[OSM-talk] OSM OSM (or OSMSM (or something else better?))
Hi All, OpenStreetMap =*O* *S*tandard *M*ap MapForTheRenderer=yes | I think the standard map should define how osm data is displayed (not what is displayed)*1 DisplayEverything=yes | I think the standard map should display all data*2 DisplayOptions=yes | I think the standard map should offer the viewer the options to not display data types and features - such as labels / symbols / both / neither.*3 Preset standard maps*4 *1 The SM should allow zoom in to two adjacent buildings such that the text for [name] for both is clearly and fully displayed. It should define what areas mask other areas. It should not define what symbols are used though. *2 I think the SM should be capable of displaying the entire contents of OSM *3 The SM should offer users a means of not showing certain information - for preferences and clarity. *4 Preset standard map options should be available - such as cycling shows the cycling info but still using standard map symbols. It should also allow the user to add or remove displayed data - just like the 'normal' standard map does. This should not interfere with user groups designing their own maps and symbols driven by osm data but merely allow a standard map view of the user's selected data. Them's my thoughts ! -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Another possibility is somewhat radical: - Non-routing or decorative ways for sidepaths. The current highway tags are quite good for routing a pedestrian or cyclist from intersection to intersection, and thus over any reasonable distance. However there's a desire for what amounts to drawing pretty lines on the map: modelling the details of the sidewalks and sidepaths. In suburban areas that often means a winding sidewalk next to a major road. In many places the definition is fuzzy, as there are all variants from fully separated to right up at the curb. Maybe splitting routing tags (how it connects) from rendering (how it looks) has merit. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On 25/04/15 17:22, pmailkeey . wrote: First point is the definition of sidewalk as such they should never be mapped as separate routes but tags for such added to the highway. If there is no direct access from the footway to the carriageway, it is not a sidewalk. The bottom line is that this only applied while are mapping was only at a macro level. There has been a discussion about an import of building details in New Zealand and when you look at the underlying detail it is substantial micro mapping. The imagery that goes with it provides a VERY high level of detail, and when I first looked at it I though that the road outlines looked nice, however what I was seeing was all of the footpath detail! Now if all of the buildings are displayed on the map, why would one not map the footpath elements. In this case there would seem to be grass verges isolating the footpath from the actual roadway so technically 'no direct access' ;) At a lower scale, one only has space to display a single line with tags. additional detail such as the actual shape of the road, and additional details such as verges, footpaths and the like has to be consolidated onto the single way. At high resolution we see the buildings, footpaths and grass areas ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Wiki deprecation of an in-use feature
On 25/04/15 21:09, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Bryce ... you still have to make the case for 'special cases'. There is no reason to have two tags for many of these amenities. That's not the purpose I started this thread for. waterway=water_point is in use. -- The issue of how to tag non-interoperable features is a valid issue, but a much bigger issue. We have mutually incompatible amenities for aircraft, boats and land vehicles. You definitely don't want to put aviation gas into a motorcar for example, nor try to empty your motorhome at a Canal River Trust pumpout. There's no commonly agreed solution for this real issue. Until that's resolved, I feel the wiki should reflect /current/ tagging practice. Thus waterway=water_point as in use on the wiki until either a vote happens to remove it, or a new tagging proposal takes hold. The only reference I am seeing to waterway=water_point is to use amenity=water_point and I see no problem with that statement. Just as I see no problem with having a petrol pump on an airfield that can provide unleaded petrol for a car or a microlight aircraft, and the camp-site on the site might have a water_point for caravans, and a separate one for servicing the aircraft. If the water_point is on the tow path and provided by the Canal River Trust but also services the camp site do we end up having it tagged for both, just as you propose for waterway=sanitary_dump_station + amenity=sanitary_dump_station? WHY do we have to have duplicate tags? I may not agree with what is currently being documented for some of these things, but if THIS proposal is taken to it's logical extent, then every facility has to have a duplicate waterway tag ... or we simply agree that there only needs to be one, and the access determines who can use it! AND then you add another complete set for aircraft? If it's a water_point on a marina and is private then it's no different to on on a camp site which is private. Only the right clients are allowed to use it. