When Avon was dissolved in 1995, some of the new unitaries are actually
contained in their own counties. In the SI counties are created for
North West Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire
and the City of Bristol; these counties are subsequently excused from
the obligation
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:31:14 +0200
Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2018-12-17, pr, 11:00 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
> > for admin boundaries there will often be at least 2 "true" document
> > sources: one for each party / side. They are also often observable,
> > at least punctually.
>
> I wonder,
On 2018-12-17 23:16, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 17/12/2018 09:41, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> One other thing: in the UK the boundaries of the area and the local
>> authority running that area are two different things. A local authority can
>> run a combination of adjacent admin areas; some admin
On 17/12/2018 09:41, Colin Smale wrote:
One other thing: in the UK the boundaries of the area and the local
authority running that area are two different things. A local
authority can run a combination of adjacent admin areas; some admin
areas are defined in law without there being a local
On 2018-12-17 14:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 17. Dec 2018, at 13:31, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>>
>> Especially interesting and useful would be stories of how maritime
>> boundaries or boundaries with no considerable obstructions built have
>> been actually mapped by
sent from a phone
> On 17. Dec 2018, at 13:31, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>
> Especially interesting and useful would be stories of how maritime
> boundaries or boundaries with no considerable obstructions built have
> been actually mapped by physical observation.
as these are claims you can’t
2018-12-17, pr, 11:00 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
> for admin boundaries there will often be at least 2 "true" document
> sources: one for each party / side. They are also often observable,
> at least punctually.
I wonder, of those saying that it is a peace of cake to map country
boundaries by
Am Mo., 17. Dez. 2018 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:
> On 2018-12-17 09:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Sa., 15. Dez. 2018 um 16:09 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
> colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:
>
>> "without access to the same sources" ... what if there is only one
On 2018-12-17 09:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Sa., 15. Dez. 2018 um 16:09 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale
> :
>
>> "without access to the same sources" ... what if there is only one source of
>> truth? With these non-observable items like admin boundaries that is often
>> the case.
>
> for
Am Sa., 15. Dez. 2018 um 16:09 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:
> "without access to the same sources" ... what if there is only one source
> of truth? With these non-observable items like admin boundaries that is
> often the case.
>
for admin boundaries there will often be at
On Saturday 15 December 2018, Colin Smale wrote:
> "without access to the same sources" ... what if there is only one
> source of truth? With these non-observable items like admin
> boundaries that is often the case. Does "independent verifiability"
> now mean that there must be at least two
"without access to the same sources" ... what if there is only one
source of truth? With these non-observable items like admin boundaries
that is often the case. Does "independent verifiability" now mean that
there must be at least two sources that agree before this criterion is
fulfilled? What
On Saturday 15 December 2018, Colin Smale wrote:
> Please choose your words more carefully. Sounds like [...]
I meant exactly what i wrote here.
For more details:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/
Please choose your words more carefully. Sounds like you are suggesting that
everything needs to be dual sourced now. This kind of fundamental principle
needs to be expressed with the same degree of care as a law, so it should be as
simple as possible (but no simpler) and unambiguous.
On 15
On Saturday 15 December 2018, Colin Smale wrote:
> > The whole point of the "verifiability" and "ground truth"
> > principles is so as _not_ to have to rely on documents.
>
> First time I have heard that as a (documented) rationale behind
> "ground truth".
Independent verifiability, i.e. that you
Le sam. 15 déc. 2018 à 14:04, Colin Smale a écrit :
> First time I have heard that as a (documented) rationale behind "ground
> truth".
>
> Surely the stronger requirement is public verifiability, from a freely
> accessible, objectively reliable source. What is physically present in situ
> is a
On 2018-12-15 12:54, Andy Townsend wrote:
> The whole point of the "verifiability" and "ground truth" principles is so as
> _not_ to have to rely on documents.
First time I have heard that as a (documented) rationale behind "ground
truth".
Surely the stronger requirement is public
2018-12-15, št, 13:57 Andy Townsend rašė:
> If I want to find the border
> between Ireland and Northern Ireland, for example, I might not (yet)
> find anything stopping me driving through but I will see something along
> the lines of "speed limits now in mph" or the reverse.
And then the
On 13/12/2018 10:40, Tomas Straupis wrote:
What is "ground" in this term for non physical objects:
1. Physical place which could have some traces of an actual object.
2. Ground where non-physical objects actually live - documents.
The whole point of the "verifiability" and "ground
sent from a phone
> On 13. Dec 2018, at 11:40, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>
>
> I was never for indiscriminate, automated imports without manual
> checks. Accepting documents as source does not necessary mean allowing
> such imports. When doing manual checks you can find (and we DO find)
>
2018-12-12, tr, 15:47 Andy Townsend rašė:
> If you're looking for a project that essentially mirrors "official" data
> without actually checking that its valid then OpenStreetMap might not be
> the project for you.
I was never for indiscriminate, automated imports without manual
checks.
Am Mi., 12. Dez. 2018 um 16:36 Uhr schrieb Florian Lohoff :
> I know that because i have caused ~100 residents to
> get new id cards because they all had a wrong street name in their ID.
