date:20160126

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] faire passer voie ferrée sur pont

2016-01-26 Per discussione lenny.libre




Le 25/01/2016 20:15, Philippe Verdy a écrit :
Les avertissements portent sur un noeud. Un point ou un tunnel ne peut 
pas être un noeud, ce doit être un segment de chemin...
Les noeuds dans les relations "route" sont pour les arrêts (stop : il 
faut un rôle explicite, ne pas utiliser le rôle vide qui n'est admis 
en compatibilité que pour les ways membres ; et c'esdt indépendant des 
attributs du noeud lui-même qui peut ne pas avoir été chargé avec la 
relation mais ce n'est pas nécessaire tant que le rôle est là et est 
associé à un noeud même "incomplet").

Je n'ai pas compris !
Je sais bien qu'un pont n'est pas un nœud, mais comme je crée un nœud à 
chaque extrémité du segment qui va constituer le pont ...



Le 25 janvier 2016 à 19:04, David Crochet > a écrit :


Bonjour

Le 25/01/2016 18:42, lenny.libre a écrit :

josm m'envoie l'avertissement suivant :



Ce n'est qu'un avertissement. Ce n'est nullement lié à tes
modifications de tes deux chemins, mais comme en modifiant une
zone JOSM à téléchargé la voies ferrée, il t'annonce les
avertissements de ce qu'il à chargé. Donc laisse JOSM te dire cela
pour les voies ferrée.


Cordialement
-- 
David Crochet


___
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: [Talk-it] Violazione licenza OSM: MTB-MAG

2016-01-26 Per discussione Stefano

Il giorno 26 gennaio 2016 12:19, Matteo Quatrida 
ha scritto:

> Buongiorno,
>
> vorrei chiedervi se anche secondo voi questo sito [1] viola la licenza OSM
> e come è possibile intervenire.
>
> Grazie.
>
> [1]: http://itinerari.mtb-forum.it/
>


Ma vedere *tutta* la pagina prima di gridare al lupo?
MTB-Forum.it | Itinerari 2004-2016 | Maps © Thunderforest
, Data © OpenStreetMap contributors





>
>
> --
> Dott. Ing. Matteo Quatrida
> +39 340 909 6828
> matteo.quatr...@pec.it
>
> *“If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an
> empty desk a sign?”* --- Albert Einstein
>
> ___
> 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-fr] faire passer voie ferrée sur pont

2016-01-26 Per discussione Jérôme Seigneuret

Bonjour,

Attention aussi pour les voies de service *service=driveway* n'est pas à
mettre sur toute les voies de service. Et je vois un abus d'utilisation.
*A driveway is a service road leading to a residential or business property*

Sinon pour l'alerte c'est lié à des membres sans role dans la relation.
Dans ton cas il manque des role "stop" sur certaine gares. (dont celle de
Dax). J'ai corrigé la ligne 64

Cordialement,
Jérôme

Le 26 janvier 2016 à 11:32, lenny.libre  a écrit :

>
>
> Le 25/01/2016 20:51, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :
>
> Tu a aussi le droit de corriger ;-)
>
> Comme je ne suis pas attiré par les trains, je n'ai pas envie de passer du
> temps à me documenter sur la manière de tagger un réseau et comme josm ne
> me dit pas quel est le nœud concerné ... je préfère faire ce que je connais
> et ne pas apporter d'erreurs sur ce que je ne connais pas.
>
>
> Le 25/01/2016 19:04, David Crochet - david.croc...@free.fr a écrit :
>
> Bonjour
>
> Le 25/01/2016 18:42, lenny.libre a écrit :
>
> josm m'envoie l'avertissement suivant :
>
>
>
> Ce n'est qu'un avertissement. Ce n'est nullement lié à tes modifications
> de tes deux chemins, mais comme en modifiant une zone JOSM à téléchargé la
> voies ferrée, il t'annonce les avertissements de ce qu'il à chargé. Donc
> laisse JOSM te dire cela pour les voies ferrée.
>
>
> Cordialement
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Talk-cz] Podivna relace budovy

2016-01-26 Per discussione Ondrej Steiner

Ahoj,

Narazil jsem na podivnou relaci budovy, ktera je podle vseho nespravna
a vznikla asi omylem pouzitim automatizovanych nastroju:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3639269

Bohuzel jsem zjistil, ze nevim jak prenest tagy z relace na uzavrenou cestu.
Muzete se na to podivat a pripadne opravit?

