Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Association OSMfr pour réserve citoyenne ?
On 2015.04.15. 18:14, Brice MALLET wrote: Jean-Marc : tu indiquais essayer de voir avec un contact chez Wikimedia-fr pour récupérer leur dossier. Cette piste a t'elle débouchée ? Malheureusement, je me suis heurté à un refus. Jean-Marc ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Association OSMfr pour réserve citoyenne ?
Je vais essayer de voir avec un contact chez Wikimedia-fr pour récupérer leur dossier. Jean-Marc Gailis Le 10 février 2015 à 15:19, Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr a écrit : A première vue, ça me semble une bonne idée. Vincent et/ou Brice, vous voulez dégrossir le sujet ? Le 10/02/2015 14:53, Vincent Bergeot a écrit : Le 10/02/2015 09:03, Brice MALLET a écrit : Une démarche officielle de la part de l'association vous semble t'elle possible ? Si oui, en profiter pour engager une démarche de demande d'agrément (http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid21129/les-associations-agreees-et-ou-subventionnees-par-l-education-nationale.html) on peut voir que wikimedia france est référencée dans la liste des associations agréées au niveau national. On peut donc supposer (si c'est un raccourci désolé) que OSM-fr peut démarcher pour la demande d'agrément de part les similitudes entres les projets (je sais qu'il y a des différences aux niveaux des associations : employeuse pour wikimedia-fr et non employeuse pour OSM-fr). Si il doit y avoir une demande, n'est-il pas possible de récupérer le dossier de wikimedia-france et de l'adapter ? (à quand un wiki des demandes de subventions et dossiers :) ) Concernant l'intérêt de l'agrément : cela facilite la possibilité d'intervenir en classe et c'est une reconnaissance par l'éducation nationale (AMHA pas de subventions possible). Bonne journée -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Cartographie de l'infrastructure et loi anti-terroriste
On 15/09/2014 22:30, François Lacombe wrote: Bonsoir, Hello! La nouvelle loi de programmation militaire, son volet anti-terroriste ainsi que leurs nombreux amendements sont en cours d'étude au parlement (si ils n'ont pas déjà été votés). Sans en connaitre le contenu, j’imagine que des activités de cartographie un peu poussées comme ce que certains, dont moi, font sur OSM peuvent être impactées. Moui, le gouv va surtout tenter de remonter ses sondages, par des mesures sééécuritaires ma chèèère dame. Peut-être que cette fois-ci, il pourra être interdit noir sur blanc de concentrer de l'information sur les centraux téléphoniques ou les postes source électriques. Ça oui, ça va bientôt être classifié comme de la planification d'actes terroristes si ça se trouve. En fait, c'est assez ambigu, puisque ce genre d'informations peut être collecté par des personnes planifiant un attentat à la sûreté de l'État; même si les fadas de réseaux électriques/aquifères/fibre/cuivre veulent avoir ces données. (J'en fait partie.) Est-ce que quelqu'un sur cette liste a déjà jeté un coup d'oeuil là dessus ? J'y réfléchis. M'est avis qu'OSM, de par sa nature internationale et d'origine Britannique, ne pourrait pas être concerné par cette loi. Par contre les contributeurs pris individuellement pourraient l'être. Exactement, càd que les serveurs situés aux UK ne sont pas touchés par la législation française, mais la collecte de données pouvant être utilisées pour planifier un attentat peut être considérée comme la preuve de l'existence de la planification d'un attentat. Le mieux serait de faire faire ce travail de collecte de données depuis l'étranger, mais c'est malheureusement impossible techniquement (parce que le contributeur de bureau, ça va pour certaines choses, faut bien rentrer les données; mais le contributeur de terrain, c'est la meilleure solution). Le plus important est de pouvoir éviter les pressions de certains services sur certaines personnes qui dirigeantes dans l'asso, pourraient être considérées comme responsââbles des données sur OSM, et donc pourraient subir ce que M. le Président de Wikimedia France a subi. On ne va pas violer la loi, donc peut-être que le mieux est de ne pas cartographier certaines infrastructures sensibles. Jean-Marc Gailis Président de ViaNET FAI Associatif 0xB76A9DF4.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] ajout des entêtes cors http://api.openstreetmap.fr/api
Bonjour, Pour ceux qui en ont marre de recevoir ces messages, je conseille comme solution **provisoire** de filtrer les messages de Jean-François, pour les envoyer dans la corbeille. Testé avec Thunderbird, ça marche très bien. Librement, -- Jean-Marc Gailis Président de ViaNET Les Voies de l'Internet FAI Associatif 0xB76A9DF4.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Site web pour partager des punaises/routes?