This would merit a diary entry ;-)
Cheers,
Martin
___
talk
Hi,
On 12/12/18 6:15 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Sure, in the UK, you could do that and I know people who have done so. If
> you invent a street name here in Charlbury and then post a letter to it,
> Carla the post-lady will ask around until she finds out where the street is
> (or until she
Hi,
I would not be surprised if this was more of a rural/urban divide than a
country divide.
We had run a building for 15 years without an official address here in
Germany, Wuppertal (has more than 350k inhabitants):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/190295244
To cut the story short:
It
2018-12-12, tr 19:18 Richard Fairhurst rašė:
> Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > Ad absurdum argument: can you invent your own street name or even
> > placename and expect post, police, ambulance, firefighters, taxi to
> > arrive (on time or at all)?
>
> Sure, in the UK, you could do that and I know
I would not be surprised if this was more of a rural/urban divide than a
country divide. I cannot imagine that I could put a name on my house and
then address a letter to that new name and city and ever expect it to get
there. (I have a hard time imagining this would work in Berlin or London
Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Ad absurdum argument: can you invent your own street name or even
> placename and expect post, police, ambulance, firefighters, taxi to
> arrive (on time or at all)?
Sure, in the UK, you could do that and I know people who have done so. If
you invent a street name here
Ad absurdum argument: can you invent your own street name or even placename
and expect post, police, ambulance, firefighters, taxi to arrive (on time
or at all)?
Thank you for example anyway, I would have never ever believed such a thing
could be true in GERMANY. (No sarcasm) in post soviet
Germany is not the "whole world". If you have multiple datasets for
addresses then you have to decide, and physical check could be the solution
for your country because of registry collision, whatever German community
decides.
In Lithuania there is one and only one official source for ANY
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 03:05:06PM +0200, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Discussions about mapping invented addresses shows exactly what I
> wanted to say: we get drowned in endless pointless
> counter-counter-examples of counter-examples. Rules would have to be
> invented for addresses separately, and
Discussions about mapping invented addresses shows exactly what I
wanted to say: we get drowned in endless pointless
counter-counter-examples of counter-examples. Rules would have to be
invented for addresses separately, and then separately for each
country or even more detailed. We once again get
Mail will not arrive there as mail will be stopped in post-office
because of incorrect (not existing) address.
Nope - Try it yourself. If you live in Examplestreet 10 and you start
sending yourself postcards with Examplestreet 10a they'll reach you.
Post offices often have a good time
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:38:37PM +0200, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2018-12-11, an, 13:27 Jochen Topf rašė:
> > It seems you haven't understood the on-the-ground rule 5 years ago and
> > you still haven't. For all intents and purposes there is such an
> > address. Mail will arrive there, people can
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:08:35PM +0200, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> This is a very good example of possibly misleading reflection.
> What if a driver is stopping in unofficial position somewhere
> outside of large city to let local people he knows out/in even when
> there is no official stop?
>
On 11/12/2018 16:49, Jmapb wrote:
On 12/11/2018 9:41 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote:
If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
map it as an actual military academy?
No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military academy".
On 12/11/2018 9:41 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote:
If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
map it as an actual military academy?
No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military academy".
Sidebar, according to my reading of the
2018-12-11, an, 16:41 Rory McCann rašė:
> On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>>If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
>> map it as an actual military academy?
>
> No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military academy".
Well IF you know it is not
On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote:
If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
map it as an actual military academy?
No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military academy".
Sometimes governments won't put actual military installations on
"official maps",
I think, the problem that rule says "on-the-ground" and if it doesn't mean
on-the-ground and people *cannot find it, * for example there is no sign at
all like houses missing the number plate or abandonned houses or forest /
national park divisions.
Indeed, mail address is one of the possibility
2018-12-11, an, 13:27 Jochen Topf rašė:
> It seems you haven't understood the on-the-ground rule 5 years ago and
> you still haven't. For all intents and purposes there is such an
> address. Mail will arrive there, people can find the house when looking
> for it.
Mail will not arrive there as
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:08:35PM +0200, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> I had an actual situation 5 or so years ago when an address was
> mapped in Vilnius. Address does not exist in official records. The
> user sent me a picture of this house number. I contacted municipality
> ant they explained that
> Note i have explained to Tomas in length the meaning of the concept of
> verifiability for not directly physically manifested statements in
>
> http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/#comments
>
> Using the example of a bus stop without signs or shelter i
2018-12-11, an, 12:06 Frederik Ramm rašė:
> Non-physical (non-observable) things should definitely be the exception
> in OSM, and it is my opinion that each class of non-physical things we
> add needs a very good reason for adding them.
I agree, but that is a different question. My suggestion
On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Also, I think you are too fast in discounting the verifiability of
> boundaries. Even in the absence of actual marked lines, fences, or
> walls, you will often find the "reflections" that you speak of if you
> look a bit closer: Which
Hi,
On 11.12.2018 10:37, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 1. Non-physical objects are mapped by observing/verifying their
> REFLECTION in physical world.
...
> Opinion 1 would mean that we should remove all(most?) non-physical
> objects: country, state, county, city, suburb, national/regional park
>
Hello
I think we should settle the question of how "ground truth" or
"verifiability" applies to NON-PHYSICAL objects (it is clear with
physical objects). Because currently I see at least two opinions:
1. Non-physical objects are mapped by observing/verifying their
REFLECTION in physical
46 matches
Mail list logo