Diky.

Ondra

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tourniquet à vache

2016-01-26 Per discussione wannes

This one https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/50.61152/6.05211 is
mapped kissing gate.
It’s nota tourniquet, but a very small kissing gate (size of a half
tourniquet), I couldn't pass it with backpack on.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Matthieu Gaillet
 wrote:
>
> Wow ! J’aurais dû aller vérifier le wiki avant ! Pour ma part turnstile me
> semble être le plus adapté, l’aspect rotatif de l’engin me semble
> déterminant ici. Merci !
>
>
> On 25 Jan 2016, at 22:01, lionel bulpa  wrote:
>
> Bonsoir,
>
> Je crois que tu peux l'inscrire en barrier=turnstile ou barrier=stile mais
> le plus approprié me semble être barrier=kissing_gate puisque cela concerne
> le bétail. Tu peux aller consulter le Wiki
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier
>
> Lio
>
>> From: mgwebm...@fastmail.fm
>> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:51:19 +0100
>> To: talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: [OSM-talk-be] Tourniquet à vache
>>
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> How would you tag the “tourniquet à vache” those rotating barriers that
>> allows a walker to get through the fence but not a cow ? Picture here :
>> http://www.balnam.be./photos/223151.jpg
>>
>> I received a nice dataset for wallonie from Itinéraires Wallonie asbl that
>> collected and geotagged most of them and took pictures, I’ll be happy to
>> import them in OSM (with their authorisation of course).
>>
>> Matthieu
>>
>> PS/ Is it a Belgian specific thing ? I never saw this elsewhere.
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
wannes

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Next UK chapter concall

2016-01-26 Per discussione Stuart Reynolds

Hi Dudley,

Why?

If an organisation wants to be a member, why shouldn’t it have a say in how OSM 
UK is run, including being nominated for and electing members to committees. 
I’m quite comfortable with requiring an individual to be nominated, which we 
can consider not allowing to be delegated, and if you wanted to protect the 
rights of non-org members then you could have two groups and allocate 51% of 
the votes to the individuals and 49% of the votes to the orgs. It’s slightly 
more complicated than votes only to individuals, but you don’t disenfranchise 
anyone then.

At the end of the day, we want to promote editing. We want to encourage orgs to 
contribute their data. And we want to encourage orgs to use OSM in their 
systems and products. That is much less likely to happen if you remove voting 
rights from orgs.

Incidentally, you can also have a problem of definitions, too. I’m here because 
traveline south east & anglia uses OSM, and that’s the email address I use to 
post here. But I am a consultant to them, and I have a wider interest now 
beyond just traveline. So I’m an individual. But then again my consultancy is a 
company, with me as a director. Not unusual, there. So am I an organisation, or 
am I an individual? You could argue the former, but I’d be rather hacked off if 
you wilfully excluded me - I’d rather choose my level of participation myself 
between zero and full rather than have it decided for me!

Regards,
Stuart

On 26 Jan 2016, at 07:33, Dudley Ibbett 
> wrote:

Hi Brian

I think we should have "ordinary" members with full voting rights.  Another 
class of membership should be for "organisations".  They should be required to 
nominate an individual to represent them.  Their voting rights should be 
limited so they cannot vote for committee membership or stand on the committee.

At this time I would also suggest we set a minimum age for any type of 
membership to 18. I believe this would simplify issues when it come to 
complying with child protection legislation.