Essaye http://umap.openstreetmap.fr -- Jean-Marc Gailis 0xB76A9DF4.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On 19/03/2012 12:40, John Sturdy wrote: I started to work on Hampshire, but got the following request from a decliner: I was wondering if you would mind refraining from 're-mapping' my contributions for the time being? I'm still in discussions with the OSMF regarding re-licensing some of my contributions which come from a 3rd party source not compatible with the new terms. Obviously we hope to have concluded this work before the 1st of April deadline. In the meantime the more of my contributions that are deleted means more work for me to put right once we get the licensing sorted. I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work anyway. __John I've been working on the main roads in south of England over the past few weeks. I deliberately avoided parts of Hampshire as I'd heard Andy Street was still considering and if possible I'd prefer people accepted than we remap. However, with just two weeks left (possibly less if this continuous rebuild idea is going ahead and a fully ODBL map is due on 1 April) then I think the time has come to remap what we can. We've been at the licence change for a long time and I'm not sure how something will come up in the next few days that will make a difference in this case, unless somebody has more info they can share on this. Mark_S ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Licence change - one month to go
It is difficult to chase tainted junctions though. -- Andrew I've knocked something together as a trial for tainted junctions. My scripts extract the nodes at the start and end of a given set of ways and pass them through quick history to check the licence state. So far I've done motorways (and just motorways not links) that gives a total of 19 junction nodes due to be removed (where junction=one way meets another, not an actual motorway junction). Thus I'd expect 19 gaps in the UK motorway system come 1 April. This is quite good (and is probably a result that all the ways having been remapped). I'm not sure how far I can extend this though. The UK motorway system has around 10,000 unique nodes at the start/end of ways. Given that I have to ask quick history to process all these nodes that number is quite high. It might be possible to do the same process for Trunk Roads (and their links) but I suspect that for ordinary A-Roads the list of start/end nodes is likely to be too long to to deal with. Note: It is processing the intial list that is the problem, once I've process that list I only need to ask about problem nodes the next time. More info and a list of the problem nodes are on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MarkS/Remapping ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Licence change - one month to go
Does your CSV list take into account ways tagged with ODbL=clean? If not (and assuming the rebuild process will honour such tagging) would it be possible for such objects to be excluded from your list? Thanks, Robert. Good spot. No my list didn't allow for odbl=clean. However, the original roads list did come from Simon Poole's badmap database so it is likely that did allow for odbl=clean and it is only subsequent additions of this tag that weren't picked up. I've updated the script and put the latest list on the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MarkS/Remapping). Adding odbl=clean removed 173 objects from the list. In total I now make it 1337 that will be lost. This is excellent progress. Mark_S ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Licence change - one month to go
Do you know if/when that file will be updated as ways are re-mapped? I've done an update and put some info on a wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MarkS/Remapping The page has the latest counts (down to 1889 currently expected to be deleted). It also has a link to a CSV file with the current list in it. I've also done something similar for London Tube Stations. This is also on the page and shows 50 expected to be deleted and another 50 with some form of data loss (ie. reversion to an earlier state). I'll update these on an ad-hoc basis until the licence change has occurred. Mark_S ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Licence change - one month to go
There are lots of patches of detail in London that are still at risk: http://cleanmap.poole.ch/?zoom=13lat=51.51807lon=-0.1225layers=00B%0D%0A http://cleanmap.poole.ch/?zoom=13lat=51.51807lon=-0.1225layers=00B%0D%0A My worry in Central London is the large number of traffic lights that appear when you zoom in. Presumably these are junctions of two ways where the junction node will disppear and the ways will nolonger connect. Whilst the traffic lights are easy to spot there must be many more junctions that don't have lights that will also break. I'm not sure these are easy to spot without zooming right in on OSMI. Mark_S ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Licence change - one month to go
