[Talk-lv] iespējamie lģia datu labojumi

[Rihards]

Nez, lģia interesētu iespējami labojumi viņu datos ?

Piemēram šis - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2073694658/history
Varbūt avota datos jau izlabots, varbūt vēl nav.
-- 
 Rihards

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

Re: [Talk-at] GPX-Daten glätten

[realadry]

Ich seh den Sinn am Glätten nicht. GPS daten sind Rohdaten und sollten 
deshalb auch unverfälscht dargestellt werden. Es ist nicht Sinn der 
Sache, einen GPS track 1:1 als Straße oder Pfad zu übernehmen. Das 
"glätten" muss deshalb von Hand gemacht werden, weil man dann auch das 
ganze mit Luftbildern (falls vorhanden) oder anderen GPS daten 
vergleichen kann. Dazu kommt, dass niemand außer dem uploader weiß, dass 
die Daten verfälscht wurden.


-realadry

Am 28.04.2017 um 02:33 schrieb Kevin Kofler:

Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

Dadurch werden sie auch nicht richtiger, sie sehen nur richtiger aus. Ich
finde es besser, wenn andere an der Streuung gleich erkennen können, dass
der Empfang schlecht war. Ganz abgesehen davon gehen bei jeder
Vereinfachung Informationen verloren (Abstecher, Serpentinen...).


Also, wenn man einen annähernd symmetrischen Fehler annimmt, dann sind die
geglätteten Punkte tatsächlich näher an der Realität als die ursprünglich
gemessenen, zumindest, wenn man einen mathematisch sinnvollen
Glättungsalgorithmus verwendet.

Natürlich, wenn die Fehler in eine Richtung biased sind, dann wird die
geglättete Kurve dorthin abgedrängt (wobei, wenn man das vorher weiß oder
erkennt, dann kann man die Glättung entsprechend anpassen).

Kevin Kofler


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Roland Olbricht]

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm


Thank you for the link.


Unfortunately it does not (yet)catch also the segregated and
not-segregated foot-cycle-paths that are tagged using the JOSM presets
(highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated, segregated=yes|no)


http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oG6

I have essentially just added the conditions you mention in one line. I 
have slightly changed the viewport to have relevant results for the 
change within the viewport.


> I am not an Overpass-Turbo expert and don't dare to add them to your
> script

The linked queries are immutable. If you open the link then you always 
work on an independend copy.


Cheers,

Roland


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Land-use mapping with OSM in Belgium

[Marc Gemis]

the landuse under roads should be highway, this has been discussed in
the past. Never got popular. Alternative is area:highway, which is
more popular I believe.

But you won't split the current residential areas on each street, would you ?
I think overlaying landuse=residential with leisure=park is just an
easy way to map, otherwise you would have to start splitting all large
residential landuses each time, you map amenity=place_of_worship,
parkings, parks, gardens, etc. etc.

But strictly speaking you are correct, a park is not
landuse=residential, but is a pond in a private garden ? Where do you
draw the line ?

There are mappers who loves to see more different landuses for civic
buildings, church grounds, schools  etc.

When you ask for no gaps in landuse, what is the landuse of a beach ?
of a river ? of a small ditch or path between two fields ?  What is
the use of a tree row along a road ? Of a grass patch that separates
the cycleway from the road ? Do we really want to split up landuse up
to this level ? now, or is this a long term goal ?

Right now, I am more concerned about areas like
http://osm.org/go/0Erc0BNv?m= . Which message does the current map
give you about this area around the Prinsenlaan ? Please first look at
the map and then you might look at aerial imagery or other sources ( I
hope I have some images at
https://xian.smugmug.com/OSM/OSM-2017/2017-04-17-Retie-Brug-2 soon)
Does it match ? Let me know.

@Joost
I do not mind you created your own tool, it's great that there are
multiple tools to analyse landuse. Each with their own benefits (e.g.
easy of use vs. customizability)

m.

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Lionel Giard  wrote:
> Personally, i put Nature reserve on a special relation, as it is described
> on the wiki, like this one :
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7130732#map=17/50.68519/4.70461
> And the forest or other landuses are just part of this multipolygon. In this
> example, i also have a multipolygon for the forest because, i have things
> inside it.
> Nothing stop you to have multiple relation at the same place (i think of
> relation like a "special" polygon, and nothing stop us to make multiple
> polygon on each other but slightly different in shape).
>
> We should really describe/decide which tag is representing a landuse
> (because it can be landuse=*, leisure=* or natural=*) and if we need to
> avoid putting them at the same place (like allow or not leisure=park on top
> of landuse=residential ?!). Right know, we all have our own opinion and it
> create some variation of the map in Belgium.
> And we should avoid gap in the landuse. Thus it seems important to solve
> some problems like what should be the landuse tag under a road ?
>
> 2017-04-27 14:29 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:50 PM, joost schouppe
>>  wrote:
>> > The examples you give are already hard work to think about. Much more
>> > basic
>> > mistakes are made too: e.g. a forest is also a nature reserve. But then
>> > someone turns the forest into a multipolygon, because there is some
>> > water or
>> > grassland inside of it. But the multipolygon is also used for the nature
>> > reserve. Which would imply the holes in the forest are unprotected, and
>> > that's usually not the case.
>>
>> I have been thinking about this as well. even the name belongs to the
>> outer way and not the relation.
>> I would say put the nature reserve tag on the outer way and the forest
>> tags on the relation. Would that work ?
>>
>> But tagging mistakes due to bad quality aerial imagery is equally
>> common I think. And those are much harder to detect I think.
>> For your case, it  is basically looking up all multipolygons on which
>> the nature reserve tags is placed and check those. While this can be a
>> long list, it is not nearly as long as checking all landuses.
>>
>>
>>
>> m
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>

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

Re: [OSM-ja] どなたか修正をお願いします(京都丹後鉄道宮福線)

[yuu hayashi]

hayashiです。

2つのリレーションを「6014983 」に統合しました。

変更セット
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48213047

2017年4月28日 9:48 yuu hayashi :

> hayashiです
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6014983
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1867928
> 上記の2つのリレーションですね
>
> リレーション；6014983には駅(stop)の情報も入っているので、6014983に統合するのが良いと思います。
>
> 幸いなことに、私、現在失業中で暇なので、統合作業にチャレンジしてみます。
>
>
> 2017年4月28日 8:54 浅野和仁 :
>
>> アサノです
>>
>> 重複ノードは
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/35.4328/135.1582
>> です。
>>
>> 2017年4月28日 7:20 Satoshi IIDA :
>>
>>> いいだです。
>>> urlでいうとどのあたりのオブジェクトでしょう？
>>>
>>> 2017/04/28 午前7:19 "ribbon" >>
>>
>>
>> --
>> **
>> 浅野 和仁 090-2067-9293 050-7126-0364
>> helicobacter_y...@hera.eonet.ne.jp
>> 586-0077 河内長野市南花台4丁目7-5
>> **
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ja mailing list
>> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-ja] どなたか修正をお願いします(京都丹後鉄道宮福線)

[yuu hayashi]

hayashiです

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6014983
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1867928
上記の2つのリレーションですね

リレーション；6014983には駅(stop)の情報も入っているので、6014983に統合するのが良いと思います。

幸いなことに、私、現在失業中で暇なので、統合作業にチャレンジしてみます。


2017年4月28日 8:54 浅野和仁 :

> アサノです
>
> 重複ノードは
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/35.4328/135.1582
> です。
>
> 2017年4月28日 7:20 Satoshi IIDA :
>
>> いいだです。
>> urlでいうとどのあたりのオブジェクトでしょう？
>>
>> 2017/04/28 午前7:19 "ribbon" >
>
>
> --
> **
> 浅野 和仁 090-2067-9293 050-7126-0364
> helicobacter_y...@hera.eonet.ne.jp
> 586-0077 河内長野市南花台4丁目7-5
> **
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
>
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-ja] どなたか修正をお願いします(京都丹後鉄道宮福線)

[浅野和仁]

アサノです

重複ノードは
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/35.4328/135.1582
です。

2017年4月28日 7:20 Satoshi IIDA :

> いいだです。
> urlでいうとどのあたりのオブジェクトでしょう？
>
> 2017/04/28 午前7:19 "ribbon" 


-- 
**
浅野 和仁 090-2067-9293 050-7126-0364
helicobacter_y...@hera.eonet.ne.jp
586-0077 河内長野市南花台4丁目7-5
**
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [talk-au] Making the case for ODbL licensing of state government open data

[Phil (The Geek) Wyatt]

One more link that has some info in relation to CC BY 4.0

 

https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

 

From: Nicholas G Lawrence [mailto:nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au] 
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 8:53 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Making the case for ODbL licensing of state government open 
data

 

Hello Australia OSM,

 

I am a spatial science officer in Qld Transport and Main Roads, involved in the 
provision of Open Data for public consumption.

 

Our data is generally released under a CC-BY license, but I have an opportunity 
to make a case for the ODbL to be a license option. Currently data custodians 
choose a license from a list of pre-approved licenses, and I am hoping to add 
ODbL to that list.

 

But first I have to put forward a clear case why this should be considered. Is 
there a clear argument written down somewhere I can refer to?

 

Also, I am not clear on the incompatibilities between ODbL and specific types 
of CC licenses. For example, is CC-BY compatible whilst CC-BY-SA not 
compatible? How about CC-0?

 

Thanks,
Nick Lawrence

 

 

  _  

***
WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally
privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was
intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one
is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print
or copy this email without appropriate authority.

If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and 
any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not
waived or destroyed by that mistake.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain 
and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by 
third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
your computer system).

Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads,
or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
***

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

[talk-au] Making the case for ODbL licensing of state government open data

[Nicholas G Lawrence]

Hello Australia OSM,

I am a spatial science officer in Qld Transport and Main Roads, involved in the 
provision of Open Data for public consumption.

Our data is generally released under a CC-BY license, but I have an opportunity 
to make a case for the ODbL to be a license option. Currently data custodians 
choose a license from a list of pre-approved licenses, and I am hoping to add 
ODbL to that list.

But first I have to put forward a clear case why this should be considered. Is 
there a clear argument written down somewhere I can refer to?

Also, I am not clear on the incompatibilities between ODbL and specific types 
of CC licenses. For example, is CC-BY compatible whilst CC-BY-SA not 
compatible? How about CC-0?

Thanks,
Nick Lawrence




***
WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally
privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was
intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one
is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print
or copy this email without appropriate authority.

If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and 
any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not
waived or destroyed by that mistake.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain 
and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by 
third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
your computer system).

Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads,
or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
***

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[Philippe Verdy]

De plus il n'y a même pas 4 voies, ni 3 avec une voie centrale qui alterne
régulièrement dans un sens ou l'autre pour permettre les dépassements
C'est presque de bout en bout 2 voies parallèles (et étroites car la
chaussée n'a pas été construite pour être en double-sens: ce devait être
juste provisoire, mais depuis la route actuelle n'a même pas été
reprofilée, il y a juste une grosse ligne continue qui interdit tout
dépassement et pourtant les accidents sont nombreux avec les véhicules de
la voie centrale qui dévient à gauche sur la voie latérale où viennent les
véhicules dans l'autre sens: le gros des accidents, trop nombreux, ce sont
ces collisions; le dévers de la voie n'est même pas signalé !).
Les danger c'est les véhicules larges (engins agricoles, caravanes, mobil
home...) la visibilité est également très mauvaise.

Le 28 avril 2017 à 00:22, Philippe Verdy  a écrit :

> "Most important"? Cette route est déclassée depuis longtemps, elle n'a
> jamais été terminée et l'Etat ne fait rien pour.
> Importante pour qui dans son état actuel? Ce n'est même pas dans l'état
> d'une vieille départementale.
> Certes dans quelques zones les conducteurs n'ont pas le choix que cette
> route, mais tout le monde l'évite absolument chaque fois que possible,
> notamment les trajets longs qu'elle devait desservir. Elle sert en fait
> surtout aux liaisons locales (ou aux voyageurs imprudents qui suivent
> aveuglément leur carte ou leur GPS et n'ont aucune idée sur quoi il vont se
> retrouver).
>
>
> Le 27 avril 2017 à 21:28, pepilepi...@ovh.fr  a écrit
> :
>
>> Le 27/04/2017 à 19:50, Philippe Verdy a écrit :
>>
>> Je pense que les trunk ont le critère indispensable de séparation des
>> sens de circulation.
>>
>>
>> Le wiki  dit pourtant
>> clairement "Need not necessarily be a divided highway"...
>> Et cette funeste route correspond bien à la définition "The most
>> important roads in a country's system that aren't motorways".
>>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[Philippe Verdy]

"Most important"? Cette route est déclassée depuis longtemps, elle n'a
jamais été terminée et l'Etat ne fait rien pour.
Importante pour qui dans son état actuel? Ce n'est même pas dans l'état
d'une vieille départementale.
Certes dans quelques zones les conducteurs n'ont pas le choix que cette
route, mais tout le monde l'évite absolument chaque fois que possible,
notamment les trajets longs qu'elle devait desservir. Elle sert en fait
surtout aux liaisons locales (ou aux voyageurs imprudents qui suivent
aveuglément leur carte ou leur GPS et n'ont aucune idée sur quoi il vont se
retrouver).


