ThomasB wrote:
Hang on, you've got this completely wrong.
.
Seems what you mean and what you wrote differ somehow
Richard Fairhurst wrote
And no - this isn't intended to hit restoring a single way via P1 (while
it still exists) or whatever.
But I read it so. Also selecting 10 buildings
ThomasB wrote:
Seems what you mean and what you wrote differ somehow
I'm not sure where you read the extra requirement for discussion or
bureaucracy in what I wrote. Could you clarify?
But I read it so. Also selecting 10 buildings in JOSM and
pressing Q would fall below your proposal
, 2012 at 11:36:51PM +0200, Eric Marsden wrote:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:36:51 +0200
From: Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for import guidelines
Thank you for making this constructive proposal. My feeling is that it
would
De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
Hi Lester
I do get the impression that the Cadastre import has it's own rules on
how to use it, and those are only available in French, which irritates.
You mean you would appreciate a translation of French Cadastre wiki page ?
But it does need to
jt == Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org writes:
jt I think there is a misunderstandig here. You seem to suggest that
according to
jt those new guidelines you are supposed to import the data with one account
and
jt then in a second step fix things with the normal account. This is not the
I think the distinction between mechanical and manual needs to be fleshed
out a bit. To me manual implies a degree of care to other data (relative
location of existing objects, links to other objects, existing versions of
the same or related objects, other tags, consideration of the quality of
the
Am 26.09.2012 10:30, schrieb THEVENON Julien:
* De :* Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
Hi Lester
* *I do get the impression that the Cadastre import has it's own
rules on how to use it, and those are only available in French, which
irritates.
You mean you would appreciate a translation of
THEVENON Julien wrote:
* *I do get the impression that the Cadastre import has it's own rules on
how to use it, and those are only available in French, which irritates.
You mean you would appreciate a translation of French Cadastre wiki page ?
That has been a previous request :) The google
Richard Mann wrote:
But the principle that changesets should have a licence tag where that's
clear/available is a sensible one. As is the message keep your changesets at
human-scale or set up a separate account.
Tagging the change set is against the data source is a must.
But I think that a
On 26.09.2012 10:13, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I'm not sure where you read the extra requirement for discussion or
bureaucracy in what I wrote. Could you clarify?
Discussion and bureaucracy requirements exist for automated/mechanical
edits according to the policy pages you would like to see
Tordanik wrote:
If you want to address changes performed by scripts/bots, then
why don't you just say so explicitly and avoid any potential
misunderstandings?
Because it's not just about scripts and bots. The Cadastre situation, which
started all of this off, is often people loading .osm
De : Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de
Yes, it is part of the import process, as it's the main preparation of the
import.
When we import a list of facilities we get from a third party, e.g. the
fuel station import last year, most of the time the raw data is not
fitting to osm
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It doesn't actually make any difference to me personally
- I only_use_ OSM data for the UK, where we don't have imports
Yet ;)
I want to get the border layer stuff working directly from the import rather
than 'importing' it piecemeal into the base data ...
--
Lester
De : Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
Because it's not just about scripts and bots. The Cadastre situation, which
started all of this off, is often people loading .osm files into JOSM,
running a quick validator check over it, and uploading. In terms of impact
on the map and on the
On 26 September 2012 11:02, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
- I only _use_ OSM data for the UK, where we don't have imports, and I'm
not
on DWG so I don't have to deal with the angry mails. I'm simply trying to
help and getting hostile doesn't really encourage that.)
Richard
From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:02 AM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for import guidelines
Tordanik wrote:
If you want to address changes performed by scripts/bots, then why
don't you just say so
De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
That has been a previous request :) The google translation is a little
strange.
OK I was not aware about that
And if we can automate that process it would help you?
The add of source tag is already automatic
I'm just repeating things that were being
THEVENON Julien wrote:
Clean cadastre integration is a process that take quite a long time when done
correctly and that could not be automated, that's why it has been decided to not
perform a national automated import like CLC but rather to rely on contributors
which do that city by city
But
De : THEVENON Julien julien_theve...@yahoo.fr
You can have cadastre has overlay in JOSM using french cadastre plugin.
If you want to perform the test on Saint Galmier you will have to install
the plugin in JOSM, restart JOSM. Change the projection to Lambert 9
zones and choose Lambert CC
De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
But I'm still not clear if that is done of a properly geo-referenced
overlay/layer? The initial automatic process would be creating that
layer although I would accept that keeping historic versions is
something that could be a cost that nobody will cover?
THEVENON Julien wrote:
The corresponding processed data that you can find on
http://cadastre.openstreetmap.fr/data/ are those data downloaded in PDF format
processed by a C++ script that analyse geometrical forms and colours to extract
buildings, railways, rivers and produced separated OSM
De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
Sees the light :)
Great !
SO while we have this type of raster data from as a background in
potlatch and josm and some elements of it in vector files from OS and
other sources. You are having to stitch together 'pictures' and then
your 'automatic
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
bot_source_licence=machine-readable licence name
...
- encouraging a machine-readable licence tag helps to avoid the issues
identifying changesets that were encountered in the redaction.
I don't like the name of this tag, it seems ambiguous.
From it's name I would
I think the additional tags on the changeset are a good approach...
and when used properly they make the dedicated account useless
(whatever the size of the changeset) as they provide much more
details.
The API could even reject changesets that are above a given size if
these tags are not
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 06:11:35PM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[...]
An 'automated edit' is one where the editing is not carried out by
manual drawing actions. This includes (but is not limited to):
- imports of external data
- search-and-replace tag changes
- automated geometry fixup
I like this proposal - from my very personal point of view it safeguards
all the conflicting interests and reaffirms essential inflexible
principles while cutting some slack to users who perform small local
imports :
The bot=yes tag identifies the import as such, to help moderators
focus on that
Jochen Topf wrote:
I think it is rather difficult do exactly define what an automated edit is
and what not. And trying to define this better and better is just an invitation
to language lawyers to argue about minutiae.
I've deliberately take this out of context because I'm beginning to see
My main machine is down at the moment so this isn't as detailed as I'd like, but I have a few thoughts.On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:A propos of the recent contretemps about Cadastre imports and separate accounts (excessive use of French in this
I'm worried about the ongoing push to extend the reach of rules
originally designed (and supported by the community) for imports and
scripts to actions initiated by human mappers using editor software.
Even though your mail's subject mentions import guidelines, your
proposed text switches to the
Thank you for making this constructive proposal. My feeling is that it
would constitute a positive change to the current DWG import guidelines,
which are greatly lacking in subtlety.
Allow me to point out, and illustrate with the French cadastre case, a
problem posed by the wish strictly to
I'm off to bed but would just like to respond to this one before I do.
Tordanik wrote:
On 25.09.2012 19:11, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
- search-and-replace tag changes
- automated geometry fixup
- reverting edits
In my opinion, none of that (if performed though editing software
on a
Richard Fairhurst wrote
Hang on, you've got this completely wrong.
.
Seems what you mean and what you wrote differ somehow
Richard Fairhurst wrote
And no - this isn't intended to hit restoring a single way via P1 (while
it still exists) or whatever.
But I read it so. Also selecting 10
32 matches
Mail list logo