On 06/03/2012 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: Excellent -- thanks to both of you for getting this done. Do you know if/when that file will be updated as ways are re-mapped? I was playing around tonight with a combination of the Quick History Service and Overpass to requery the objects so I could update parts of the list for my own reference. The script passes groups all the ways together and makes a single call to overpass then a single call to quick history. This means I could probably get away with doing the whole list (although I'm not confident if the APIs should be used in this way). If nobody raises an objection then I'll give this a go in a few days otherwise we can ask Simon. The good news though is that I believe I've managed to save all the motorways on the list. I've also done a lot of the motorway_link roads, although there are a couple of junctions (on the M1 I believe) where it looks like the junctions have been remodelled and neither bing or OS Street View appear to be up to date. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Licence change - one month to go
I agree that we want to try and have a complete main road network network. Whilst longish stretches of road are easy to spot there are a lot of other small sections (eg. bridges) which are harder to see on cleanmap (unless the rest of the area is clean). We also have the issue of nodes going at highway junctions. Even if the ways stay we may loose the critical join. There a still a number of motorway junctions like this across the UK (and there must be plenty on trunk roads). You need OSMI to see these and with things like footpaths (which we can't remap remotely) adding to the red it is very difficult to spot. I do wonder if it would be easier to erase things we can't remap so we can identify more easily those we can. As Robert says getting a list of problem highway nodes/ways would be a good step. Mark_S On 03/03/2012 09:19, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 2 March 2012 14:35, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: We change to the new licence in just under a month's time, so it's a good time to look at the current state of the UK. We're almost certainly not going to be able to able to get the UK completely clean by the switch-over, and it's definitely good if we can prioritise work on particularly badly-tainted areas. But I wonder if another prioritisation approach might be useful too -- prioritising certain high-value types of objects, where-ever they might be. For instance, as far as routing is concerned, any gaps in the major road network is likely to cause significant problems for data-users. So might it be possible for someone to generate a list of highway=motorway and highway=trunk objects that are tainted, so people could work on eliminating those. The idea could extended to include the corresponding *_link ways, and if progress is good we could continue to do highway=primary and highway=secondary. We might want to do the same for railway=rail and perhaps waterway=river. Are there any other types of object people can think of that might be worth prioritising? You can sort of look for these types of object using BadMap [1] at low zooms, but it's not that easy, and the low zooms aren't updated as often I don't think. It would be much easier if there was a specific list of objects to work from. I'm afraid I don't have the hardware / experience / technical expertise to generate the data sets, but maybe someone who does might think it's a good idea... Robert. [1] http://cleanmap.poole.ch/?zoom=6lat=54.28388lon=-3.2layers=00B0 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] info on understanding the Deep Diff page
On 06/02/2012 12:34, ant wrote: Hi, On 06.02.2012 13:13, ciprian niculescu wrote: What is the significance of the colors in the Deep Diff? Except for the Status row, where green = CT accepted, red = CT denied, gray = undecided - green background means feature added, red means feature deleted, yellow means modified, gray means unchanged. So the colours aren't really an indication of the licence status. Do the way is gooing to be deleted or it will stay but only the tags not edited by a subsequent agreeing user will be deleted? I don't know. In fact only the first node and the highway tag are contributions by the undecided user acm. cheers ant The way in question is http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=41220492 My reading of this document: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=11nadDjFQwPXHSiJ_yRDjErDOLO-h6U18qak8mj1I9R4 is that it will be deleted (because the changeset that created it was by a non-accepting user). This page (which shows how OSMI gets its colours) also suggets it will be deleted: http://wtfe.gryph.de/report/way/41220492 MarkS ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] 'wget'ing largish portion of planetOSM
This is the way to go. I download the UK from download.geofabrik.de once a week or so. Then use osmosis to divide the UK extract up into the smaller regions as required. In my case I use poly files (derived from the UK region boundary relations) to tell osmosis which regions I want. Mark S On 20/10/2011 04:01, Toby Murray wrote: If you are needing that much data I would strongly recommend starting off with an extract of the whole country and then trim out what you need using osmosis. Extract providers can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Planet#Country_and_area_extracts And osmosis docs on trimming an extract are here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmosis/Detailed_Usage#Area_Filtering_Tasks Toby On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Mickbare...@tpg.com.au wrote: I have been struggling to get a largish chunk of open street map covering an area from the Isles of Scilly in the south west to Bristol in the north east using commands like: wget -t 0 http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/xapi?map[bbox=-6.41,49.85,-1.68,51.56] -O souwest.osm but all I can get is an error - 'connection reset by peer' or 'timeout' I also tried: wget -t 0 http://www.overpass-api.de/api/xapi?relation[bbox=-6,49.8,-1.0,51.6][natural=*] -O souwest-relation-natural.osm but this required dozens of individual transaction to get results osmosis refused to read. am I biting off more than the server can chew or using the wrong procedure? could some kind soul point me in the right direction mick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Relation for M5?