Le 27 avril 2017 à 21:28, pepilepi...@ovh.fr  a écrit :

> Le 27/04/2017 à 19:50, Philippe Verdy a écrit :
>
> Je pense que les trunk ont le critère indispensable de séparation des sens
> de circulation.
>
>
> Le wiki  dit pourtant
> clairement "Need not necessarily be a divided highway"...
> Et cette funeste route correspond bien à la définition "The most important
> roads in a country's system that aren't motorways".
>
> ?
>
>
>
>
> Clairement la RCEA n'en est pas, et celui qui a fait le changement a eu
> raison (et concernant les courtes sections où il y a des voies séparées,
> elles sont tellemetn courtes qu'elles ne méritent même pas d'être trunk,
> car elles ne font aucune liaison entre deux agglomérations importantes, ce
> sont juste des aménagements à proximité de certains échangeurs déjà
> construits mais reliés à rien d'autre que cette chaussée temporaire (qui
> dure depuis des décennies, les travaux ayant été chaque fois reportés).
> Il y a eu un reportage TV concernant cette route de la mort jamais
> terminée (et où même des travaux annoncés pour certaines sections ont
> finalement été annulés après des mois ou des années d'attente, le budget
> ayant été maintes fois remis à plus tard par l'Etat, les collectivités et
> l'Europe ne pouvant pas financer seule sans participation nationale,
> régionale ou locale avec des garanties financières et légales solides:
> l'Europe a financé certaines parties sous promesse de réalisation du reste,
> ce qui n'a pas été fait, elle a logiquement annulé tous les autres lots et
> les promesses sont caduques: tout est à refinancer).
>
>
> Le 27 avril 2017 à 18:57, Axelos  a écrit :
>
>> Coucou,
>>
>> Le 27/04/2017 à 15:45, djakk a écrit :
>> > Salut à tous,
>> >
>> > j'ai une super question : comment doit on tagguer la nationale N79
>> > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.4819/3.8335) qui est
>> > principalement une route bi-directionnelle dénivelée et classée "route
>> pour
>> > automobiles" ?
>>
>> Ahhh ma question préférée !!! Je me suis longuement posé la même, puis
>> je me la pause encore aujourd’hui :)
>>
>> Ça dépend en fait ce qui nous semble important quant au choix de la
>> classification : Vitesse ? séparation physique ? Conditions d’accès ?
>>
>> Par exemple, pour moi qui donne une grande importance aux conditions
>> d’accès, ma recherche naturelle se porte sur cette page :
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad#France
>>
>> D'autres vont avoir d'autres approches qui vont au final résulter sur
>> une route primaire.
>>
>> J’espère n'avoir pas du tout répondu à ta question :)
>>
>> > Elle était tagguée en "trunk" et quelqu'un vient de la changer en
>> "primary"
>> > (excepté les courtes sections à 2*2 voies).
>> >
>> > Julien "djakk" (http://itineraires.de.bus.free.fr)
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing 
> listTalk-fr@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-ja] どなたか修正をお願いします(京都丹後鉄道宮福線)

[Satoshi IIDA]

いいだです。
urlでいうとどのあたりのオブジェクトでしょう？

2017/04/28 午前7:19 "ribbon" :

> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:11:15AM +0900, 浅野和仁 wrote:
> > 浅野です。
> >
> > 全線のほぼ中央で重複した2路線のノードが結合されていて、分解する際にリレーションが切れてしまいます。
> > 分離はしたのですが、リレーションが2つに分割したので、更新せずに、リタイアします。
>
> 分離して、一方を削ると、リレーションに矛盾が出来てしまって
> アップロードできないのですね。どうやったら解決できるのかなあ。
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-ja] どなたか修正をお願いします(京都丹後鉄道宮福線)

[ribbon]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:11:15AM +0900, 浅野和仁 wrote:
> 浅野です。
> 
> 全線のほぼ中央で重複した2路線のノードが結合されていて、分解する際にリレーションが切れてしまいます。
> 分離はしたのですが、リレーションが2つに分割したので、更新せずに、リタイアします。

分離して、一方を削ると、リレーションに矛盾が出来てしまって
アップロードできないのですね。どうやったら解決できるのかなあ。

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Paul Johnson]

No problem, I've updated it and the adjacent frontage roads for how I
handle this situation typically (Texas turnarounds and 4-carriageway
freeway arrangements are common to frequent in my area).

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Horea Meleg 
wrote:

> Hy Paul,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Can you give us an example of how exactly you’re
> approaching this, to understand better (some coordinates maybe).
>
> Also can you please tell us how you think our presented case, should be
> processed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:04 AM
> *To:* Horea Meleg 
> *Cc:* Rihards ; Hans De Kryger <
> hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>; talk-US@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Horea Meleg 
> wrote:
>
> Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
> Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous
> line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it
> should be the same in OSM. What do you think?
>
>
>
> Does anybody have objections on me updating that approach with my method?
> I tend to start a new lane where the lane taper finishes, start a split at
> the start of the theoretical gore (placement=transition on the exit), and
> start the ramp centerline at the bullnose.  For solid line situations, the
> US is a little weird on this.  A single solid white line is officially a
> "discouraged" movement one should make only with extreme caution, whereas
> crossing a double-white line is prohibited, as outlined in the MUTCD.  In
> either case, I would generally take the conservative approach in this
> situation, using something like change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|not_right|no
> where that solid line is.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79

[Christian Rogel]

> Le 2017 Ebr. 27 à 21:14, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :
> 
> Par rapport à la remarque de Philippe a priori pertinente sur le fait qu'une 
> voie de type trunk devrait avoir des chaussées séparées il est dit dans le 
> wiki :
> 
> Dispose en général de 2x2 voies et d'une séparation centrale (rail de 
> sécurité).
> 
> Mais plus précisément pour la France :
> 
> France Rocade, voie rapide ou voie expresse ayant les caractéristiques d'une 
> autoroute. En général une 2x2 voies avec séparateur central et limitée à 110 
> km/h
> Par défaut : lanes="2", maxspeed="110" (sauf périph. Paris: 80)
> + ref="Nxx" ou "Dxx"
> + oneway="yes" 
> + lanes="x" (si voies <> 2)
> 

Toujours, cette insupportable tendance à surcatégoriser en France, en suivant 
aveugléments nos chers ingénieurs publics, qui, nous le savons tous depuis 
l'enfance, sont les meilleurs du monde.
Et, si on respectait les critères mondiaux ?

Christian R.
(Je sais, je suis un radoteur)

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79

[djakk]

Il y a d'un côté la qualité de la route (largeur, sinuosité) et d'un autre
côté sa quantité (nombre de véhicules) mais dans osm le tag highway mélange
les 2 ... 



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Nationale-N79-RCEA-trunk-ou-primary-tp5895990p5896017.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Wochennotiz Nr. 353 18.04.2017–24.04.2017

[Wochennotizteam]

Hallo,

die Wochennotiz Nr. 353 mit vielen wichtigen Neuigkeiten aus der 
OpenStreetMap-Welt ist da:

http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2017/04/wochennotiz-nr-353/

Viel Spaß beim Lesen!
___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

Wochennotiz Nr. 353 18.04.2017–24.04.2017

[Wochennotizteam]

Hallo,

die Wochennotiz Nr. 353 mit vielen wichtigen Neuigkeiten aus der 
OpenStreetMap-Welt ist da:

http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2017/04/wochennotiz-nr-353/

Viel Spaß beim Lesen!
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[pepilepi...@ovh.fr]

  
  
Le 27/04/2017 à 19:50, Philippe Verdy a
  écrit :


  Je pense que les trunk ont le critère indispensable
de séparation des sens de circulation. 


Le wiki
dit pourtant clairement "Need not necessarily be a divided
highway"...
Et cette funeste route correspond bien à la définition "The most
important roads in a country's system that aren't motorways".

?




  Clairement la RCEA n'en est pas, et celui qui a
fait le changement a eu raison (et concernant les courtes
sections où il y a des voies séparées, elles sont tellemetn
courtes qu'elles ne méritent même pas d'être trunk, car elles ne
font aucune liaison entre deux agglomérations importantes, ce
sont juste des aménagements à proximité de certains échangeurs
déjà construits mais reliés à rien d'autre que cette chaussée
temporaire (qui dure depuis des décennies, les travaux ayant été
chaque fois reportés).
Il y a eu un reportage TV concernant cette route de la mort
  jamais terminée (et où même des travaux annoncés pour
  certaines sections ont finalement été annulés après des mois
  ou des années d'attente, le budget ayant été maintes fois
  remis à plus tard par l'Etat, les collectivités et l'Europe ne
  pouvant pas financer seule sans participation nationale,
  régionale ou locale avec des garanties financières et légales
  solides: l'Europe a financé certaines parties sous promesse de
  réalisation du reste, ce qui n'a pas été fait, elle a
  logiquement annulé tous les autres lots et les promesses sont
  caduques: tout est à refinancer).


  
  
Le 27 avril 2017 à 18:57, Axelos 
  a écrit :
  Coucou,

  Le 27/04/2017 à 15:45, djakk a écrit :
  > Salut à tous,
  >
  > j'ai une super question : comment doit on tagguer la
  nationale N79
  > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.4819/3.8335)
  qui est
  > principalement une route bi-directionnelle dénivelée
  et classée "route pour
  > automobiles" ?
  
Ahhh ma question préférée !!! Je me suis longuement
posé la même, puis
je me la pause encore aujourd’hui :)

Ça dépend en fait ce qui nous semble important quant au
choix de la
classification : Vitesse ? séparation physique ? Conditions
d’accès ?

Par exemple, pour moi qui donne une grande importance aux
conditions
d’accès, ma recherche naturelle se porte sur cette page :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad#France

D'autres vont avoir d'autres approches qui vont au final
résulter sur
une route primaire.

J’espère n'avoir pas du tout répondu à ta question :)

  > Elle était tagguée en "trunk" et quelqu'un vient de
  la changer en "primary"
  > (excepté les courtes sections à 2*2 voies).
  >
  > Julien "djakk" (http://itineraires.de.bus.free.fr)
  
  


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

  


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




  


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79

[osm . sanspourriel]

Par rapport à la remarque de Philippe a priori pertinente sur le fait 
qu'une voie de type trunk devrait avoir des chaussées séparées il est 
dit dans le wiki :


Dispose /en général/ de 2x2 voies et d'une séparation centrale (rail de 
sécurité).


Mais plus précisément pour la France :

*France* Rocade, voie rapide ou voie expresse ayant les caractéristiques 
d'une autoroute. *En général une 2x2 voies avec séparateur central et 
limitée à 110 km/h*

Par défaut : lanes="2", maxspeed="110" (sauf périph. Paris: 80)
+ ref="Nxx" ou "Dxx"
+ oneway="yes"
+ lanes="x" (si voies <> 2)

La vitesse est sur la N13 à cet endroit limitée à 90 km/h. C'est 
d'ailleurs assez fréquent sur les rocades.
Alors trunk ou primary ? Pour moi ce n'est clairement pas une 
"pseudo-autoroute" mais comme on met "rocades" dans le wiki...
Le fait que des fermes semblent avoir accès à la N13 directement 
 
(la photo IGN va dans le même sens : ferme toujours exploitée) n'incite 
pas à un classement en trunk.


Sur l'homogénéité au niveau mondial : difficile car dans certains pays 
tu n'aurais ni motorway, ni trunk ni primary.
On veut désigner le niveau deux des routes, c'est à dire pas les 
meilleures routes mais presque.
En Irlande une simple route sans terre-plein central mais avec des 
bas-côtés roulables permettant aux conducteurs de se mettre sur le côté 
afin de laisser se faire doubler alors qu'une voiture venait en face 
répondait à ce critère (je mets à l'imparfait car ces routes sont 
devenues des voies expresses ou des autoroutes).


Il n'empêche, le statut est assez vaseux : la N 165/E60 a succédé à la 
voie déclassée en départementale D 765 
 (Finistère 
et Morbihan:  Quimper-Lorient). Au nord avec de nombreux passages à 70 
km/h elle est considérée comme primary. Au sud, plus souvent à 90 km/h 
elle est considérée comme secondary. Ça ne me semble pas logique mais 
que changer ?


