Re: [talk-au] Road classification in AUS

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 20:55, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I think if you apply sensible defaults where not tagged (track => unpaved,
> other roads => paved, 50 km/hr for residential, lanes=2), then we have
> mapped a lot already, sure there's a lot to go, but we're getting there.
>

The subject of defaults, reminds me of something that I've been going to
bring up for a while now.

There was discussion on the Tagging list back in May
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045149.html
concerning
changes being made to road types in Japan
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Japan_tagging/Road_types.

I don't know how, but these changes are apparently only going to effect
roads in Japan?

Since then, I've been going to bring it up here as to how we can set up
changes / defaults for Oz roads?

As Andrew said ^ - setting highway=residential as a default 50 kph would
immediately set the correct speed limit for probably 90% of Australian
residential streets!

So if it can be done in Japan, how do we do it?

Thanks

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Sérgio V .]

In a paralell thought, we could use more of Sentinel satellite weekly updated 
images 10m resolution in OSM for this kind of land covers.

>Arun Ganesh
>And yes, those glaciers have probably melted away and theres
>no practical way to ground truth them

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk-fr] Projet d'intégration de données opendata dans OSM en Polynésie Française - pour info

[Violaine_Do]

Bonjour à tous,

Le Service de l'Urbanisme de la Polynésie Française (qui a un rôle 
proche de l'IGN en France) souhaite reverser ses données dans OSM.  Ce 
faisant ils souhaitent inciter à la contribution (que je partage 
personnellement sous réserve que la donnée soit de qualité) mais aussi 
apprendre à mieux travailler avec OSM (notamment en réintégrant la 
donnée dans leur base car la PF c'est grand et les déplacements dans les 
îles ne se font pas tous les jours). Et ils pensent qu'en partageant 
leurs données ils assurent une base commune et de qualité (on a encore 
assez peu de données en PF, et des données de précisions topo - je sais 
stéphane dira que tout est relatif #loveprojections).


Je les accompagne dans ce sens avec ma casquette de pro d'OSM. Ainsi ce 
mail pour vous annoncer que je vais travailler sur de l'intégration et 
de l'import des données de la BD CARTO de leur service topographie dans 
OSM (comme conseillé dans les import guidelines). Si le sujet vous 
intéresse et que vous souhaiteriez apporter vos lumières, je suis toute 
œil (ou ouïe si l'occasion se présente :p).


Sinon: on a bien compatibilité au niveau des licences avec 
l'autorisation qui lève les incompatibilités de licences entre CC BY 4.0 
et ODbL [1]. Le projet d'extracteur de données [2] nous intéresse. On a 
aussi en tête l'utilisation d'osmose (casquettes passionnée et 
passionnés d'OSM), on laisse mûrir la réflexion (peut être un travail 
avec les étudiants ici). Et bien sur, l'objet est de ne rien écraser 
mais d'améliorer.. J'ai en tête l'utilisation du plugin conflation de 
JOSM à minima (ça va dépendre de la quantité des données nécessitant 
fusion).


A vous lire,

1: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Sources_de_donn%C3%A9es_potentielles/France#Couverture_des_Outre-Mers


2: https://listes.openstreetmap.fr/wws/arc/association/2019-05/msg00065.html

--
Violaine_Do


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Arun Ganesh]

Well put stevea!
Lets not forget what originally brought many of us here together (at least
from my interactions with many of you in real life), a dream that humans
could create the most accurate representation of the world through open
collaboration.The support of FB massively increases the surface area of the
OSM project to touch more humans through a single window than any other
mediums we can currently imagine.

Most of the world is still under represented in the hobby/craftmapper group
that is the dominant voice of this list and forum. More people from smaller
cities and towns have gotten involved in OSM in India/South Asia from FB
groups than other channels simply because its more easily accessible and
has a greater reach to a largely phone based internet population.

This is an opportunity to figure out a meaningful way to collaborate
constructively, and if its not happening in the way it should be, the
priority is to figure out how to facilitate that conversation in a
productive way. Making this a hobbyist vs corporate battle will just close
the door on a lot of the world which deserves to benefit from this project
and our collective work, and this is a world very different from what is
represented today on this list. How many know that as you read this, over
11 million people (thats the population of Belgium) are displaced in active
floods in India at this moment? FB/Whatsapp are what most people are using
to communicate and coordinate on the ground, they wouldn't care if it was a
corporate pariah or not as long as it works and can be used to help each
other.