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On 25 April 2015 at 18:22, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Another possibility is somewhat radical: - Non-routing or decorative ways for sidepaths. Maybe splitting routing tags (how it connects) from rendering (how it looks) has merit. I've always considered OSM to be two maps - a geographic and a routing. While an underlying routing line performs the routing function, an area (highway residential) covers the actual reality. The joint between the two can be a bit rough though. Having recently discovered area highway footway - I'm filling in pavements/sidewalks locally now a bit as well. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Hundekottütenspender tagging
Ich würde eher einen neuen tag einführen, der dann wirklich alles umfasst das man damit taggen will, oder einen oder mehrere weitere tags um das abzudecken, was zwar irgendwie öffentlich und ohne Personal Dinge oder Services verteilt, dafür aber keine Bezahlung erfordert. Hatten wir das nicht auf Tagging damals mit den Post Dingern schon diskutiert? Damals gabe es soweit ich mich erinnere keinen Vorschlag bei den ich gesagt hätte ja super passt. Ich wäre auch dafür vending_machiene durch einen größeren Überbegriff zu ersetzten, dann braucht man da nicht jedes mal zu diskutieren. Automat was ich finde am ehesten hinkommt gibt es im Englischen so wohl nicht. Gemeinsamkeiten kann man immer finden, entscheidend ist doch, dass die von uns geforderten Kriterien für den tag hier nicht eingehalten werden (aus dem Wiki: A vending machine is a machine which dispenses items such as snacks, beverages, alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, cologne, consumer products and even gold and gems to customers automatically, after the customer inserts currency or credit into the machine.). Naja dann muss man wohl eher das diskutieren, weil das ist Wikipeda CP. Vorher war da der Text aus dem proposal: Vending machines do appear more and more in very different kinds. As they are increasingly a part of everybody’s life, there is also a need to bring them on maps or in to routing devices. In most cases there should also be given a hint to the type of goods the machine offers. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-co] Pregunta para usurios editor JOSM
Para una heladería podría ser algo parecido a esto: presets xmlns=http://josm.openstreetmap.de/tagging-preset-1.0; item name=Heladeria label text=Inserta una Heladeria o ice cream / text key=name text=Ice cream / combo key=Ice cream text=Type values=text / !-- Always setting class=ice cream -- key key=class value=ice cream / /item /presets El 24 de abril de 2015, 18:52, Fredy Rivera fredyriv...@gmail.com escribió: Hola 2015-04-24 17:15 GMT-05:00 carlos felipe castillo kaxti...@gmail.com: Buenas tardes, se pueden crear predefinidos que no existen en el editor? Ejemplo: Heladerias Billares Salas de internet Plantas de tratameinto de agua potable Dispositivos de toma de muestras de agua Tienda de barrio Si se puede y es sencillo https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Es%3ATaggingPresets Si lo haces, chevere que las compartas. salu2 Humano Gracias -- Atentamente, Carlos Felipe Castillo. about.me / kaxtillo ___ Talk-co mailing list Talk-co@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co -- ## |___|__\___ | _ | |_ | } (_) (_) Twitter: @fredy_rivera Phone USA: (347) 688-4473 Mobil telephone: +57 3044886255 ___ Talk-co mailing list Talk-co@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co -- Atentamente, Carlos Felipe Castillo. about.me / kaxtillo http://about.me/kaxtillo ___ Talk-co mailing list Talk-co@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co
[talk-ph] Fwd: Re: [HOT] 7.9 earthquake in Nepal
Im sure you heard the news. Any help is very much appreciated. Check the wiki (link below) for details. Tnx! cheers, Maning Sambale (mobile) -- Forwarded message -- From: Harry Wood m...@harrywood.co.uk Date: Apr 25, 2015 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [HOT] 7.9 earthquake in Nepal To: HOT@OSM (Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team) h...@openstreetmap.org Cc: Wiki page for this earthquake: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2015_Nepal_earthquake Let's hope our friends a the Kathmandu Living Labs are all safe today. Because the community is strong in Nepal (and particularly Kathmandu), the map is already pretty good. Let's hope aid agencies will found out about our maps and find them useful. We should be wary of unleashing task manager jobs on the area. We must particularly try to avoid the mess created by people getting carried away with landuse but in silly square shapes (don't do this!) But there's some work to do. I see a few settlements and their connecting roads in the river valleys to the northwest of Kathmandu, where we could improve the map remotely a bit. See the above wiki page where we can post more coordination info Harry -- *From:* Arun Ganesh arun.plane...