Jean-Yvon

Le 27/04/2017 à 20:17, djakk - djakk.dj...@gmail.com a écrit :

Moi je suis pour le "trunk" bidirectionnel, avec oneway=no : il faudrait
distinguer la RCEA de la route "primary" mais basique Digoin - Autun. Au
rendu de faire la distinction.

Autre cas épineux : la N13 à l'arrivée sur Cherbourg, chaussée séparée MAIS
des maisons au bord de la route
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/49.57912/-1.58224) (d'ailleurs il
manque motorroad = no).

Au Japon et en Angleterre, les "trunk" sont utilisés pour les grandes
nationales classiques plus ou moins aménagées
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/35.54124/139.71252), pourquoi ne pas
évoluer sur le tag "trunk" en France pour être équivalent aux autres pays ?
(ce qui résoudrait ces questions sur la RCEA ou sur la N13) (l'idéal serait
d'avoir des définitions de tags qui ne dépendent pas des pays :))



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Nationale-N79-RCEA-trunk-ou-primary-tp5895990p5896010.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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] Nationale N79

[osm . sanspourriel]

Par rapport à la remarque de Philippe a priori pertinente sur le fait 
qu'une voie de type trunk devrait avoir des chaussées séparées il est 
dit dans le wiki :


Dispose /en général/ de 2x2 voies et d'une séparation centrale (rail de 
sécurité).


Mais plus précisément pour la France :

*France* Rocade, voie rapide ou voie expresse ayant les caractéristiques 
d'une autoroute. *En général une 2x2 voies avec séparateur central et 
limitée à 110 km/h*

Par défaut : lanes="2", maxspeed="110" (sauf périph. Paris: 80)
+ ref="Nxx" ou "Dxx"
+ oneway="yes"
+ lanes="x" (si voies <> 2)

La vitesse est sur la N13 à cet endroit limitée à 90 km/h. C'est 
d'ailleurs assez fréquent sur les rocades.
Alors trunk ou primary ? Pour moi ce n'est clairement pas une 
"pseudo-autoroute" mais comme on met "rocades" dans le wiki...
Le fait que des fermes semblent avoir accès à la N13 directement 
 
(la photo IGN va dans le même sens : ferme toujours exploitée) n'incite 
pas à un classement en trunk.


Sur l'homogénéité au niveau mondial : difficile car dans certains pays 
tu n'aurais ni motoray, ni trunk ni primary.
On veut désigner le niveau deux des routes, c'est à dire pas les 
meilleures routes mais presque.
En Irlande une simple route sans terre-plein central mais avec des 
bas-côtés roulables permettant aux conducteurs de se mettre sur le côté 
afin de laisser se faire doubler alors qu'une voiture venait en face 
répondait à ce critère (je mets à l'imparfait car ces routes sont 
devenues des voies expresses ou des autoroutes).


Il n'empêche, le statut est assez vaseux : la N 165/E60 a succédé à la 
voie déclassée en départementale D 765 
 (Finistère 
et Morbihan:  Quimper-Lorient). Au nord avec de nombreux passages à 70 
km/h elle est considérée comme primary. Au sud, plus souvent à 90 km/h 
elle est considérée comme secondary. Ça ne me semble pas logique mais 
que changer ?


Jean-Yvon

Le 27/04/2017 à 20:17, djakk - djakk.dj...@gmail.com a écrit :

Moi je suis pour le "trunk" bidirectionnel, avec oneway=no : il faudrait
distinguer la RCEA de la route "primary" mais basique Digoin - Autun. Au
rendu de faire la distinction.

Autre cas épineux : la N13 à l'arrivée sur Cherbourg, chaussée séparée MAIS
des maisons au bord de la route
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/49.57912/-1.58224) (d'ailleurs il
manque motorroad = no).

Au Japon et en Angleterre, les "trunk" sont utilisés pour les grandes
nationales classiques plus ou moins aménagées
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/35.54124/139.71252), pourquoi ne pas
évoluer sur le tag "trunk" en France pour être équivalent aux autres pays ?
(ce qui résoudrait ces questions sur la RCEA ou sur la N13) (l'idéal serait
d'avoir des définitions de tags qui ne dépendent pas des pays :))



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Nationale-N79-RCEA-trunk-ou-primary-tp5895990p5896010.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[djakk]

>> Au rendu de faire la distinction …
… entre route bidirectionnelle et vraie 2*2 voies



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Nationale-N79-RCEA-trunk-ou-primary-tp5895990p5896011.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[djakk]

Moi je suis pour le "trunk" bidirectionnel, avec oneway=no : il faudrait
distinguer la RCEA de la route "primary" mais basique Digoin - Autun. Au
rendu de faire la distinction. 

Autre cas épineux : la N13 à l'arrivée sur Cherbourg, chaussée séparée MAIS
des maisons au bord de la route
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/49.57912/-1.58224) (d'ailleurs il
manque motorroad = no). 

Au Japon et en Angleterre, les "trunk" sont utilisés pour les grandes
nationales classiques plus ou moins aménagées
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/35.54124/139.71252), pourquoi ne pas
évoluer sur le tag "trunk" en France pour être équivalent aux autres pays ?
(ce qui résoudrait ces questions sur la RCEA ou sur la N13) (l'idéal serait
d'avoir des définitions de tags qui ne dépendent pas des pays :))



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Nationale-N79-RCEA-trunk-ou-primary-tp5895990p5896010.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[Philippe Verdy]

Je pense que les trunk ont le critère indispensable de séparation des sens
de circulation. Clairement la RCEA n'en est pas, et celui qui a fait le
changement a eu raison (et concernant les courtes sections où il y a des
voies séparées, elles sont tellemetn courtes qu'elles ne méritent même pas
d'être trunk, car elles ne font aucune liaison entre deux agglomérations
importantes, ce sont juste des aménagements à proximité de certains
échangeurs déjà construits mais reliés à rien d'autre que cette chaussée
temporaire (qui dure depuis des décennies, les travaux ayant été chaque
fois reportés).
Il y a eu un reportage TV concernant cette route de la mort jamais terminée
(et où même des travaux annoncés pour certaines sections ont finalement été
annulés après des mois ou des années d'attente, le budget ayant été maintes
fois remis à plus tard par l'Etat, les collectivités et l'Europe ne pouvant
pas financer seule sans participation nationale, régionale ou locale avec
des garanties financières et légales solides: l'Europe a financé certaines
parties sous promesse de réalisation du reste, ce qui n'a pas été fait,
elle a logiquement annulé tous les autres lots et les promesses sont
caduques: tout est à refinancer).


Le 27 avril 2017 à 18:57, Axelos  a écrit :

> Coucou,
>
> Le 27/04/2017 à 15:45, djakk a écrit :
> > Salut à tous,
> >
> > j'ai une super question : comment doit on tagguer la nationale N79
> > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.4819/3.8335) qui est
> > principalement une route bi-directionnelle dénivelée et classée "route
> pour
> > automobiles" ?
>
> Ahhh ma question préférée !!! Je me suis longuement posé la même, puis
> je me la pause encore aujourd’hui :)
>
> Ça dépend en fait ce qui nous semble important quant au choix de la
> classification : Vitesse ? séparation physique ? Conditions d’accès ?
>
> Par exemple, pour moi qui donne une grande importance aux conditions
> d’accès, ma recherche naturelle se porte sur cette page :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad#France
>
> D'autres vont avoir d'autres approches qui vont au final résulter sur
> une route primaire.
>
> J’espère n'avoir pas du tout répondu à ta question :)
>
> > Elle était tagguée en "trunk" et quelqu'un vient de la changer en
> "primary"
> > (excepté les courtes sections à 2*2 voies).
> >
> > Julien "djakk" (http://itineraires.de.bus.free.fr)
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[Axelos]

Coucou,

Le 27/04/2017 à 15:45, djakk a écrit :
> Salut à tous, 
> 
> j'ai une super question : comment doit on tagguer la nationale N79
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.4819/3.8335) qui est
> principalement une route bi-directionnelle dénivelée et classée "route pour
> automobiles" ?

Ahhh ma question préférée !!! Je me suis longuement posé la même, puis
je me la pause encore aujourd’hui :)

Ça dépend en fait ce qui nous semble important quant au choix de la
classification : Vitesse ? séparation physique ? Conditions d’accès ?

Par exemple, pour moi qui donne une grande importance aux conditions
d’accès, ma recherche naturelle se porte sur cette page :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad#France

D'autres vont avoir d'autres approches qui vont au final résulter sur
une route primaire.

J’espère n'avoir pas du tout répondu à ta question :)

> Elle était tagguée en "trunk" et quelqu'un vient de la changer en "primary"
> (excepté les courtes sections à 2*2 voies). 
> 
> Julien "djakk" (http://itineraires.de.bus.free.fr)


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[Philippe Verdy]

Note ce n'est pas un cas unique, on a la même chose sur la N 7.
Ou sur l'ancienne N137 aujourd'hui départementilisée et avec aussi des
sections "trunk" (notamment la partie bretonne dans son nouveau tracé,
l'ancien étant resté aussi en départementale "secondary") et le reste en
"primary" (au sud de Nantes), voire secondary quand il y a aujourd'hui un
meilleur axe.
Les classifications trunk/primary/secondary... sont liées aux conditions de
circulation, à la capacité de trafic, et à des éléments physiques de
sécurité: en aucun cas en France un "trunk" ne peut avoir une chaussée
bidirectionnelle (et encore moins cette demi-chaussée ne dévers qu'est la
RCEA, la route la plus mortelle de France).

Le 27 avril 2017 à 18:27, Philippe Verdy  a écrit :

> Un trunk est nécessairement en France à voies séparées. La RCEA était
> prévue pour devenir un "trunk" mais on le sait cela n'a jamais été réalisé
> hormis quelques tronçons, et seule une moitié de route est construite, avec
> donc un dangereux dévers pour ceux qui emprunte la voie en contre-sens sur
> cette chaussée unique.
> Donc je suis d'accord que ce ne soit pas un trunk (hormis les courtes
> sections réalisés).
>
> Note: la même route N79 peut changer de statut sur son parcours. Il n'y a
> aucun problème. Donc un statut approprié pour chaque section.
>
> Le 27 avril 2017 à 15:45, djakk  a écrit :
>
>> Salut à tous,
>>
>> j'ai une super question : comment doit on tagguer la nationale N79
>> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.4819/3.8335) qui est
>> principalement une route bi-directionnelle dénivelée et classée "route
>> pour
>> automobiles" ?
>> Elle était tagguée en "trunk" et quelqu'un vient de la changer en
>> "primary"
>> (excepté les courtes sections à 2*2 voies).
>>
>> Julien "djakk" (http://itineraires.de.bus.free.fr)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com
>> /Nationale-N79-RCEA-trunk-ou-primary-tp5895990.html
>> Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[Philippe Verdy]

Un trunk est nécessairement en France à voies séparées. La RCEA était
prévue pour devenir un "trunk" mais on le sait cela n'a jamais été réalisé
hormis quelques tronçons, et seule une moitié de route est construite, avec
donc un dangereux dévers pour ceux qui emprunte la voie en contre-sens sur
cette chaussée unique.
Donc je suis d'accord que ce ne soit pas un trunk (hormis les courtes
sections réalisés).

Note: la même route N79 peut changer de statut sur son parcours. Il n'y a
aucun problème. Donc un statut approprié pour chaque section.

Le 27 avril 2017 à 15:45, djakk  a écrit :

> Salut à tous,
>
> j'ai une super question : comment doit on tagguer la nationale N79
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.4819/3.8335) qui est
> principalement une route bi-directionnelle dénivelée et classée "route pour
> automobiles" ?
> Elle était tagguée en "trunk" et quelqu'un vient de la changer en "primary"
> (excepté les courtes sections à 2*2 voies).
>
> Julien "djakk" (http://itineraires.de.bus.free.fr)
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.
> com/Nationale-N79-RCEA-trunk-ou-primary-tp5895990.html
> Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[Talk-lb] mapping Beirut

[Noti Fiance]

Hello,

Is there anyone in Lebanon interested in mapping Beirut?
___
Talk-lb mailing list
Talk-lb@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lb

Re: [OSRM-talk] [API] Role of profile

[Mateusz Loskot]

On 27 April 2017 at 15:37, Jäger, Frank (KRZ)  wrote:
> It seems to me, that every beginner spend some hours to learn this lesson.
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osrm-talk/2017-March/001406.html

Interesting.
Google did not included this thread in the three pages of results

profile site:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osrm-talk/

> It may be a good idea to write it to 
> http://project-osrm.org/docs/v5.6.4/api/#route-service

Yup. I am OSRM newbie and the docs + GitHub wikis/issues are the OSRM
law for me.
I often read the source code too, but this time I skipped :)

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

___
OSRM-talk mailing list
OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Land-use mapping with OSM in Belgium

[Lionel Giard]

Personally, i put Nature reserve on a special relation, as it is described
on the wiki, like this one :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7130732#map=17/50.68519/4.70461
And the forest or other landuses are just part of this multipolygon. In
this example, i also have a multipolygon for the forest because, i have
things inside it.
Nothing stop you to have multiple relation at the same place (i think of
relation like a "special" polygon, and nothing stop us to make multiple
polygon on each other but slightly different in shape).