If theres any place where volunteers who take pains to survey their
neighborhoods in great detail and make maps should be talking to first
responders in natural disasters and figure out best ways to collaborate
this is the place. Sure, corporates may be driven by profit, but behind
those layers and PR and AI, its still humans who sweat it out and
ultimately trying to build a better world using technology.

Full disclosure that i grew and managed one of the first organized
corporate mapping teams on OSM. You can call me a wonk or a paid agent and
thats fine, it wont stop me from tracing glaciers from satellite imagery in
the Himalayas in my free time and figuring out how it can help more people
on the ground. And yes, those glaciers have probably melted away and theres
no practical way to ground truth them, hopefully no one is annoyed at me
for that.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Sérgio V .]

That's also why I've always emphasized that the link for OSMF-talk email list
SHOULD be accessible for everyone to know it and read it (even if not signed to 
that mail list)
to be aware of what's going inside OSMF talks.
Not some hidden link in one in a thousand of wiki pages (I forgot it again).
It SHOULD be listed in the official LISTINFO, publicly:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
While not, OSMF looks not much transparent for the simple collaborator.

>Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of
>the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the
>OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.
>I am not sure if being a "corporate Gold member" already counts as being in
>collaboration with OSMF (likely not, because "collaboration" means
>"working" (labor) together, not just providing funds)
>Cheers,Martin


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Silent Spike]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Martin Wynne  wrote:

> Sometimes deciding what is and isn't a gate is tricky. Is this a gate?
>

To me that's very clearly a gate 路‍♂️
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-cat] Importació centres docents a Catalunya

[Lanxana .]

Bon dia, gent!

Tot aprofitant que tenim el personal docent fent vacances, he pensat en
començar a preparar la importació dels centres docents que tenim a
Catalunya, a partir del dataset que hi ha a les dades obertes de la
Generalitat.

Per poder fer la importació cal seguir una sèrie de passes i anar prenent
decisions. Per fer-ho més fàcil, transparent i participatiu, ho comento per
aquí. Tota ajuda serà benvinguda, no tan sols a fer la importació en sí,
sinó en la presa de decisions, programació d’script, redactat de
documentació i correus... Per què us feu una idea, el dataset està compost
per gairebé 22.000 files, que no he mirat encara si són a centre per fila o
n’hi ha de repetits, i 60 camps.

Fases de treball (ordre aproximat):

1 - analitzar quins camps de dades hi ha (columnes) al dataset i què
contenen. (FASE FETA, adjunto fitxer).

2 - determinar quins camps són importables i quins no

3 - obrir el dataset i analitzar què hi ha: duplicitat de centres? Com
apareixen els que ofereixen més d’un cicle formatiu? Caldrà afegir
etiquetat nou (edats mínimes i màximes, per exemple)? Hi ha diferenciació
entre privat i concertat? Com indiquem estudis públics amb taxa (escola
idiomes, alguns cicles superiors, escola adults...)? Com han tractat els
ZAR o escoles rurals? Cal afegir algun codi per identificar qui hi forma
part?

4 - definir l’etiquetat tant dels camps importables com el que haguem
definit abans per tractar les diferents casuístiques

5 - crear un script que converteixi el csv o xml origen en el fitxer osm o
csv base per a la importació

6 - determinar com farem la importació (més aviat serà tot coflació de
dades): gestor de tasques per municipi, àrea, quantitat de centres?

7 - documentar tot a la wiki: llicència, estudi dels camps, script per a la
conversió, com es farà la importació... Decidir llengua/llengües de la
wiki: català, castellà i anglès?

8 - escriure a la comunitat espanyola

9 - escriure a imports, afegir la proposta a la wiki corresponent,
gestionar respostes...

10 - importació!

Us convido a que dieu la vostra i comenteu on i com podríeu ajudar, per
muntar un equip de treball i anar organitzant-nos. O què us semblaria
compartir les tasques de preparació amb la llista espanyola per tenir més
mans i opinions abans de fer-la oficial.