@gmail.com *To:* Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr *Cc:* HOT@OSM (Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team) h...@openstreetmap.org *Sent:* Saturday, 25 April 2015, 12:09 *Subject:* Re: [HOT] 7.9 earthquake in Nepal Have uploaded some high resolution osm extracts of downtown Kathmandu and Patan to wiki commons that could come in handy for immediate print use: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kathmandu_Downtown_Streetmap_OSM.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patan_Downtown_Streetmap_OSM.png On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: We started an international skype communication and gather infos. Pierre -- *De :* Robert Banick rban...@gmail.com *À :* Heather Leson heatherle...@gmail.com *Cc :* HOT@OSM (Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team) h...@openstreetmap.org *Envoyé le :* Samedi 25 avril 2015 5h53 *Objet :* Re: [HOT] 7.9 earthquake in Nepal I’m hearing from old Red Cross friends that many places outside Kathmandu are also affected. I think we should worry about the city of Pokhara too, it’s a major city basically equidistant from the earthquake. — Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Heather Leson heatherle...@gmail.com wrote: Morning, there is a strong OSM contingent in Nepal including board member Nama. Thanks for the updates, Maning and JCG Heather On Apr 25, 2015 10:45 AM, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Just got this info from tv. News are still sketchy but kathmandu seems to be heavily affected. cheers, Maning Sambale (mobile) ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot -- Arun Ganesh (planemad) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Planemad http://j.mp/ArunGanesh ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[talk-au] StreetToTransit connections mass edit
I've noticed the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14080990 where the user connected a bunch of highways/footways with the railway=station node and used the name StreetToTransitConnection. I've asked the user about this in the changeset comment but I've had no reply. First problem is, these are all named incorrectly as StreetToTransitConnection. Secondly in some instances I've found the footway the user added was actually incorrect, went straight across the railway line where there was no footway in conflict with the existing footway network. In other cases the footway simply doesn't exist. I am curious if we need a footway to the actual station node? Normally you would have a footway to the platform and then that is enough, but maybe for routers we need a way to link the platfrom to a given station so that we don't need these incorrect footways linking them? Is a mass revert justified? Or do I need to go and do a mass removal of the StreetToTransitConnection name tag and fix up the ones I know about (which means there is no footway between the station node and the rest of the network)? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Caméra embarquée avec position et direction
http://www.instructables.com/id/Mapillary-en-Raspberry-Pi/?ALLSTEPS Pour ceux ne voulant pas payer une fortune pour le garmin d'ailleurs Le Vendredi 24 avril 2015 16h44, Yves Pratter yves.prat...@gmail.com a écrit : Le 24 avr. 2015 à 14:41, dHuy Pierre dh...@yahoo.fr a écrit : Techniquement il existe déjà le projet très abouti de Mapillary qui permet de travailler avec osm et qui permet de faire une vue assez complète. Et qui permet depuis peu? de télécharger des vidéos (pour le moment, uniquement de Go-Pro) — Yves ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] points de vente SNCF en opendata
Il te suffit de grouper les tags en fonction de l'usage: s'il s'agit d'un bureau informatif et et d'une vente de ticket tu mets les tags tourism=information ET shop=ticket (pour moi le shop ticket serait plus approprié que le travel_agency, qui correspond aux agneces de vacance type Pierre et vacances). Si dans le bureau tu peux trouver des cartes du réseau, tourism=information+information=map+map_type=network sous la forme d'un node à l'endroit supposé de la carte. Il existe des tags pour les différents éléments: machine de vente, écran d'information...S'il s'agit également un poste où aller en cas de problème, il y a infirmerie... etc. À défaut un unique shop=travel_agency;office=information; tourism=information; operator=SNCF suffira.Librement, Le Samedi 25 avril 2015 7h49, Virgile Kéré vk...@free.fr a écrit : Bonjour, D'ailleurs, comment devrait-on taguer les agences de transports en commun (aussi bien SNCF, que les réseaux urbains et autres). Je n'ai pas trouvé de consignes claires. Les tags qui s'en rapprochent le plus sont shop=travel_agency ou tourism=information + information=office. Aussi il existe un shop=ticket, mais généralement les activités de ces agences ne se limitent pas à la vente de tickets, mais aussi aux conseils de mobilités : itinéraires, modes de transport... Virgile - Mail original - Message: 4 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:20:51 + From: HELFER Denis denis.hel...