Looking at the wiki (route=road) it seems to suggest a relation can be used here. However, it stikes me that the relation should be more than just the roads without a role. The wiki suggests the road itself would have a forward/backward role, and that link roads should be in the relation (the link roads are still motorway standard and are referred to as M5 link roads). I'd have also thought that in the ideal world the junctions and services would be in the relation as well. That way you can get everything to do with the M5 and create things such as a line diagram showing the M5 and all its junctions (which would be hard to do without a relation). Mark S PS: I have to declare an interest here in that I might have touched this in the past to complete an initial partial relation. On 08/10/2011 10:35, Dave F. wrote: Hi Anyone know why has the M5 motorway got a route relation dedicated to it? Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc not just a 'collection' of things. This has lead to tag duplication which can never be a good thing. Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Relation for M5?
Maybe the wiki should be updated ? However, I think route relations are quite extensive across the UK. I first came across them on the A1 but I'm fairly confident lots of other roads have them on. I'm a fan of consistency so if we remove the M5 one then we should remove the others as well. This would make the UK more consistent (within the UK) and would ensure people don't have an example to copy from. As an aside: I've seen some external sites link to the relations. I've seen things saying this shouldn't be done, but that hasn't stopped people doing it in practice. Deleting the relations would break those links. On 08/10/2011 15:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Mark S wrote: Looking at the wiki (route=road) it seems to suggest a relation can be used here. Road route relations are useful in the US, and some other countries, where a section of road can belong to two routes. In the UK, each road can only belong to one route (i.e. an unambiguous ref= tag). There is no need for road route relations; the M5 motorway is more easily defined as all ways within the UK bounding box with the tags highway=motorway* and ref=M5. Consequently we don't use road route relations in the UK. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads
Sometimes though the reference is in general use even if it isn't signposted. In this case having it on the renderers might be useful. For example: we have a C road near us. On the ground the road looks like a single road, but in reality it is made up of series of roads with around 6 individual names. For simplicity therefore lots of local publications (magazines, political flyers, local websites) just use the C reference. Having the reference on renderers is therfore useful. That said I've seen a mapdust error that the reference wasn't signposted. On 18/05/2011 11:03, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I note an increasing number of roads tagged with ref=Cnumber: http://osm.org/go/euF7qf93- http://osm.org/go/eu6CM0IS- etc. Leaving aside for now the question of sourcing, I feel a little uneasy about these being rendered on the map. Anyone using the map as, well, a navigational aid will think turn left onto the C94... oh... hang on... what C94?. So if we are to have such arcana in the database, and experience suggests you can't actually stop people adding arcana to OSM (I guess that's one of our strengths ;) ), it would be helpful to have some way of tagging this ref is not actually signed. That way, renderers and routers could choose not to show refs which aren't helpful for their audience. Something like ref:signed=no would work. Any thoughts? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
On 04/05/2011 14:13, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hello Peter, I would say the most important thing with official rights of way is to tag them with designation=public_footpath, public_bridleway, public_byway or restricted_byway (as appropriate). The designation tag is AFAIK generally regarded these days as the most definitive indication of rights of way status. Freemap (free-map.org.uk) will only render paths with a designation tag in colour; all other paths are rendered as black lines - but more importantly it makes the data unambiguous. I agree that designation is the most important bit. The rest of the tags are too variable to give a consistent message. There seems to be agreement as to what the desingation tag means and what the possible values are, even if it isn't (wasn't?) used in many places. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] inferred single-carriageway NSL?