We should really describe/decide which tag is representing a landuse
(because it can be landuse=*, leisure=* or natural=*) and if we need to
avoid putting them at the same place (like allow or not leisure=park on top
of landuse=residential ?!). Right know, we all have our own opinion and it
create some variation of the map in Belgium.
And we should avoid gap in the landuse. Thus it seems important to solve
some problems like what should be the landuse tag under a road ?

2017-04-27 14:29 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:50 PM, joost schouppe
>  wrote:
> > The examples you give are already hard work to think about. Much more
> basic
> > mistakes are made too: e.g. a forest is also a nature reserve. But then
> > someone turns the forest into a multipolygon, because there is some
> water or
> > grassland inside of it. But the multipolygon is also used for the nature
> > reserve. Which would imply the holes in the forest are unprotected, and
> > that's usually not the case.
>
> I have been thinking about this as well. even the name belongs to the
> outer way and not the relation.
> I would say put the nature reserve tag on the outer way and the forest
> tags on the relation. Would that work ?
>
> But tagging mistakes due to bad quality aerial imagery is equally
> common I think. And those are much harder to detect I think.
> For your case, it  is basically looking up all multipolygons on which
> the nature reserve tags is placed and check those. While this can be a
> long list, it is not nearly as long as checking all landuses.
>
>
>
> m
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-ja] どなたか修正をお願いします(京都丹後鉄道宮福線)

[浅野和仁]

浅野です。

全線のほぼ中央で重複した2路線のノードが結合されていて、分解する際にリレーションが切れてしまいます。
分離はしたのですが、リレーションが2つに分割したので、更新せずに、リタイアします。
すみません。
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-it] Venezia-gerarchia degli highway

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Ho lavorato un anno per Venezia, con a tracolla la borsa degli attrezzi...
Saranno stati 10kg, ma a vent'anni non si sentivano molto.
Oggi avrei da ridire qualche cosa sulla delibera.
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-co] Edición mapa de Bogotá

[Sergio Blanco]

Andres muy amable por responder,

En lenguaje coloquial podría decir que aún no he visto ciudades
cartografiadas en OSM que tengan vías destinadas para transporte público de
color azul. Como lo indiqué en el primer mensaje se utilizó una símbología
no acorde al tipo de vía. Adjunté la URL del wiki que lo soporta.

Se valora el esfuerzo de Marcodena por tratar de mostrar el recorrido del
servicio de buses Transmilenio como se conoce en este País. Pero en ciertos
tramos se ve que no conoce bien las rutas, como ejemplo coloco los tramos
de las salidas sobre la Av ciudad de Cali en el Portal de Suba . Se le
indicó apoyarse en la capa que se encuentra en el mapa de Transporte, dónde
ya está parte de los recorridos junto con la nomenclatura que las distingue.

Gracias por la atención prestada.



El 10 de abril de 2017, 22:11, Andres Gomez Casanova 
escribió:

> Buenos días Sergio,
>
> Soy AngocA de OSM.  Vi tu mensaje, y si bien es muy importante, la
> comunidad ahora está enfocada en Mocoa, por lo que no quiero que se pierda
> en el historial de mensajes de la lista de correo.
> Viendo lo que dices, no encontré exactamente qué fue lo mal mapeado por el
> italiano Marcodena.
> Explícame mejor, y cualquier corregimos.
> Viendo los cambios de él, veo que fueron resultados de análisis de
> postgis, cómo si hubiera corrido un algoritmo, pero no fueron cambios
> manuales.
>
> Me cuentas,
>
>
>
> Andres Gomez Casanova
> Angola
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:18 PM, Sergio Blanco 
> wrote:
>
> Cordial saludo compañeros,
>
> Al consultar el mapa de Bogotá, se aprecia que el usuario MARCODENA ha
> realizado ediciones agregando una traza del servicio Masivo de Trasporte de
> la ciudad Transmilenio.
>
> Agregó la capa sobre el mapa Estándar, no utilizó la capa de Transporte
> destinado para ello. Además utilizó una simbología de tipo de vía No
> acorde, ya que éstas vías son utilizadas exclusivamente por el servicio de
> Buses. En ésta página de buenas prácticas se puede apreciar lo dicho:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=bus_guideway
>
> Adjunto imagen de como se ve el mapa Base.
>
> Por favor podríamos debatir el tema para ver dónde se ubicaría mejor la
> capa y la simbología a utilizar.
>
> Gracias.
>
> --
> Atentamente,
> *Sergio Alberto Blanco Rojas*
>
> ___
> Talk-co mailing list
> Talk-co@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-co mailing list
> Talk-co@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co
>
>


-- 
Atentamente,
*Sergio Alberto Blanco Rojas*
___
Talk-co mailing list
Talk-co@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co

Re: [OSM-talk-be] old notes: sometimes useful

[Yves bxl-forever]

Good job, Joost!

We can solve that kind of issue by creating a node with "shop=vacant".
That way, we can close the note once and for all.
Moreover, this "vacant" tag is useful when a shop closes down because that way 
we can keep the node—and preserve the history—instead of removing it.

Cheers.
Yves



On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:08:47 +0200
joost schouppe  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I decided to take the bike from Brussels-North to Brussels-Midi instead of
> the train yesterday, and tried to fix some of those controversial notes by
> Math1985. I thought the best way to get them out is by fixing them.
> 
> Anyway, there were a couple of shops where Math marked them as "couldn't
> see because of closed shutters" (example [1]). Several months later, most
> of them still had closed shutters. Without the old Note, you would never
> know that this shop is probably permanently closed.
> 
> 
> 1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/726366
> 
> -- 
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap  |
> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
> 

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

Re: [Talk-it] Venezia-gerarchia degli highway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-27 15:47 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com>:

> Pensate che c'era stata una delibera o qualcosa del genere anche per le
> valigie perché con le ruote fanno troppo rumore (
> http://www.huffingtonpost.it/2014/11/21/vietati-trolley-
> venezia-troppo-rumore_n_6197112.html)... siam messi così...
>

fortunato chi si può permettere un taxi e un facchino ;-)

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

Re: [Talk-it] Venezia-gerarchia degli highway

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Monopattini e pattini per quanto ne so sono vietati così come i pattini...

Credo si chiuda un occhio per i bambini :-)

Pensate che c'era stata una delibera o qualcosa del genere anche per le 
valigie perché con le ruote fanno troppo rumore 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.it/2014/11/21/vietati-trolley-venezia-troppo-rumore_n_6197112.html)... 
siam messi così...


Ale


On 27/04/2017 15:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2017-04-27 15:30 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt >:



http://nuovavenezia.gelocal.it/venezia/cronaca/2016/10/25/news/stop-alle-bici-non-si-potra-neanche-portarle-a-mano-1.14306923





grazie Volker, allora è chiaro (suppongo che hanno poi approvato la 
delibera).


Conviene comprarsi un monopattino? Un monociclo? Un triciclo? Gli 
skates? O sono tutti compresi nella delibera?


Spero che i miei figli saranno cresciuti finchè vietano anche le 
carrozzine ;-)


Ciao,
Martin


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


--
--

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Nationale N79 ("RCEA") : trunk ou primary ?

[djakk]

Salut à tous, 

j'ai une super question : comment doit on tagguer la nationale N79
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/46.4819/3.8335) qui est
principalement une route bi-directionnelle dénivelée et classée "route pour
automobiles" ?
Elle était tagguée en "trunk" et quelqu'un vient de la changer en "primary"
(excepté les courtes sections à 2*2 voies). 

Julien "djakk" (http://itineraires.de.bus.free.fr)



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Nationale-N79-RCEA-trunk-ou-primary-tp5895990.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-ja] どなたか修正をお願いします(京都丹後鉄道宮福線)

[浅野和仁]

ribbon さん
宮福線の重複を確認しました。
ちょいっとチャレンジしてみます。
-- 
**
浅野 和仁
helicobacter_y...@hera.eonet.ne.jp

**


2017年4月27日 20:23 ribbon :
福知山から宮津に行く宮福線ですが、たぶん全線に渡って
二重に描画されています(単線なので2重に描画する必要は無い)。
そこで、片方を削除しようとしたのですが、リレーションの
エラーとなってうまく削除できません。

どなたか、宮福線の重複を削除していただけないでしょうか。

ribbon

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

Re: [Talk-it] Venezia-gerarchia degli highway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-27 15:30 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :

> http://nuovavenezia.gelocal.it/venezia/cronaca/2016/10/25/
> news/stop-alle-bici-non-si-potra-neanche-portarle-a-mano-1.14306923
>


grazie Volker, allora è chiaro (suppongo che hanno poi approvato la
delibera).

Conviene comprarsi un monopattino? Un monociclo? Un triciclo? Gli skates? O
sono tutti compresi nella delibera?

Spero che i miei figli saranno cresciuti finchè vietano anche le carrozzine
;-)

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Projet du mois - Panneaux électoraux

[Florian LAINEZ]

On est à 604 objets de référencés : on se motive pour la fin du mois pour
avancer les panneaux électoraux : go go go !

Le 17 avril 2017 à 13:11,  a écrit :

> Tout comme on ne met les adresses que si le système ne peut les déduire
> par la géométrie, les panneaux sont gérés par la commune et donc operator
> se déduit et donc operator:wikidata aussi.
> Je ne mettrais ça qu'où c'est contraire à la logique française (par
> exemple si la gestion se fait au niveau d'une communauté de commune et non
> d'une commune ?).
>
> J'ai raté un épisode ?
>
> Jean-Yvon
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 17. April 2017 um 12:03 Uhr
> *Von:* "Guillaume Allegre - allegre.guilla...@free.fr"
> 
> *An:* talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [OSM-talk-fr] (osm: message 2 of 20) Projet du mois -
> Panneaux électoraux
> Le 2017-04-05, Florian LAINEZ a écrit :
> > Salut,
> > Je vous propose de relancer le projet du mois. Cartographions ensemble
> une
> > thématique précise chaque mois !
> >
> > Si ça vous dit, c'est de saison, nous pouvons commencer par les panneaux
> > électoraux qui poussent un peut partout sur notre territoire :
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Project_of_the_month/elections
> >
> > Je crois bien que l'on tague ça :
> > advertising=board
> > message=political
> > permanent=no
>
>
> Je pense qu'on peut ajouter avec intérêt les deux tags :
> operator=Ville de ...
> operator:wikidata= ...
>
> Je l'ai fait sur "les miens".
> (il y a peut-être des exceptions où l'organisation des élections n'est pas
> du domaine de la commune, mais les deux tags valent toujours).
>
>
> --
> ° /\ Guillaume Allègre OpenStreetMap France http://www.openstreetmap.fr
> /~~\/\ allegre.guilla...@free.fr Wikipédia Wiktionnaire Wikimédia-Commons
> Wikidata
> / /~~\ tél. 04.76.63.26.99 <04%2076%2063%2026%2099> Des contenus partagés
> libres et collaboratifs
>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>


-- 

*Florian Lainez*
@overflorian 
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-es] ¿Abreviar nombres de colegios, universidades etc..?

[Jonas Andradas]

¡Qué buena idea!

El otro día, cerca de Huelva, no encontraba las instalaciones del INTA, y
era justamente porque lo buscaba así, como "INTA", en lugar del nombre
largo (Instituto Nacional de Técnicas Aeroespaciales)

Editaré la ubicación y añadiré el short_name  ;)

Un saludo,
Jonás.