@rff.fr To: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org talk-fr@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk-fr] points de vente SNCF en opendata Message-ID: 0b1ce879dca3ad4cb3eb4a9bd06234073cd0c...@rffsrvexc1.rff.ferre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=cp1258 Ca vient de sortir : http://www.sncf.com/fr/content/brevepresseopen-data-points-de-vente24042015 Un rapide coup d’œil sur la qualité de la géolocalisation des points indique une assez bonne voie bonne qualité sur les boutiques. Il y a les horaires pour ceux qui veulent s’entrainer aux tags Denis Helfer Chargé d’études géomatiques, correspondant SI SNCF RESEAU Direction rÉgionale alsace lorraine champagne-ardenne 15 rue des Francs-Bourgeois - 67082 STRAsbourg CEdex TÉL. : +33 (0)3 88 23 95 58 FAX : +33 (0)0 88 23 30 80 - helfer.de...@rff.frmailto:helfer.de...@rff.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] Traduction JOSM
Le 25 avril 2015 00:30, Vincent Privat vinc...@josm.openstreetmap.de a écrit : Il n'y a donc plus personne en France motivé pour participer à la traduction de JOSM ? :( C'est triste, la situation du français n'est pas terrible, il est actuellement en 12ème position, loin derrière l'allemand, l'ukrainien, le tchèque, le russe, le catalan, l'espagnol, le japonais, l'italien, le portugais (brésil portugal), et l'asturien. J'ai essayé un peu. - je n'ai pas trouvé où était stocké une traduction que je voulais corriger - j'ai traduit quelques items vides mais je ne sais pas si ça a bien été pris en compte : il faut attendre une nouvelle version de JOSM ? PY ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Rendu BANO: visualisation des adresses de la BAN
Salut, Le dimanche 19 avril 2015 09:40:44 Christian Quest a écrit : Depuis la signature mercredi 15/4/2015 de notre convention autour de la BAN avec l'IGN, La poste et Etalab, les données BAN sont disponible sous licence ODbL via la diffusion faite par OSM-FR (prévue par la convention). J'ai donc ajouté les adresses BAN dans le rendu BANO pour mieux se rendre compte de l'apport qu'elles peuvent constituer. Merci pour tout. Ces nouvelles données sont intéressantes. Sur quelques endroits que j'ai regardés, voilà mon avis pour l'instant : À certains endroits le positionnement du numéro est excellent, pile sur l'entrée d'un immeuble, ou de la maison. Mais c'est très hétérogène, certains numéro sont sur la maison d'à côté, du mauvais côté de la rue, au milieu d'une maison, complètement à la rue, … Certaines adresses suffixées apparaissent en plus (genre des bis, ter, A/B/C), à vérifier sur le terrain (j'ai un doute pour certains). J'ai aussi retrouvée un numéro qui n'apparaissait pas sur BANO, il a l'air cohérent, j'irai vérifier sur le terrain. J'ai vu effectivement pas mal de gros numéro, genre 9000, qui semble complètement farfelus à moins de trouver à quoi ils correspondent. J'ai l'impression que ça pourrait correspondre à des POIs genre transformateur, PEI, … En résumé, la qualité moyenne n'est pas meilleure que nos données et algos de base. Par contre, ça peut aider au positionnement et pour ajouter certaines adresses non trouvées avec les scripts BANO. -- Nicolas Dumoulin http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NicolasDumoulin ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
[OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Dear all, our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like look for the line on the map. To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach: Keep separation rules as already established: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes: - Sidewalks should carry highway=footway + footway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (already in widespread use) - Bike lanes should carry highway=cycleway + cycleway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (similar problem) Currently, both the suggestion of footway=sidewalk (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard? Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive: - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy. - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with footway/cycleway=sidewalk - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On 25.04.2015 11:29, wrote Roland Olbricht: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Uh, the example in the other thread was a fence. Grass strips are easily crossable for most pedestrians. Given the number of problems that arise from separately mapping sidewalks, we should only do it if strictly necessary. That is not the case with most grass strips, especially narrow ones of uniform length. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Traduction JOSM