Apart form the initial cost of setting up any organisation.  I would guess the 
main annual cost will be insurance and auditor fees for the accounts.  This 
assumes that we won't be paying the committee expenses!   I'm aware of a couple 
of organisations that seem to do this for an annual fee of £25-£35 for ordinary 
membership.  Any "organisation" type of membership would need to be excluded 
from the insurance unless we got down an affiliate model along the lines of 
mountaineering clubs that affiliate to the BMC for example.

Kind Regards

Dudley

Sent from my iPad

On 25 Jan 2016, at 18:36, Brian Prangle 
> wrote:

Hi everyone

Don't forget this is scheduled for 8pm Wed this week 27 January

0800 22 90 900  Pass code 33224

We'll pick up on Rob's summary email i.e objectives;legal stucture; constitution

If we can I'd like to start discussing:

Name (not what it will be - but a mechanism for choosing one)
Membership classes, rights and costs

On objectives:the ensuing silence since draft 2 I'm not sure to take as 
indifference or approval, but let's use the text as a starting point:

1.To increase the size, skills, toolsets and cohesion of the OpenStreetMap 
community in the UK.
2.To promote and facilitate the use of OpenStreetMap data by organisations in 
the UK.
3.To promote and facilitate the release by organisations in the UK of OpenData  
that is suitable for use in OpenStreetMap.

On legal structures, please read Rob's excellent summary before the concall. 
I've read it and my conclusion so far, and I'm still not clear on some things, 
is that we shouldn't go for unincorporated society (unlimited liablity for 
officers) or charity (we don't have a charitable purpose and the legal 
strictures are a bit more complex than we'd want). From the rest I think 
company limited by guarantee (that's what OSMF chose) suits us best. Not sure 
yet whether CIO or CIC, given that we'd be non-profit, are worth considering.

Look forward to "seeing" you Wed

Regards

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [tag] musée d'art

2016-01-26 Per discussione althio

Petit déterrage pour vous signaler que, un an plus tard, la discussion
vient d'émerger spontanément sur la liste tagging.

2015-01-29 18:39 GMT+01:00 althio :
>
>> @ althio
>> pour le plan de bataille  je te laisses faire puisque tu l'as !
>> Je ne saurais le mettre en œuvre.
>
> Il faut déjà documenter les propositions alternatives mais établies dans la
> pratique dans les pages wiki. Je t'en sens tout à fait capable !
> La suite petit se faire selon les réactions.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Violazione licenza OSM: MTB-MAG

2016-01-26 Per discussione girarsi_liste

Il 26/01/2016 12:19, Matteo Quatrida ha scritto:
> Buongiorno,
> 
> vorrei chiedervi se anche secondo voi questo sito [1] viola la licenza OSM
> e come è possibile intervenire.
> 
> Grazie.
> 
> [1]: http://itinerari.mtb-forum.it/
> 
> 


Ciao, se guardi in fondo alla pagina, c'è l'attribuzione, anche se fuori
posto, comunque, penso, si possa considerare a posto.


-- 
Simone Girardelli
_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|



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

Re: [talk-au] Disused Railway Stations

2016-01-26 Per discussione Warin

On 26/01/2016 1:38 PM, cleary wrote:

While undertaking various edits, I have notice multiple railway stations
with the words "Closed" or "Abandoned" or "Grain Only" as part of the
names.

I have changed some of these so that those words are removed from the
names and have added other tags to reflect the closed or abandoned
status.

For example:

abandoned:railway=station
name=Mulwala

disused:railway=station
name=Coorabin

railway=freight_station
freight_station=grain_only
name=Oaklands

I have noted that historic:railway=station_site is another possibility.

There seem to be many more disused railway stations that are identified
as railway=station even though there are no services. Am I correct in
making the above changes or can someone suggest better ways of tagging
these places.

name= 'not the name but the function/service'
Technically correct that it should not be done.:-) But used by many to convey
the meaning/feature.. tagging to be rendered.
I don't like it either ... yet I have done it. Once only. I have asked some if
name=Netball and derivatives was true... some respond that it is.

1 2 >

1 - 100 di 116 matches

Mail list logo