On Apr 13, 2017 11:19, "Francisco Javier"  wrote:

> Siguiendo vuestros consejos he cambiado el nombre abreviado por el
> completo a varios centros y he utilizado la etiqueta short_name y el
> buscador hace su trabajo muy bien, encuentra lo que buscas a la primera.
>
> Muchas gracias :)
>
>
>
>
> El 12 de abril de 2017, 12:37, Alejandro S. 
> escribió:
>
>> Buenas,
>> Las abreviaturas pueden resultar interesantes de cara a ampliar las
>> posibilidades de encontrar un elemento a través del buscador, pero se
>> tienen que poner con la etiqueta short_name, nunca en el name.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:short_name
>>
>> Saludos,
>> Alejandro
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 12:28 dcapillae  wrote:
>>
>>> Suelo seguir las recomendaciones del wiki y nombrar los centros de
>>> enseñanza
>>> con su denominación completa, sin abreviaturas. Personalmente considero
>>> más
>>> adecuado no utilizar abreviaturas en ningún caso, ni como sustitución del
>>> nombre ni como complemento del nombre.
>>>
>>> Por ejemplo, el "Instituto de Educación Secundaria Ciudad Jardín" ( en
>>> OSM
>>> >> map=18/36.74664/-4.41662>
>>> ) se nombraría como tal. Yo evitaría utilizar fórmulas que incluyesen
>>> abreviaturas. No utilizaría ni "I. E. S. Ciudad Jardín" ni tampoco
>>> "Instituto de Educación Secundaria IES Ciudad Jardín". La primera resulta
>>> críptica, la segunda redundante.
>>>
>>> Considero que la fórmula más adecuada sería precisamente la que
>>> recomiendan
>>> en el wiki: utilizar el nombre completo tal cual, sin abreviaturas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Daniel Capilla
>>> OSM user: dcapillae
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com
>>> /Abreviar-nombres-de-colegios-universidades-etc-tp5895234p5895240.html
>>> Sent from the Spain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-es mailing list
>>> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-es mailing list
>> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-es mailing list
> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>
>
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [OSRM-talk] [API] Role of profile

[KRZ]

It seems to me, that every beginner spend some hours to learn this lesson.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osrm-talk/2017-March/001406.html 

It may be a good idea to write it to 
http://project-osrm.org/docs/v5.6.4/api/#route-service 

Frank


> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Mateusz Loskot [mailto:mate...@loskot.net]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. April 2017 11:12
> An: Mailing list to discuss Project OSRM
> Betreff: Re: [OSRM-talk] [API] Role of profile
> 
> On 25 April 2017 at 21:42, Daniel Patterson  wrote:
> >
> >   The  in the URL is an unused string.
> > It's there for future compatibility if we ever add multiple-profile
> > support to OSRM, but osrm-routed does not look at it currently, other than 
> > to
> ensure that it's there.
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> All clear now. Thank you.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> --
> Mateusz Loskot 


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
OSRM-talk mailing list
OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk

Re: [Talk-it] Venezia-gerarchia degli highway

[Volker Schmidt]

http://nuovavenezia.gelocal.it/venezia/cronaca/2016/10/25/news/stop-alle-bici-non-si-potra-neanche-portarle-a-mano-1.14306923

2017-04-27 13:47 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2017-04-27 12:27 GMT+02:00 Andrea Musuruane :
>
>> Su questo argomento, vi ricordo queste discussioni fatte in passato:
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2008-Decem
>> ber/004726.html
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2011-July/023175.html
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2012-Janua
>> ry/026289.html
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2013-Decem
>> ber/040326.html
>>
>
>
>
> grazie per il lavoro di ricerca. Nei thread più vecchi sono evidenziati
> anche problemi che nel frattempo siamo riusciti a risolvere (quello della
> formalizzazione del nome del sestiere per gli indirizzi): ad oggi sono
> usati sia addr:neighbourhood che addr:place.
> Ho notato che i sestieri sono mappati come neighbourhood, decisione
> accettabile, anche se al mio parere sarebbe meglio usare place=quarter
> oppure suburb, perché cosí si lascierebbe spazio per inserire toponimi più
> piccoli.
>
> Un'altra cosa che viene evidenziata è la presenza del tag "visible_name"
> che riporta la dicitura dei cartelli (IN MAIUSCOLO). Per me quelli vanno
> bene, anche se non documentati e un po' superfluo nella maggior parte dei
> casi (tranne quelli dove in realtà riportano 2 nomi, e quindi conviene
> spezzare la dicitura in name e alt_name, oppure "old_name" (nel caso di "XY
> già YZ")).
>
> Invece al riguardo di footway e pedestrian ho visto che tutti erano per
> una distinzione fatta con pedestrian e footway secondo la loro ampiezza,
> tranne Volker e Davide Pri. Volker nel 2013 si ha arreso ;-)
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2013-
> December/040342.html
> mentre Davide (nel 2013) non vedeva grande distinzione tra pedestrian e
> footway e ne voleva abbandonare uno: https://lists.openstreetmap.
> org/pipermail/talk-it/2013-December/040356.html
>
> Volker aveva anche proposto di usare aree per tutto, cosa in realtà non
> sarebbe troppo male, anche se difficile nel caso di percorsi coperti.
>
> Purtroppo non abbiamo mai concluso niente in queste discussioni (oppure mi
> è sfuggito, ma non mi sembra, anche perché la pagina di Venezia nel wiki è
> pratticamente nata morta, con 2 edits in 8 anni, e non dice niente al
> riguardo della classificazione degli highway).
>
> Ciao,
> Martin
>
>
> PS: Un altra domanda: perché ci sono tanti tag bicycle=no, c'è una legge?
> Perché di segnaletica non ho visto niente. Non è che penso sarebbe molto
> utile o divertente andare in bici a Venezia, ma se non è vietato non
> metterei nemmeno il tag.
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[OSM-talk-fr] Rencontre mensuelle parisienne 27 avril 19h30

[Donat ROBAUX]

Bonjour,

La traditionnelle rencontre du dernier jeudi de chaque mois à 19h30 c'est
ce soir!

C'est ici: FPH, Fondation Charles-Léopold Mayer pour le Progrès de l'Homme
38 rue Saint-Sabin Paris 11

Pour le reste des infos, c'est par là:
http://www.agendadulibre.org/events/13826
Sinon sur le forum.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Import CTR Veneto 5 anni fa

[Volker Schmidt]

Benvenuto nel Paese della Meraviglie di OSM (nel Veneto)!

2017-04-27 12:49 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> Segnalo dei problemi qui:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/45.80020/12.89355
>
> scoperto per caso. Non sono del posto quindi non saprei come fissare i
> problemi, ma sono evidenti.
> Sembra che tutto risale a un import 5 anni fa.
>
> Ciao,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> Just curious, do you apply the same arguments to map separate
> sidewalks and sidewalks separate from cycle ways ? Or are there
> reasons to treat sidewalk differently ?
>

Yes, if it's separated by a curb or median from the rest of the street.
Otherwise I'll do sidewalk=left|right|both if it's just painted on.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Marc Gemis]

Just curious, do you apply the same arguments to map separate
sidewalks and sidewalks separate from cycle ways ? Or are there
reasons to treat sidewalk differently ?

m

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> 2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :
>>
>> So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them.
>
>
>
> I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
> highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
> cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
> cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the road.
> The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:
>
> 1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
> maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)
>
> 2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine which
> attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)
>
> 3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
> things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
> telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)
>
> Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
> thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not deleting
> the highway=cycleway.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

[Talk-tr] Invitation to participate in State of the Map Asia 2017 in Kathmandu

[kshitiz khanal]

Dear OSM community members,

We want to welcome you to State of the Map Asia 2017, which will be
organized in Kathmandu, Nepal on September 23 - 24, hosted by Kathmandu
Living Labs and OSM community of Nepal.

The event website is now live at: http://stateofthemap.asia/

A call for session proposals is now open. We will be opening calls for
travel scholarships and event registration soon. You are invited to propose
creative and informative sessions (presentations, workshop etc.) including
your country's state of the map.

We need your support to make this a successful event and help foster the
growth of OSM in Asia and beyond.

Please refer to the website for further details.

With best regards,

Kshitiz Khanal
Researcher, Open Data and OpenStreetMap
Kathmandu Living Labs
___
Talk-tr mailing list
Talk-tr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tr

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Land-use mapping with OSM in Belgium

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:50 PM, joost schouppe
 wrote:
> The examples you give are already hard work to think about. Much more basic
> mistakes are made too: e.g. a forest is also a nature reserve. But then
> someone turns the forest into a multipolygon, because there is some water or
> grassland inside of it. But the multipolygon is also used for the nature
> reserve. Which would imply the holes in the forest are unprotected, and
> that's usually not the case.

I have been thinking about this as well. even the name belongs to the
outer way and not the relation.
I would say put the nature reserve tag on the outer way and the forest
tags on the relation. Would that work ?

But tagging mistakes due to bad quality aerial imagery is equally
common I think. And those are much harder to detect I think.
For your case, it  is basically looking up all multipolygons on which
the nature reserve tags is placed and check those. While this can be a
long list, it is not nearly as long as checking all landuses.



m

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

Re: [Talk-it] Funzione per trasferire una posizione dal PC allo Smartphone

[diego]

Ciao, solitamente io per trasferire le coordinate da pc a osmand utilizzo un
generatore di qrcode. Copio da OSM le coordinate (geo:xx.,y.) e le
incollo nel generatore, poi leggo il codice da telefono che le riconosce e
mi apre osmand.  
Esistono anche generatori di codice qr che hanno anche integrate le mappe  (
su ubuntu Qreato su windows non so) 
http://davidplanella.org/project-showcase/qreator/
  



arcanma wrote
> Salve,
> 
> un nuovo utente mi ha chiesto se con OSM è possibile avere una funzione
> simile a quella di GoogleMaps, dove è possibile salvare una posizione
> della mappa nel PC e trovarsela nello smartphone. Attualmente ha
> installato Osmand, che conosco pochissimo, per cui chiedo se c'è qualche
> modo per fare ciò con Osmand o altri software, oltre alla possibilità di
> salvare una posizione nel proprio profilo OSM, utilizzata quando si
> sceglie "Vai alla posizione di casa", che potrebbe essere visualizzata
> aprendo un browser da smartphone e loggandosi in OSM.
> 
> Ciao
> Marcello
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list

> Talk-it@

> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Funzione-per-trasferire-una-posizione-dal-PC-allo-Smartphone-tp5895840p5895980.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Čištění landuse=farm

[Milan Cerny]

Čistka dokončena, všechny landuse=farm v ČR jsou opraveny.
Jak se ukázalo, tak k tomu určený nástroj NoFarm je na naše mikropolíčka krátký 
a tak přišel na řadu osvědčený overpass-turbo.
Farmy a pole jsou už rozděleny, co budeme dělit dál, vodní plochy 
landuse=reservoir? To si užijeme :) 

Milan
__
> Od: Marián Kyral 
> Komu: 
> Datum: 26.04.2017 22:36
> Předmět: [Talk-cz] Čištění landuse=farm
>
>Ahoj,
>možná jste zaregistrovali v minulém weeklyosm (a bude v tom dalším ;-) ), že
>se tag landuse=farm již nebude vykreslovat. Takže je nejvyšší čas jej
>převést na
>landuse(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse)=farmland
>(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland) nebo landuse
>(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse)=farmyard
>(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmyard).
>
>Koukal jsem na ČR a tenhle tag se tu stále vyskytuje v docela dost
>případech. Hlavně v Čechách.
>
>
>
>Overpass turbo query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oDZ
>
>Co jsem tak koukal, tak to jsou jak statky, tak i pole, případně fragmenty
>po importu lpis. Bylo by tedy dobré to všechno projet a opravit.
>
>A co čert nechtěl, stačily tři kliky a narazil jsem na tuhle perlu:
>
>
>
>Zdeňku "Petře" Pražáku - to se nemůžeš při tom klikání koukat, co je v
>okolí? Jak jsi ti tam mohl nechat? :-D
>
>Marián
>
>--
>
>___
>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: [OSM-talk-be] Land-use mapping with OSM in Belgium

[joost schouppe]

2017-04-27 13:14 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03 AM, joost schouppe
>  wrote:
> > So then you need to decide if a park in a residential area is a park or a
> > residential area.
>
> aren't park and residential area 2 different "layers" ?
>
> Yes, they were. But my use case was statistical analysis, not any kind of
map. I needed to pick just one landuse indication for as much land as
possible. So first I made the layers, then cut away areas from the "lower"
layers if they were also defined in the "upper" layers. But as you say,
that is not always straightforward.
And yes, I know the OSMlanduse project, though I finished mine before they
published anything.

The examples you give are already hard work to think about. Much more basic
mistakes are made too: e.g. a forest is also a nature reserve. But then
someone turns the forest into a multipolygon, because there is some water
or grassland inside of it. But the multipolygon is also used for the nature
reserve. Which would imply the holes in the forest are unprotected, and
that's usually not the case.

