,
asi by bylo potřeba souhlasu ČP. BTW - tato databáze se 1x
měsíčně aktualizuje, takže by bylo možné sledovat nějaké změny
vůči okamžiku importu.

vop

-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Miroslav Suchy >
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic >
Datum: 1. 2. 2017 12:43:11
Předmět: [Talk-cz] Data z magistratu Brna


Ahoj,
dneska jsme dostali od pani Moravkove z brnenskeho
magistratu seznam dat, ktere by bylo mozne uvolnit pro OSM:

 > Návrh dat k poskytnutí do OSM
 > lavičky, odpadkové koše
 > zmapované ve většině městských částí, ale ne ve všech
 > zveřejnění dat by bylo třeba domluvit se všemi MČ
 > 

Re: [Talk-it] Utente Fredie e modifiche grossolane

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

se potete, mettete i commenti sotto i changeset sospetti, perché è un 
indicatore di cattiva mappatura quando i changeset provocano tanti commenti. Da 
quello che ho visto finora e come scrive lui, forse si dovrebbe  rivertare 
tutti i suoi changeset ;-)

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

Re: [Talk-de] Lokale-Gruppen-Layer auf openstreetmap.de

[gmbo]

Ich habe mal einen Einzeiler dazu gebracht ein aktuelles 
|osm_user_groups_dach.kml zu erzeugen.


|
|wget -o melde.txt -O a.kml 
'usergroups.openstreetmap.de/osm_user_groups.kml';echo 'version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>xmlns="http://www.opengis.net/kml/2.2;>OSM usergroups 
worldwideGenerated list of OpenStreetMap local user 
groups by UserGroupsBotid="usergroup">localgroup.png0.5' 
>de.kml;sed "s/<\/Placemark>/<\/Placemark>\n/g" a.kml |sed 
"s/DE" >>de.kml;echo 
'' >>osm_user_groups_dach.kml



Natürlich ließe sich das ganze im Python-Script besser unterbringen, 
aber so geht es auch.


Viele Grüße
Gisbert

|Am 07.02.2017 um 11:55 schrieb lars lingner:

Hallo zusammen,

Am 06.02.2017 um 22:49 schrieb Michael Reichert:
[...]

Ich habe jetzt mal ein Pull-Request erstellt, das die Datei mit der
aktuellen Datei von users.openstreetmap.de ersetzt.

https://github.com/fossgis/openstreetmap.de/pull/9


Das ist das richtige Repo für openstreetmap.de Der PR von Michael
(Danke!) ist inzwischen auch angenommen.

Die FOSSGIS-IT wurde in den letzten Monaten auf einen aktuellen Stand
gebracht. Dabei wurden auch einige alte Zöpfe abgeschnitten, statt mit
Wurzel entfernt.
Wer hier Ideen hat, wie man das user-file besser verwaltet und in die
Webseite integriert, kann sich gerne einbringen. Es gibt sogar schon ein
Issue [1] dazu.


Viele Grüße

Lars


[1] https://github.com/fossgis/openstreetmap.de/issues/6

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



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