(on dira pas non plus qu'il est buggué, mais quand je traduis deux fois la même chaine à cinq minutes d'intervalle avec un passage par la page d'accueil entre, c'est qu'il y a bien un problème quelque part aussi…) Le 25/04/2015 09:52, David Crochet a écrit : Bonjour Le 25/04/2015 00:30, Vincent Privat a écrit : Il n'y a donc plus personne en France motivé pour participer à la traduction de JOSM ? :( Le système ne me plais pas pour traduire, je sais, je rabâche, mais translatewiki.net est un bon procédé cordialement ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
I agree with suggesting adding names to sidewalks. I'm not sure about only mapping sidewalks that are separated from the road. I agree it has some logic to it, but what about mapping sidewalk width, surface, markings on the ground for the blind, and all those attributes a sidewalk can have? Tagging that on the road makes an even bigger mess of tags. Janko sub, 25. tra 2015. 11:30 Roland Olbricht olbri...@mentzdv.de je napisao: Dear all, our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like look for the line on the map. To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach: Keep separation rules as already established: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes: - Sidewalks should carry highway=footway + footway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (already in widespread use) - Bike lanes should carry highway=cycleway + cycleway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (similar problem) Currently, both the suggestion of footway=sidewalk (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard? Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive: - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy. - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with footway/cycleway=sidewalk - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Rendu BANO: visualisation des adresses de la BAN
Bonjour Le 25/04/2015 11:06, Nicolas Dumoulin a écrit : J'ai vu effectivement pas mal de gros numéro, genre 9000, qui semble complètement farfelus à moins de trouver à quoi ils correspondent. J'ai l'impression que ça pourrait correspondre à des POIs genre transformateur, PEI, Est-ce que ce n'est pas des réservation de numéros. Par exemple, dans une rue, on passe du 10 au 16, physiquement car le foncier montre seulement un espace entre des deux bâtiments. Si, dans le futur, des nouveau bâtiment pouvaient s'insérer, on créer ainsi 9012, 9014, afin de pouvoir ensuite avoir un 12 et un 14 sans avoir besoins de recourir à un 10bis et un 10ter mes 2c€ Cordialement -- David Crochet ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [talk-au] StreetToTransit connections mass edit
I've noticed the same changeset, and most of it is nonsense, and isn't based on the actual connections. It isn't that it does no harm, because it introduces footway connections where none actually exist. I think the concept is good for stations that are well developed. Like some stations you can only access from one side, etc. So, I've slowly been tidying some of them up. However, I'd have no issue with a revert for those that remain unmodified since the original changeset. Ian. On 25 April 2015 at 15:58, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: I've noticed the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14080990 where the user connected a bunch of highways/footways with the railway=station node and used the name StreetToTransitConnection. I've asked the user about this in the changeset comment but I've had no reply. First problem is, these are all named incorrectly as StreetToTransitConnection. Secondly in some instances I've found the footway the user added was actually incorrect, went straight across the railway line where there was no footway in conflict with the existing footway network. In other cases the footway simply doesn't exist. I am curious if we need a footway to the actual station node? Normally you would have a footway to the platform and then that is enough, but maybe for routers we need a way to link the platfrom to a given station so that we don't need these incorrect footways linking them? Is a mass revert justified? Or do I need to go and do a mass removal of the StreetToTransitConnection name tag and fix up the ones I know about (which means there is no footway between the station node and the rest of the network)? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Traduction JOSM
Bonjour Le 25/04/2015 00:30, Vincent Privat a écrit : Il n'y a donc plus personne en France motivé pour participer à la traduction de JOSM ? :( Le système ne me plais pas pour traduire, je sais, je rabâche, mais translatewiki.net est un bon procédé cordialement -- David Crochet ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Roland Olbricht olbri...@mentzdv.de wrote:
Dear all,
our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead
only instructions like look for the line on the map.
To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped
footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name.
Why do that instead of just adding a single tag to the road?
Keep separation rules as already established:
Can you explain the benefit of this vs a single tag on the way such as
sidewalk=yes or sidewalk={left|right}?