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

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

Re: [Talk-it] Funzione per trasferire una posizione dal PC allo Smartphone

[Marcello]

Mi ha detto che trova molto utile nella preparazione di un viaggio
segnare vari posti (hotel, ristoranti, musei, mete montane, ecc) nella
mappa sul pc e trovarseli poi nella mappa dello smartphone. Dato che
utilizza Osmand ho consigliato di creare un file gpx con i luoghi di
interesse (con JOSM è molto semplice), trasferirlo nello smartphone poi
aprirlo con Osmand, un pochino più macchinoso ma il risultato dovrebbe
essere più o meno equivalente.

Ciao
Marcello


On 25/04/2017 20:21, carlo folini wrote:
> Ciao,
> per cosa gli serve?
> Se serve per arrivare ad una posizione potrebbe bastare un link creato
> clickando su openstreetmap.com  con mouse
> destro sulla mappa e selezionare "Indicazioni fino a qua" e copiare il
> link dalla barra degli indirizzi.
>
> Il giorno 25 aprile 2017 11:12, Marcello  > ha scritto:
>
> Salve,
>
> un nuovo utente mi ha chiesto se con OSM è possibile avere una
> funzione
> simile a quella di GoogleMaps, dove è possibile salvare una posizione
> della mappa nel PC e trovarsela nello smartphone. Attualmente ha
> installato Osmand, che conosco pochissimo, per cui chiedo se c'è
> qualche
> modo per fare ciò con Osmand o altri software, oltre alla
> possibilità di
> salvare una posizione nel proprio profilo OSM, utilizzata quando si
> sceglie "Vai alla posizione di casa", che potrebbe essere visualizzata
> aprendo un browser da smartphone e loggandosi in OSM.
>
> Ciao
> Marcello
>
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
> 
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Carlo Folini
> mailto:carlo.fol...@gmail.com 
> blog: http://www.diariocorsa.com

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

Re: [Talk-it] Venezia-gerarchia degli highway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-27 12:27 GMT+02:00 Andrea Musuruane :

> Su questo argomento, vi ricordo queste discussioni fatte in passato:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2008-Decem
> ber/004726.html
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2011-July/023175.html
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2012-January/026289.html
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2013-Decem
> ber/040326.html
>



grazie per il lavoro di ricerca. Nei thread più vecchi sono evidenziati
anche problemi che nel frattempo siamo riusciti a risolvere (quello della
formalizzazione del nome del sestiere per gli indirizzi): ad oggi sono
usati sia addr:neighbourhood che addr:place.
Ho notato che i sestieri sono mappati come neighbourhood, decisione
accettabile, anche se al mio parere sarebbe meglio usare place=quarter
oppure suburb, perché cosí si lascierebbe spazio per inserire toponimi più
piccoli.

Un'altra cosa che viene evidenziata è la presenza del tag "visible_name"
che riporta la dicitura dei cartelli (IN MAIUSCOLO). Per me quelli vanno
bene, anche se non documentati e un po' superfluo nella maggior parte dei
casi (tranne quelli dove in realtà riportano 2 nomi, e quindi conviene
spezzare la dicitura in name e alt_name, oppure "old_name" (nel caso di "XY
già YZ")).

Invece al riguardo di footway e pedestrian ho visto che tutti erano per una
distinzione fatta con pedestrian e footway secondo la loro ampiezza, tranne
Volker e Davide Pri. Volker nel 2013 si ha arreso ;-)
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2013-December/040342.html
mentre Davide (nel 2013) non vedeva grande distinzione tra pedestrian e
footway e ne voleva abbandonare uno:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2013-December/040356.html

Volker aveva anche proposto di usare aree per tutto, cosa in realtà non
sarebbe troppo male, anche se difficile nel caso di percorsi coperti.

Purtroppo non abbiamo mai concluso niente in queste discussioni (oppure mi
è sfuggito, ma non mi sembra, anche perché la pagina di Venezia nel wiki è
pratticamente nata morta, con 2 edits in 8 anni, e non dice niente al
riguardo della classificazione degli highway).

Ciao,
Martin


PS: Un altra domanda: perché ci sono tanti tag bicycle=no, c'è una legge?
Perché di segnaletica non ho visto niente. Non è che penso sarebbe molto
utile o divertente andare in bici a Venezia, ma se non è vietato non
metterei nemmeno il tag.
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-is] OSM Iceland road network data analysis

[Svavar Kjarrval]

Hæ!

One possible reason for the difference could be that Vegagerðin's file
only includes the road segments they deem themselves responsible for. If
the road itself continues and under the same name, it could affect the
results. Sometimes we don't have any information to indicate a name
change or we didn't have a reason to suspect a different name when
extending the wayline. Some unknowing users could also have extended the
road number assignment to other parts of the way, thinking that it was
omitted by accident. The possibilities are numerous.

However, there is some other data from Vegagerðin which could be used to
enhance the road system. It's located at
https://osm.is/gogn/Vegager%C3%B0in/ . It's from a few years ago but I
could send a request for more recent data. If I remember correctly, the
licence wasn't clear or they didn't state one.

-Svavar Kjarrval

On mán 19.des 2016 08:16, michael.hofe...@a1.net wrote:
> Komið þið sæl og blessuð.
>  
> My Icelandic language skills are not good enough to write a letter so
> I’m writing my message in English.
>  
> I did in the last time a road network analysis on OSM Iceland data.
> Here I checked with the road list from vegagerdin
> http://www.vegagerdin.is/vefur2.nsf/Files/Vegaskra_2015/$file/Vegaskra_2015.xlsx
> , if the roads and segments of roads are mapped correspondingly to the
> list.
>  
> As mapping basis I took the information from the OSM Iceland Wiki.
> Unfortunately this wiki wasn’t actualised in the last years, probably
> because it’s an awful manual work. I don´t know if there exist a plug
> in to actualise the road list in the wiki with a set of
> Overpass-queries. The information there is included in OSM, but not
> extracted and processed to the wiki yet.
>  
> In the road list from vegagerdin exist a new road network type "Sx".
> The Kjalvegur for example has this network type. I understand it as
> primary highland route, but left the mapped road as it was.
>  
> I focused on the 1 to 3 digits road reference numbers, the four digit
> roads I only looked at, when I strolled over it. When I found
> information about the road, mostly in OSM I tried to fix it immediately.
>  
> A few roads I found which I couldn’t identify in OSM. The road might
> exist with a different name and without the mapped reference number.
> As I can’t state a fixme statement on elements which I didn’t find, I
> list the roads here:
> 378 01  Skíðaskálavegur Hringvegur (1-d8), við Skíðaskála Hringvegur
> (1-d8)
> 413 03  Breiðholtsbraut ReykjanesbrautHafnarfjarðarvegur (40)
> 419 01  Höfðabakki  Reykjanesbraut  Nesbraut (49)
> 419 02  Höfðabakki  NesbrautHallsvegur (432)
> 470 01  Fjarðarbraut  Hafnarfjarðarvegur  Hafnarfjörður,
> Lækjargata
> 470 02  Fjarðarbraut  ÁstorgHafnarsvæði
> 470 02  Fjarðarbraut  Hafnarfjörður, Lækjargata Hafnarfjörður,
> Hvaleyrarbraut
> 628 01  Hjarðardalsvegur  Vestfjarðavegur (60-43) Hjarðardalur
> 713 01  Hvítserksvegur  Vatnsnesvegur (711-05)  711-05Hvítserkur,
> bílastæði
> 757 01  Villinganesvegur  Skagafjarðarvegur (752-03)Villinganes
> 830 02  Svalbarðseyrarvegur Hringvegur (1-q2)   Svalbarðseyri,
> Laugartún
> 845 02  Aðaldalsvegur Staðarbraut (854-01)Norðausturvegur (85-03)
> 846 01  Austurhlíðarvegur Hringvegur (1-q8)   Stóru-Laugar
> 859 01  Hafnarvegur Húsavík Norðausturvegur (85-05) Hafnarsvæði,
> endi gangbrautar
> 865 01  Gilsbakkavegur  Norðausturvegur (85-12)   Gilhagi 1
> 897 01  Svalbarðstunguvegur Norðausturvegur (85-24) Fjallalækjarsel
> 942 01  Steinsvaðsvegur Borgarfjarðarvegur (94-04)  Stóra-Steinsvað
> 942 02  Tjarnarlandsvegur Steinsvaðsvegur (942-01)Tjarnarland
> 948 01  Gilsárteigsvegur  Borgarfjarðarvegur (94-03)Gilsárteigur 1
> 949 01  Þrándarstaðavegur Borgarfjarðarvegur (94-01)Þrep
> 2284  01  Sólheimahjáleiguvegur Mýrdalsjökulsvegur (222-01)  
> Sólheimahjáleiga
> 2285  01  Ytri-Sólheimavegur  Mýrdalsjökulsvegur (222-01)
> Ytri-Sólheimar 3
> 2286  01  Ytri-Sólheimavegur 1  Mýrdalsjökulsvegur (222-02)  
> Ytri-Sólheimar 1
> 7079  01  Núpsdalstunguvegur  Arnarvatnsvegur (578-05)  Núpsdalstunga
>  
> The following roads mapped in OSM I couldn´t find in the road list
> from vegagerdin or the mapped road don’t correspond with the
> information in the vegagerdin road list:
> 882 01  Leyningshólavegur Villingadalsvegur (8370-01)   Leyningshólar
> 915   Vesturárdalsvegur
> 2001  01
>  
> There are lots of roads in the list, where I couldn’t find the places
> from the list, especially when the road leads to a farm or house.
>  
> The list also gives the road length, where the length is measured over
> ground I guess. OSM has no elevation in the map so the measured road
> length is as the ground would be flat. The difference between these
> values should be under 10%. Unfortunately the difference on lots of
> the roads is much higher (up to 50%).
> One reason for this could be that the 

Re: [Talk-ar] Reunion por rutas Argentinas

[Hernán Javier López]

Mando rectificación, la entrada es por Cabildo 301, la entrada para los
autos, ya que la de 381, a esa hora se encontrará cerrada.
Saludos
Hernan

El mié., 26 abr. 2017 a las 12:05, Hernán Javier López (<
hernan.lo...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> Estimados:
>
> El dia viernes 12 de mayo a las 18:00h, nos vamos a encontrar en el IGN
> Argentina ( Avenida Cabildo 381, Buenos Aires ), para debatir e intentar
> llegar a un consenso de las propuestas para el etiquetado de las rutas
> argentinas.
>
> Precisamos que quien se quiera sumar envíe su número de DNI y nombre
> completo a openstreetmap.org...@gmail.com , para poder ingresar en el
> IGN. Al mismo tiempo, para quien se encuentre lejos vamos a realizar
> videoconferencia para que se puedan sumar de todo el país.
>
> Si quieren ver de que va el tema, pueden leer este post del foro
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=25490 y un resumen de
> las propuestas en
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES_talk:Wikiproyecto_Argentina/V%C3%ADas_de_circulaci%C3%B3n
>
> Todos los que se quieran sumar son muy bienvenidos!
> Saludos
> Hernan
>
___
Talk-ar mailing list
Talk-ar@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ar

Re: [Talk-it] Import CTR Veneto 5 anni fa

[Matteo Zaffonato]

Il 27/04/2017 12:49, Martin Koppenhoefer ha scritto:

Segnalo dei problemi qui:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/45.80020/12.89355

scoperto per caso. Non sono del posto quindi non saprei come fissare i 
problemi, ma sono evidenti.

Sembra che tutto risale a un import 5 anni fa.

Ciao,
Martin


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


Grazie mille, segnalo subito alla lista del Veneto.

--
Matteo Zaffonato
Coordinatore regionale Openstreetmap per il Veneto

Wikimedia Italia, Via Bergognone 34 - 20144 Milano
è la corrispondente italiana ufficiale di Wikimedia Foundation Inc


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

[OSM-ja] どなたか修正をお願いします(京都丹後鉄道宮福線)

[ribbon]

福知山から宮津に行く宮福線ですが、たぶん全線に渡って
二重に描画されています(単線なので2重に描画する必要は無い)。
そこで、片方を削除しようとしたのですが、リレーションの
エラーとなってうまく削除できません。

どなたか、宮福線の重複を削除していただけないでしょうか。

ribbon

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Land-use mapping with OSM in Belgium

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03 AM, joost schouppe
 wrote:
> So then you need to decide if a park in a residential area is a park or a
> residential area.

aren't park and residential area 2 different "layers" ?

I hope that one day we can map  a park as

landuse=recreation (or leisure)
leisure=park, perhaps with nested leisure=playground, pitch, garden in it.
landcover = grass / bushes/ trees/ flowerbeds / asphalt / water / 
for the different parts of the park.

and what about the parking of a park? Does it belong to the
leisure=park area, but perhaps not to the landuse=leisure ?
what about a cafe in the park ? landuse=retail around building and
terrace ? terrace as leisure=outdoor_seating ?