Afegeixo una sèrie d’enllaços a diferents pàgines de la wiki on he trobat
informació relativa als centres docents:

Codi ISCED, utilitzat per identificar el grau formatiu:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:isced:level

Etiqueta school amb les etiquetes addicionals proposades:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool

Estudi sobre les etiquetes disponibles per al sector educatiu (la versió en
castellà podria ser un xic diferent a l’anglesa):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_features

Última importació de centres escolars que he trobat, feta a Perú:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Importando_instituciones_educativas_en_Per%C3%BA

Exemple de wiki d’importació, feta a Madrid:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Madrid_Drinking_Water_Import
Salut!


OSM_centres_docents.csv
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet
___
Talk-cat mailing list
Talk-cat@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cat

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[stevea]

Excellent, Christoph.  I'll say that I have been (for decades, sometimes at a 
higher-level) in software (and data) quality assurance (QA) in major software 
companies (Apple, Adobe), some of whom make privacy and ethics important 
components of their way of doing business.  (Obviously, some companies are 
better, some are worse).  QA (departments) are often and precisely the sort of 
"corporate domain" where these ethical and social questions arise (and are 
often dealt with, however successfully).  I offer this knowledge in hopes it 
might steer you to both believe and further your quest that companies do care 
about these things, and that this has been "moderned up" with the application 
of machine learning / AI to big data (like OSM).  If not QA, there should be 
people at the C-level who know of what we speak here and can steer you in the 
right direction:  companies WANT to be known as good citizens who do the right 
things.

Yes, there are certainly profit-motivated behaviors and forces at work here 
(quite strongly, especially in the multibillion-$ major players of Big Tech), 
yet thankfully there are also humans at the helm.  Humans who know that their 
long-term success depends on playing fair, nice, transparently (to some extent, 
though gotta keep the edge sharp by keeping the "secret sauce" proprietary).  
Humans who are accountable.  Seek out these people, these departments, these 
ethical foundations, as if they exist, companies will proudly share them with 
you and can then be held accountable for doing so.  I think we're on the right 
track by doing this.

I don't know that there are any "white papers" that would be an existence proof 
of what I say, but I'm sure if we "pound the table for answers," we'll get at 
least something.  It might be weak sauce, it might have a heavy public 
relations spin on it (initially) but we've got to get the ball rolling by 
bringing such conversations out into the open.  Thank you for your suggestions 
to facilitate this.

SteveA

> On Jul 26, 2019, at 10:30 AM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> I think none of the critics of corporate appropriation and exploitation 
> of OSM here is opposed to rational discussion.  I have had plenty of 
> valuable discussions on use of automated techniques in geodata 
> analysis - both in the OSM context and outside of it.  But in the OSM 
> context these never happened with corporate representatives.  Why? 
> Because corporate culture tends to set extensive taboos around all the 
> ethical and social questions that arise from these subjects when you 
> discuss them in the context of OSM.  
> 
> If anyone could point me to any communication or writing from the 
> corporate domain about use of either automated techniques or 
> organized/paid mapping in OSM that seriously discusses the ethical and 
> social questions that arise from it please do so.
> 
> If and when this happens then we can have a rational discussion.
> 
> -- 
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

[Talk-at] Info: Land Steiermark ist an den OSM-Radrouten interessiert

[Robert Grübler]

Liebe Community,

das Land Steiermark ist an mich herangetreten, eine Overpass-Abfrage der
Radrouten in der Steiermark zu erstellen. Habe ich natürlich gerne gemacht.
Vor allem auch, weil das Land einen sehr offenen Umgang mit den OGD pflegt.
Auf die Lizenz habe ich hingewiesen.

Das Land verfolgt zwei Ziele: (i) Qualitätskontrolle der Landesradwege und
(ii) Versuch die touristischen Routen in der Verkehrsauskunft Radrouting zu
berücksichtigen, indem diese Routen bevorzugt werden sollen.

Liebe Grüße
Robert



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Naveen Francis]

Including my ₹ 0.10 (Indian ten paisa)

Echoes same thoughts of Brazilian Real.

