Luca Delucchi wrote > On 25 January 2017 at 10:36, Martin Landa <
> landa.martin@ > > wrote: >> 2017-01-25 10:31 GMT+01:00 Luca Delucchi < > lucadeluge@ > >: >>> no, the new v.in.osm support PBF but more improving could be done. I >>> will modify the idea... >> >> thanks, Ma > > I read better the proposal, is still valid instead is possible to read > pbf/osm file only using osm2pgsql but the proposal would like to have > different backend options sorry, don't understand right above. from the proposal: "Until now a script, called v.in.osm, exists, but it is able to import data only from a PostgreSQL database after using osm2pgsql to convert OSM format to PostgreSQL/PostGIS.This project has to implement the capabilities to import directly the .osm or .pbf format." .pbf format can already be read. see the manual: https://grass.osgeo.org/grass72/manuals/addons/v.in.osm.html EXAMPLES Import from PostgreSQL DB: v.in.osm input="PG:host=localhost dbname=gis user=ostepok" table=planet_osm_line \ type=point,line output=roads where="highway is not null" Import from OSM PBF file: v.in.osm input=saarland-latest.osm.pbf table=lines type=point,line output=roads \ where="highway is not null" so maybe the gsoc proposal has to be adapted to extended backend support. ----- best regards Helmut -- View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/GSoC-idea-v-in-osm-enhancement-tp5304492p5305136.html Sent from the Grass - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