On 16/03/2011 19:31, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Richard Bullock wrote: Do we *really* need to be tagging national speed limits on individual ways? E.g. the vast majority of roads ought to be one of; *residential roads subject to 30mph *rural roads subject to NSL Perhaps we could tag the ones that differ from the above - and let post-processors add national defaults as necessary? Spot on. cheers Richard I use to think this but here in North Hampshire they've been scattering speed limits all over the place and to settle on a default would be quite hard. For example none of the single carriage way A-roads near me have the national speed limit on them (rural or not). The advantage of a tag on each way (whatever it might be) is that I know what the speed limit on that road is; no tag could easily mean it just hasn't been surveyed. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way
James Davis wrote: Nick Whitelegg wrote: We may be underestimating the intertwined nature of the definitive map /statement and OS data. Here in Hampshire the council are actually quite good. The definitive maps are all online (and clearly say OS copyright on them). In addition the footpaths themselves are clearly labelled. I have though recently come across the Definitive Statements (http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/locating-row/definitive-statement.htm). These are just text descriptions of the route. They are very detailed so can't have been derieved by just tracing over an OS map, so there might be a chance we can use these. I'll probably contact them when I get a chance and ask. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] is_in and similar tags
John Smith wrote: --- On Tue, 28/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: Admin boundaries are the new way of doing this. The is_in tag was the early way of trying to show a hierarchy of admin areas. Ok, so is_in is redundant. There was talk on the dev list about removing a bunch of tiger tags from nodes. Should other tags also be removed, like is_in that are no longer needed? We need to be careful about removing tags because it could cause renderers to fail (or at least not work as expected). For example, I think the is_in tag is added after the place name in mkgmap when creating the city POIs. Maybe the solution is to have a list of depreciated tags and maybe give people a year or two to stop using them before they get removed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] is_in and similar tags
John Smith wrote: --- On Tue, 28/7/09, MarkS o...@redcake.co.uk wrote: We need to be careful about removing tags because it could cause renderers to fail (or at least not work as expected). For example, I think the is_in tag is added after the place name in mkgmap when creating the city POIs. That's fine for existing correct information, what about incorrect or missing ones? :) How's this for consistency, all of these describe various suburbs of Sydney... is_in = New South Wales,Australia name = Surry Hills place = suburb is_in = Australia, NSW, New South Wales, Sydney, Eastern Suburbs name = Elizabeth Bay place = suburb postal_code = 2011 is_in = Australia, NSW, New South Wales, Sydney name = Woolloomooloo place = suburb is_in = Australia, NSW, New South Wales, Sydney, Eastern Suburbs, resort towns name = Bondi Beach place = suburb is_in = Sydney,New South Wales,Australia name = Mascot place = suburb I agree we have a problem and this looks very inconsistent. I like information to be consistent and held only once. The example shows that having a field where you can enter almost anything does result in a variety of inconsistent entries. I'm not against getting rid of is_in, I just think we need to manage the change over a fair period of time to give the renderers a chance to catch up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