- Serge
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
As somebody that has mapped a fair amount of sidewalks as separate ways (for good reasons) I'm rather split on the issue (and as a tendency against adding names to objects that don't actually have them). The adding a tag to the street in question is all fine and dandy, if - it is actually a classical sidewalk with just a kerb or a thin strip of grass, - you don't need to model a route over the sidewalk or are only interested in automatic routing, - you are not adding extra tags for surface, width etc. In reality classical sidewalks might be the norm in suburbia where in turn detailed mapping is not such hot topic, but in urban areas (at least here) you will find easily find on -one- blocks length a combination, of classical sidewalk, separated by a flowerbed, a wall, being covered arcade and a couple of things I've likely forgotten. I don't believe splitting a sidewalk in to 10 different pieces just to model it to a very impractical doctrine makes any sense. A further problem is that we currently don't have any other way (than seperate ways) to model using sidewalks in route relations, which is particularly an issue if changing sides of the street in question is a problem (traffic, surface, other issues). Janko has already pointed out that mapping details of the sidewalks becomes rather cumbersome (both for mapper and consumer) for physical details and similar. In summary I don't quite see why we can't leave it up to the mapper to choose the appropriate solution. And a properly tagged sidewalk (highway=footway, footway=sidewalk) can always be ignored if the application is question is not interested. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Am 25.04.2015 um 12:30 schrieb Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Uh, the example in the other thread was a fence. Grass strips are easily crossable for most pedestrians. Given the number of problems that arise from separately mapping sidewalks, we should only do it if strictly necessary. That is not the case with most grass strips, especially narrow ones of uniform length. how would you map these grass strips themselves? As lanes? If they have a particular shape you want to map? IMHO as soon as there are different carriageways we should map them separately, and state this clearly to avoid edit wars... cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Hello, I have no problem with most of it, but can you please come up with something else in stead of cycleway=sidewalk. This sounds like the cyclists have to cycle on the part of the road reserved for pedestrians or if the cycleway itself has a sidewalk. I don't know if cycleway=sidepath is proper English, but at least it fits with the tagging scheme of bicycle=use_sidepath. cycleway=sidewalk used only 231 times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=sidewalk (use_)sidepath used many more times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=sidepath#values --- m.v.g., Cartinus On 25-04-15 11:29, Roland Olbricht wrote: Dear all, our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like look for the line on the map. To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach: Keep separation rules as already established: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes: - Sidewalks should carry highway=footway + footway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (already in widespread use) - Bike lanes should carry highway=cycleway + cycleway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (similar problem) Currently, both the suggestion of footway=sidewalk (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard? Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive: - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy. - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with footway/cycleway=sidewalk - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Traduction JOSM
Le samedi 25 avril 2015 00:30:41 Vincent Privat a écrit : Il n'y a donc plus personne en France motivé pour participer à la traduction de JOSM ? :( Salut, Je viens d'en faire quelques uns, mais bon difficile de traduire des messages que je n'ai jamais rencontrés … -- Nicolas Dumoulin http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NicolasDumoulin ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Am 25.04.2015 um 11:57 schrieb Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I'm not sure about only mapping sidewalks that are separated from the road. I agree it has some logic to it, but what about mapping sidewalk width, surface, markings on the ground for the blind, and all those attributes a sidewalk can have? Tagging that on the road makes an even bigger mess of tags. +1, even worse are barriers on the sidewalk, nearly impossible to map them without the sidewalk being mapped cheers Martin___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