BTW, do you know: http://osmlanduse.org/  ? It gives a pie chart with
the percentages of the landuse in the current view.
And although it says landuse/landcover, they ignore the landcover tag I believe.

m.

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

[Talk-it] Import CTR Veneto 5 anni fa

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Segnalo dei problemi qui:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/45.80020/12.89355

scoperto per caso. Non sono del posto quindi non saprei come fissare i
problemi, ma sono evidenti.
Sembra che tutto risale a un import 5 anni fa.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Venezia-gerarchia degli highway

[Andrea Musuruane]

2017-04-26 19:36 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> come vogliamo procedere? Non vi siete espressi in molti. Mi piacerebbe
> sentire altri pareri.
>
> Avete visto la discussione sul changeset?
>

Su questo argomento, vi ricordo queste discussioni fatte in passato:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2008-December/004726.html

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2011-July/023175.html

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2012-January/026289.html

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2013-December/040326.html

Per quanto mi riguarda, continuo a pensare che è necessario distringuere
tra le arterie pedonali principali (dove, per esempio, non è detto che non
transitino carri) e quelle secondarie. Nella prima categoria c'è Strada
Nova (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strada_Nova).

Credo sia sufficiente usare footway e pedestrian per fare questa
distinzione.

Ciao,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Michael Andersen]

For years the danish community has generally been following this 
recommendation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Cykelstivejledning on 
when to use cycleway=track and when to use separate cycleways. I'd like to 
express the opinion that cycleway=track is NOT bad and actually in many 
situations is preferable to separately mapped cycleways.

On torsdag den 27. april 2017 10.14.18 CEST Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :
> > So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them.
> 
> I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
> highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
> cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
> cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the
> road. The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:
> 
> 1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
> maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)
> 
> 2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine which
> attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)
> 
> 3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
> things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
> telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)
> 
> Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
> thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not
> deleting the highway=cycleway.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin




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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Carte collaborative des arbres fruitiers

[Philippe Verdy]

Le site en question met son fichier en "open data", parait-il...

https://fallingfruit.org/data?c=forager%2Cfreegan=fr

Mais sous licence CC-BY-SA-NC, donc pas compatible OSM.

On peut qualifier "open data" une licence CC-BY-SA (qui n'est plus
compatible OSM), mais pas avec la restriction "NC". Donc effectivement
"FailingFruits.org" !
Si on veut leur fichier, il faudra lui demander une autre licence.


Le 26 avril 2017 à 23:26, François Lacombe  a
écrit :

> Bonsoir,
>
> Je viens de voir passer cet article du monde qui parle du site
> FallingTrees.org
> http://linkis.com/www.lefigaro.fr/cons/P9vv7
>
> Le principe semble être de cartographier les arbres fruitiers du monde
> entier pour ramasser ses fruits soit-même.
>
> L'initiative est très bonne, le côté collaboratif est évidemment séduisant.
>
> SAUF
>
> que le site affiche un fond Google Maps, OSM n'a pas du faire partie des
> solutions étudiées, d'autant que des petits nœuds natural=tree seraient
> vraiment sympa à ajouter à la base.
>
> Ça aurait du s'appeler FailingFruits.org :(
>
> Bonne soirée
>
> François
>
> ___
> 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] Finding duplicate cycleways

[nwastra]

+1
> On 27 Apr 2017, at 7:39 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> I fully agree on this. Please do not remove separate cycleways, unless they 
> are wrongly mapped cycle lanes (an error which I encounter from time to time)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Volker Schmidt]

>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm


Nice tool, thanks!

Unfortunately it does not (yet)catch also the segregated and not-segregated
foot-cycle-paths that are tagged using the JOSM presets (highway=path,
foot=designated, bicycle=designated, segregated=yes|no)
I am not an Overpass-Turbo expert and don't dare to add them to your
script.

I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
> highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
> cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
> cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the
> road. The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:
>
> 1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
> maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)
>
> 2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine which
> attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)
>
> 3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
> things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
> telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)
>
> Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
> thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not
> deleting the highway=cycleway.
>

I fully agree on this. Please do not remove separate cycleways, unless they
are wrongly mapped cycle lanes (an error which I encounter from time to
time)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-us] Signpost editing in Detroit

[Horea Meleg]

Hello all,
While editing signposts in Detroit, my Telenav collegues and I found some 
inconsistencies in the OSM data, and we were wondering how to manage them. The 
cases we encountered are on our github page, at the comments section : 
https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues/1. Any opinion on 
this matter would be very useful for us.
Thank you
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Horea Meleg]

Hy Paul,
Thanks for your reply. Can you give us an example of how exactly you’re 
approaching this, to understand better (some coordinates maybe).
Also can you please tell us how you think our presented case, should be 
processed:
[cid:image003.jpg@01D2BF4B.C520A8B0]



From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:04 AM
To: Horea Meleg 
Cc: Rihards ; Hans De Kryger ; 
talk-US@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing



On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Horea Meleg 
> wrote:
Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line 
begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should be 
the same in OSM. What do you think?

Does anybody have objections on me updating that approach with my method?  I 
tend to start a new lane where the lane taper finishes, start a split at the 
start of the theoretical gore (placement=transition on the exit), and start the 
ramp centerline at the bullnose.  For solid line situations, the US is a little 
weird on this.  A single solid white line is officially a "discouraged" 
movement one should make only with extreme caution, whereas crossing a 
double-white line is prohibited, as outlined in the MUTCD.  In either case, I 
would generally take the conservative approach in this situation, using 
something like change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|not_right|no where that solid line is.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[joost schouppe]

>
>
> Yes, there are arguments for both ways of mapping, but as long as we don't
> prefer one over the other, mappers will edit back and forth without much
> sense.
>

 I just think it's too complicated an issue to just decide here and now. So
a good and neutral guideline is probably the first thing we need.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-27 10:21 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :

> There are very good arguments for both sides of this discussion.




I forgot another two pro distinct geometry:

4. consistency. There is a general rule that separate carriageways should
be mapped separately. Why would we do it everywhere but on cycleways?

5. ideology. Why would we prefer cars, lorries and motorbikes over
bicycles? We could just as well map the road as an attribute of the
cycleway. road=track on a highway=cycleway. This would make it easier for
renderers to get the distance between the road and the cycleway right and
could help prevent overlapping cycleways and roads.


Yes, there are arguments for both ways of mapping, but as long as we don't
prefer one over the other, mappers will edit back and forth without much
sense.

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-de] Ein-Phshing-Versuch: Re:☯have you .... that already? (michael)

[Andreas Schmidt]

sent from a computer

Hallo Martin,

bei eindeutig illegalen Angeboten (z.B. rezeptpflichtige blaue Pillen)
bestelle ich gerne mal ein 100er-Pack per Versandadresse

Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Gesundheit
Hannah-Arendt-Platz 2
30159 Hannover

Die freuen sich immer über nette Kostproben illegaler Sachen.

Klar, spam beachtet man normalerweise nicht, aber der OP fragte.

Liebe Grüße
Andreas


Am 27.04.2017 um 09:39 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 27. Apr 2017, at 09:07, Andreas Schmidt  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Der angegebene Link wird von der
>> Webseite sofort umgeleitet und man landet auf einer Seite für
>> Nahrungsergänzungsmittel.
>
> mein Tip wäre, den Spam grundsätzlich nicht anzuklicken ;-)
>
> Es lässt sich wohl leider nicht vermeiden, dass hin und wieder sowas über die 
> Listen kommt 
>
> Gruß,
> Martin 
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[joost schouppe]

There are very good arguments for both sides of this discussion. Is there a
wiki article where both views are really confronted with all the arguments?
(I've seen a long article about why you should use separate ways to make
wheelchair routing possible, but can't find it now. But I don't remember
seeing a neutral article which collects all the points of view).

2017-04-27 10:14 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :
>
>> So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them.
>
>
>
> I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
> highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
> cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
> cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the
> road. The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:
>
> 1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
> maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)
>
> 2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine
> which attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)
>
> 3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
> things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
> telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)
>
> Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
> thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not
> deleting the highway=cycleway.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>



-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :

> So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them.



I would like to come to a common agreement and document that
highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a
cycleway=track attribute on a road. In the past some of the separate
cycleways I had mapped have been deleted in favor of attributes on the
road. The latter is an inferior representation (IMHO) because:

1. it makes it harder to add more attributes to the cycleway (including
maxspeed, surface, turn restrictions, width, access restrictions)

2. it makes it unclear or at least much more error prone to determine which
attributes of the road also belong to the cycleway (and vice versa)

3. it removes the geometric details (position, shape, unclear position of
things between (or not) the cycleway and the road like grass, guard rails,
telephone booths, poles, crossings between driveways, etc.)

Therefore I believe we should recommend that fixing duplicates as of this
thread should be done by removing the attribute cycleway=track, not
deleting the highway=cycleway.

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk-be] old notes: sometimes useful

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

I decided to take the bike from Brussels-North to Brussels-Midi instead of
the train yesterday, and tried to fix some of those controversial notes by
Math1985. I thought the best way to get them out is by fixing them.

Anyway, there were a couple of shops where Math marked them as "couldn't
see because of closed shutters" (example [1]). Several months later, most
of them still had closed shutters. Without the old Note, you would never
know that this shop is probably permanently closed.


1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/726366

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Land-use mapping with OSM in Belgium

[joost schouppe]

Hi Julien,

* How would you feel about building a proposal about
forest_management_style=* ? To my great surprise, I noticed I kind of like
mingling in the endless discussions at the tagging mailing list. So I would
be willing to help out.

* Quantitative analysis of landuse mapping in Belgium: I did that. The idea
was to generate a useful dataset of landuse at the level of the statistical
sectors. So I made a classification of several layers (residential, nature,
water, transport infrastructure). Then I did some GIS processing: to create
polygons out of roads and POIs. Then I needed to choose in which layer to
count the landuse, for example sometimes there's a huge residential area
with everything just mapped on top of that. So then you need to decide if a
park in a residential area is a park or a residential area.
I can share method and result. We could set up a voice meeting on Riot (
https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osmbe:matrix.org) so others can join in case
they're interested.

* The end result should be a landuse convention, yes.

2017-04-27 9:51 GMT+02:00 Julien Minet :

> Thanks for your reactions!
>
> * About the tag natural=wood, I also think it is over-represented in
> Belgium. Belgian forests are indeed not only managed for timber production
> but also hunting, tourism and nature conservation, but often in an
> integrated manner under the same areas (at least in theory!). Note that the
> Natura 2000 program does not preclude at all that timber wood is produced!
> See on this link how much forests in south of Wallonia are covered by
> Natura 2000: http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=
> 4E2203C158780AB5E053D0AFA49D7D23.
> 
>
> * I did not talk about the landcover tag in my article but it'd be worth
> talking more about it!
>
> * It would be interesting to quantitavely analyse the ways landuse is
> mapped in Belgium. I'm thinking about it. Any ideas on how, what kind of
> analysis are welcome...
>
> * Summarizing this discussion in osm.be could be nice. But why not also
> create a "landuse convention" page on the OSM wiki
> ?
>
>
> Julien
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:26 AM, joost schouppe  > wrote:
>
>> *  About forests, I tend to agree with the natural=wood not really
>> existing in Belgium. The only exception I know of is a bit of the
>> Zoniënwoud (Kersselaerplein) that has had "zero management" for 34 years
>> now.
>> But most natural=wood I've seen is wrong.
>>
>> Just recently, I changed the Bois de La Houssiere (
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/50.6189/4.1948) from wood to
>> forest. It's a bit of a special case: it's a Natura 2000 protected area,
>> but it is also actively used as a forestry area.
>>
>> I agree with the comments above that landuse=forest for any kind of group
>> of trees is annoying too.
>>
>> - In cases where you have residential areas in a forest, or wooded areas
>> in gardens, maybe we should really encourage the use of the landcover tag?
>> - In cases where forests are managed, but as some kind of nature reserve
>> or natural area, maybe we could use a subtag to indicate the management
>> style? That would allow to differentiate between real forestry and forests
>> with nature-friendly management. You could use one of the many nature
>> reserve tags of course, but I'm not sure all naturally managed forests are
>> protected and the Bois de la Houssiere shows the opposite also exists.
>>
>>
>> * On a more detailed note: I had never heard of the taxon tag, I've only
>> used species before. I'm completely confused now :)
>> And are the values REALLY comma separated, not " ; " seperated?
>>
>> * About OSM.be: we're still thinking about what exactly we want to use
>> the Projects for - the fact we don't really know was shown quite clearly by
>> Marc's latest article.
>>
>> I think we could have an OSM.be project on "Harmonizing tagging in
>> OpenStreetMap". It would first explain really short how tagging works, and
>> why it can be something problematic. Then it could define goals, one of
>> which could be "harmonizing tagging practices about landuse mapping in
>> Belgium". Next it could define a series of sub-projects, like "discussing
>> and creating consensus about best practices" (with links to this discussion
>> and Julien's article). Another one could be setting up a Maproulette task
>> to check certain suspicious cases (like the hundreds of natural=grassland
>> around the Bois de la Houssiere). Lastly, it should contain an invitation
>> and specific pointers on how to participate in the project.
>>
>> 2017-04-26 5:16 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :
>>
>>> Julien, and others,
>>>
>>> thanks a lot for this text. I still have to go through all the
>>> details, but here are already some remarks.
>>>
>>> - Me too, would love to see landuse=forest 

Re: [Talk-se] Trafikverket (igen)

[Mattias Dalkvist]

Det finns idn men de är mer som relationer i osm termer för de behöver inte
vara kontinuerliga och många av nvdb attributlagrens segment har inga egna
idn utan använder förälderidt.