Hi, On 04/25/2015 12:33 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. Why do that instead of just adding a single tag to the road? Roland's use case is routing for pedestrians. If a road has a tag indicating this road has a sidewalk but the sidewalk is not mapped separately, then the router will lead the pedestrian onto the road which is ok. If however the sidewalk is - for whatever reason - mapped as a separate highway=footway, then today it will often be un-named, which leads to the routing engine generating instructions like follow un-named footway for 2 miles when instead it should be follow (footway along) Main Street for 2 miles. Roland's point is that it is too complicated for a routing engine to guess that one un-named footway is really part of Main Street and should be announced as such, whereas another un-named footway might really be nameless. His initial suggestion was to simply add the street name to every separately mapped sidewalk. This was criticised because it would likely lead to labeling chaos on the rendering side (with renderers then having to drop footway labeling altogether or implement complex rules like don't label this if there's a roughly parallel street of the same name or so). Roland then amended his suggestion to say that if a sidewalk receives (a copy of) the name of the street then it should also be tagged footway=sidewalk so that renderers could choose to omit only the names of these (and not all footways). Personally I am still doubtful whether the sidewalk next to X Street really has the name X Street but at least the addition of footway=sidewalk would let users decide how to handle it. For example, a geocoder would likely want to omit indexing footway=sidewalk for forward geocoding. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Great Lakes Boundaries
Am 24.04.2015 um 17:23 schrieb AJ Ashton aj.ash...@gmail.com: Yes, if Lake Superior is mapped as natural=coastline (which I think is the easier-to-maintain approach for such a large complex water body) then we should remove natural=water from the multipolygon relation (r4039486). Does anyone have any objection to this? It's causing some noticeable rendering issues both in the standard style and for data consumers. yes, if the coastline tag remains it seems logical to remove the natural=water tag. Semantically the coastline tag on a freshwater lake is clearly wrong, but it seems to be an accepted compromise in this case: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#What_about_lakes.3F cheers Martin ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Rendu BANO: visualisation des adresses de la BAN
Les pseudo numéros en 5xxx 9xxx proviennent de la DGFiP. Ils peuvent être en prénumérotation comme ton exemple de 9012 9014, mais aussi servir à numéroter des propriétés là où il n'y a pas de numéro (cas typique de nombreux hameaux). Les CIDEX c'est postal, et La Poste ne leur attribue par d'adresse à ma connaissance et je ne les ait pas retrouver sur mon patelin de l'Yonne. Le 25/04/2015 12:23, David Crochet a écrit : Bonjour Le 25/04/2015 11:06, Nicolas Dumoulin a écrit : J'ai vu effectivement pas mal de gros numéro, genre 9000, qui semble complètement farfelus à moins de trouver à quoi ils correspondent. Ou de futur CIDEX ? mes autres 2c€ Cordialement -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] Sidewalks
First point is the definition of sidewalk as such they should never be mapped as separate routes but tags for such added to the highway. If there is no direct access from the footway to the carriageway, it is not a sidewalk. Cartinus, cycleway=sidewalk is understandable by me as being a shared use cycleway with the pedestrians along the side of the carriageway - and should be dealt with the addition of tags to the highway and not by adding a new feature. On 25 April 2015 at 15:31, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hello, I have no problem with most of it, but can you please come up with something else in stead of cycleway=sidewalk. This sounds like the cyclists have to cycle on the part of the road reserved for pedestrians or if the cycleway itself has a sidewalk. I don't know if cycleway=sidepath is proper English, but at least it fits with the tagging scheme of bicycle=use_sidepath. cycleway=sidewalk used only 231 times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway=sidewalk (use_)sidepath used many more times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=sidepath#values --- m.v.g., Cartinus On 25-04-15 11:29, Roland Olbricht wrote: Dear all, our current pedestrian routers often don't give street names, but instead only instructions like look for the line on the map. To improve that I would like to encourage mappers to give separately mapped footways their proper name instead of leaving them without name. The suggestion had been widely discussed with the German community. Finally we found the following approach: Keep separation rules as already established: A sidewalk (or bike lane) shall be mapped as a separate way only if a pedestrian cannot cross the car lanes at any point, i.e. there are fences or grass strip between footway and the car lanes. Change the tagging suggestion for separated sidewalks and bike lanes: - Sidewalks should carry highway=footway + footway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (already in widespread use) - Bike lanes should carry highway=cycleway + cycleway=sidewalk + name=Name of the Street (similar problem) Currently, both the suggestion of footway=sidewalk (similar for cycling) and copying the name is not suggested consistenly in the wiki. Are there any objections to clean-up the wiki with that regard? Side effects on other tools are almost uniformly positive: - Having the name multiple times on the various chunks of a street is a standard OSM policy. - Renderers could handle abundant name tags by ignoring names on ways tagged with footway/cycleway=sidewalk - Routing engines actually can improve by having the name of the road - Quality assurance tools would also profit by having more hints for checking Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Fossils stones
Hi Andy I suggest the obvious natural=fossil Rgds brian On 23 April 2015 at 10:47, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: Several buildings in Birmingham (and no doubt elsewhere) have visible fossils in their stonework. I'm interested in tagging these; can anyone suggest how best to do so? Likewise, some have identifiable and unusual types of stonework; we can use material= for that; is anyone already doing so? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