2017-04-27 8:46 GMT+02:00 Henrik Larsson :

> Det skall finnas permanenta id, ja (osäker på om ngn svarat på denna
> redan.).
>
>
>
> Mvh Henrik
>
>
>
> *Från:* Martin Norbäck Olivers [mailto:mar...@norpan.org]
> *Skickat:* den 26 april 2017 12:27
> *Till:* OpenStreetMap Sverige mailinglista
> *Kopia:* Mattias Dalkvist
> *Ämne:* Re: [Talk-se] Trafikverket (igen)
>
>
>
> Jag har inte tittat på datat, men om de har permanenta ID på vägsträckor i
> databasen så vore det ju bra om man kunde koppla dessa till sträckorna i
> OSM, så att man automatiskt kan uppdatera.
>
>
>
> Den 25 april 2017 08:52 skrev Christian Asker :
>
> Hej. Jag håller med, en noggrann import av utvalda attribut samt där vägar
> helt saknas skulle vara toppen.
>
> Join by location kanske inte funkar om inte vägarna har exakt samma
> positioner. Man kan göra en "buffer" (blir korvliknande polygoner istället
> för linjer) av ena lagret som man sedan gör join by location på.
>
> Mvh Christian
>
>
> Mattias Dalkvist  skrev: (25 april 2017 04:02:53
> CEST)
>
> 2017-04-24 22:32 GMT+02:00 Andreas Vilén :
>
>  Man ska nog inte utgå ifrån att nvdb är bättre än redan karterat. Någon rak 
> import från nvdb över befintlig data skulle jag iaf ställa mig emot. Hellre 
> isf att importera väl genomdiskuterade attribut i omgångar.
>
>  /Andreas
>
>
> 2017-04-24 22:37 GMT+02:00 Christian Asker :
>
>  Hej. Det är ju jättegoda nyheter. Men går det att göra en allmän import?
>  Alla vägar matchar ju inte så bra vad gäller positionen mm. Där jag bor
>  finns det även en hel del fel i NVDB främst vad gäller mindre vägar
>  (funktionell vägklass 8-9), som man ju inte vill importera.
>
>
>
>
> Förespråkar inte någon direkt import av vägdatat. Tänkte mer att det
> borde gå att automatiskt föra över ett attribut från nvdb till osm
> data. Som sedan granskas/förbättras av någon med stöd av
> lokalkunskap/mapillary/flygbilder etc
>
> Linkande med väggeometrin borde det gå att automatiskt få fram de
> vägar som finns i nvdb men inte i osm. Som sedan granskas/förbättras
> av någon med stöd av lokalkunskap/mapillary/flygbilder etc
>
> Jag har tillräckligt med gis kunskaper att veta att det kanske går att
> göra men inte riktigt hur ;)
> Har provat med Join by location men får inte riktigt ut det jag vill ha.
>
>
>  Mattias Dalkvist  skrev: (24 april 2017 20:47:42 CEST)
>
>
>  2017-04-24 19:47 GMT+02:00 Per Eric Rosén :
>
>   Underbart! Alltså hela NVBD? Ser ju ut som det.
>
>
>
>  Japp
>
>
>   Jag skulle gärna importera beläggning på vägar, men det kanske är bäst
>  att
>   importera med andra liknande egenskaper.
>
>   Någon som jobbar med ovanstående?
>
>
>
>  Jag har tittat lite på det i qgis men mina gis skills är för dåliga =/
>  Hittade inget sätt att dela nvdb linjerna på samma ställen som osm för
>  att kunna kopiera över attributen.
>
>  Sedan kanske vi borde börja med själva väg geometrin det finns massor
>  av mindre vägar som vi inte har med. Samt att lägesnoggrannheten borde
>  vara bättre i många fall.
>
>
>
>  --
>  Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Martin Norbäck Olivers
>
> IT-konsult, Masara AB
>
> Telefon: +46 703 22 70 12
>
> E-post: mar...@norpan.org
>
> Kärrhöksvägen 4
>
> 656 72 Skattkärr
>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
>


-- 
Mattias Dalkvist
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [Talk-de] Ein-Phshing-Versuch: Re:☯have you .... that already? (michael)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Apr 2017, at 09:07, Andreas Schmidt  
> wrote:
> 
> Der angegebene Link wird von der
> Webseite sofort umgeleitet und man landet auf einer Seite für
> Nahrungsergänzungsmittel.


mein Tip wäre, den Spam grundsätzlich nicht anzuklicken ;-)

Es lässt sich wohl leider nicht vermeiden, dass hin und wieder sowas über die 
Listen kommt 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Benoit Fournier]

> On Apr 27, 2017 9:24 AM, "joost schouppe" 
wrote:
> >
> > So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them. So is there any
tool available to answer OP? Or do you have to write your own solution?
> > Since no-one said so yet, I suppose there isn't.

There is, the answer was given elsewhere:

> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Frédéric Rodrigo"
> Date: Apr 26, 2017 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [westnordost/StreetComplete] Quest: cycleway (#139)
>
> Osmose-QA already have it:
>
> http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#item=1180=1%2C2%2C3
> http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/?item=1180
>
https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/blob/master/analysers/analyser_osmosis_cycleway_track.py
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[joost schouppe]

So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them. So is there any
tool available to answer OP? Or do you have to write your own solution?
Since no-one said so yet, I suppose there isn't. Here's a quick visual
check:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm

I think I found a nice example of a messed up situation there.

2017-04-27 8:18 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I wonder, does anyone know a QA tool out there that finds duplicate
>> cycleways?
>>
>> With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both
>> - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and
>> - mapped as a separate way parallel to the street with highway=cycleway
>>
>
>  What about situations where there's a path next to a street with bike
> lanes?
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

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

Re: [Talk-de] Ein-Phshing-Versuch: Re:☯have you .... that already? (michael)

[Andreas Schmidt]

Hallo,

mit den Angaben „Band.../Eintrag...“ kann ich zwar nichts anfangen, aber
auch mir fiel eine sachfremde Nachricht auf, am 22.04.2017 00:50.

Ein crossposting in drei newsgroups. Der angegebene Link wird von der
Webseite sofort umgeleitet und man landet auf einer Seite für
Nahrungsergänzungsmittel. Einen Phishing-Hintergrund sehe ich nicht, es
scheint „normaler“ Spam zu sein.

Mein Firefox meldet die Seite als „betrügerische Webseite“.

Andreas


Am 27.04.2017 um 08:13 schrieb goegeo:
> Hallo Liste,
>
> eine vergleichbare nichtssagend Nachricht (Hyroglyphe am Beginn des
> Betreffs und dann eigentlich nichts mehr außer einem Weblink) war
> bereits in "Band 129/Eintrag 20" in der Nachrichtenliste vorhanden.
> Ich wäre dankbar, wenn sich ein technikaffiner User unter Euch mal
> überprüfen könntet, ob es sich hierbei um ein Phishing-Versuch handelt?
>
> Ich danke schon mal im Voraus für die zusätzliche Arbeit. Beste Grüße
>
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

[Talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 352

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 352 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/9007

* Bude Elbe-Labe 2017 v CZ?
* Konec pokut za špatný název.
* Lepší tagování toalet.
* Analýza OSM editorů.
* Hosting Tool pro maphatony.
* Konec landuse=farm.
* OSM pro MHD v Helsinkách.


Pěkné počtení ...

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Čištění landuse=farm

[Marián Kyral]

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Pavel Machek 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 27. 4. 2017 0:22:57
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Čištění landuse=farm
"Ahoj!

> A co čert nechtěl, stačily tři kliky a narazil jsem na tuhle perlu:
>
>
>
> Zdeňku "Petře" Pražáku - to se nemůžeš při tom klikání koukat, co je v
> okolí? Jak jsi ti tam mohl nechat? :-D

Myslim ze Zdenek v tom neni sam. A uznavam, asi by to chtelo presunout
z name= do note= :-). Ale kdo pujde okolo, zjisti, ze nazev presne
sedi.
"



Pokud to není oficiální ani místní název, tak by to v mapě být nemělo ne?



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

Re: [Talk-cz] Čištění landuse=farm

[Marián Kyral]

Tak v tom případě ti díky.

Marián

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Tom Ka 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 27. 4. 2017 8:26:11
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Čištění landuse=farm
"Ahoj, hlavne v Čechách je to proto, ze na Moravě a ve Slezku jsem to
až na podivné případy s vhodností kontroly na místě poopravoval :-)

Dne 27. dubna 2017 0:21 Pavel Machek  napsal(a):
> Ahoj!
>
>> A co čert nechtěl, stačily tři kliky a narazil jsem na tuhle perlu:
>>
>>
>>
>> Zdeňku "Petře" Pražáku - to se nemůžeš při tom klikání koukat, co je v
>> okolí? Jak jsi ti tam mohl nechat? :-D
>
> Myslim ze Zdenek v tom neni sam. A uznavam, asi by to chtelo presunout
> z name= do note= :-). Ale kdo pujde okolo, zjisti, ze nazev presne
> sedi.
>
> Pavel
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/
blog.html
>
> ___
> 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] Čištění landuse=farm

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj, hlavne v Čechách je to proto, ze na Moravě a ve Slezku jsem to
až na podivné případy s vhodností kontroly na místě poopravoval :-)

Dne 27. dubna 2017 0:21 Pavel Machek  napsal(a):
> Ahoj!
>
>> A co čert nechtěl, stačily tři kliky a narazil jsem na tuhle perlu:
>>
>>
>>
>> Zdeňku "Petře" Pražáku - to se nemůžeš při tom klikání koukat, co je v
>> okolí? Jak jsi ti tam mohl nechat? :-D
>
> Myslim ze Zdenek v tom neni sam. A uznavam, asi by to chtelo presunout
> z name= do note= :-). Ale kdo pujde okolo, zjisti, ze nazev presne
> sedi.
>
> Pavel
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) 
> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
>
> ___
> 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: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I wonder, does anyone know a QA tool out there that finds duplicate
> cycleways?
>
> With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both
> - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and
> - mapped as a separate way parallel to the street with highway=cycleway
>

 What about situations where there's a path next to a street with bike
lanes?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-de] Ein-Phshing-Versuch: Re:☯have you .... that already? (michael)

[goegeo]

Hallo Liste,

eine vergleichbare nichtssagend Nachricht (Hyroglyphe am Beginn des 
Betreffs und dann eigentlich nichts mehr außer einem Weblink) war 
bereits in "Band 129/Eintrag 20" in der Nachrichtenliste vorhanden. Ich 
wäre dankbar, wenn sich ein technikaffiner User unter Euch mal 
überprüfen könntet, ob es sich hierbei um ein Phishing-Versuch handelt?


Ich danke schon mal im Voraus für die zusätzliche Arbeit. Beste Grüße

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Horea Meleg 
wrote:

> Hy guys, thanks for your responses.
> Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous
> line begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it
> should be the same in OSM. What do you think?
>

Does anybody have objections on me updating that approach with my method?
I tend to start a new lane where the lane taper finishes, start a split at
the start of the theoretical gore (placement=transition on the exit), and
start the ramp centerline at the bullnose.  For solid line situations, the
US is a little weird on this.  A single solid white line is officially a
"discouraged" movement one should make only with extreme caution, whereas
crossing a double-white line is prohibited, as outlined in the MUTCD.  In
either case, I would generally take the conservative approach in this
situation, using something like change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|not_right|no where
that solid line is.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us