AI-assisted human mapping tools will be a good aid for the OSM community.

"Map faster, Map better".

40,00,000 kms to be mapped in India.
15 years of OSM mapped 18,00,000 kms.

thanks,
naveenpf


On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:42 AM Sérgio V.  wrote:

> Just adding my R$0,02 (Brazilian Real).
> I guess soon the AI assisted Human mapping will happen, it may be a very
> good help.
> But I can't evaluate what's been publicized July 23, 2019 by
>
> https://ai.facebook.com/blog/mapping-roads-through-deep-learning-and-weakly-supervised-training
> "To browse our machine learning road predictions or start mapping with
> RapiD, please visit mapwith.ai."
> So at "Map faster, Map better" https://mapwith.ai/#14/6.13864/6.7698 ,
> I actually can't evaluate any result for roads at max zoom level 14, to
> see if it's really better. I can just believe it can be.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs
> ___
> 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] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 26 July 2019, stevea wrote:
> [...]
> However, does that mean that "nice tech" is tech which SHOULD be
> applied to OSM?  Some (Frederik, others) say no, or perhaps holds his
> nose as he watches it happen anyway.  Others, who might make an
> argument that applied AI tech has similar (economic) incentives to be
> applied to OSM in the same way that companies who rely on OSM (there
> are many) pay mappers to improve OSM's data for their corporate
> interests, have a point.  [...]
> I believe we can discuss this rationally.

I think none of the critics of corporate appropriation and exploitation 
of OSM here is opposed to rational discussion.  I have had plenty of 
valuable discussions on use of automated techniques in geodata 
analysis - both in the OSM context and outside of it.  But in the OSM 
context these never happened with corporate representatives.  Why? 
Because corporate culture tends to set extensive taboos around all the 
ethical and social questions that arise from these subjects when you 
discuss them in the context of OSM.  

If anyone could point me to any communication or writing from the 
corporate domain about use of either automated techniques or 
organized/paid mapping in OSM that seriously discusses the ethical and 
social questions that arise from it please do so.

If and when this happens then we can have a rational discussion.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Martin Wynne]

Sometimes deciding what is and isn't a gate is tricky. Is this a gate?

 http://85a.uk/beware_bull_960x772.jpg

If not, what is it? Should it be mapped at all?

cheers,

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN/Lancashire import

[Chris Hill]

On 26 July 2019 13:35:30 BST, Tony Shield  wrote:
>Following on from SilentSpike's import of NaPTAN/Aberdeen I am planning
>
>to perform a similar import for Lancashire.
>
>I've created a wiki page 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Lancashire which I have
>coped 
>from SilentSpike Aberdeen and changed the areas, also slightly altered 
>the process to use csv files.
>
>I have performed several dry runs, there are approx 8,000 bus stops in 
>Lancashire with about 4400 reported by overpass-turbo.
>
>Importing on a town by town basis is the plan.
>
>Comments please.
>
>Tony Shield
>
>TonyS999
>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

If you find any NaPTAN data that doesn't match the real stops I suggest you 
drop an email to the council transport team. It might help them improve the 
next pass of data. I did that with both Hull and East Yorks when they were 
imported originally about 10 years ago. After some skepticism they did use my 
info.
-- 
Chris Hill
( OSM: chillly)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Galileo, le GPS européen, est en panne depuis plusieurs jours

[deuzeffe]

Et cétélafot au dinateur. Ou à de vilains futurs pirates. On ne sait pas 
trop.


https://twitter.com/EU_GNSS/status/1151794921935970305

On 18/07/2019 22:18, deuzeffe wrote:
Il semble que ça soit retombé en marche : 
https://www.gsc-europa.eu/news/galileo-initial-services-have-now-been-restored 




On 17/07/2019 20:37, Stéphane Péneau wrote:

Le problème se situe au sol, et ça commence à faire long :
https://insidegnss.com/update-galileo-service-degraded-on-all-satellites-precise-timing-facility-problems-cited/ 

https://insidegnss.com/galileo-outage-update-service-failure-poses-serious-questions/ 





Le 16/07/2019 à 06:36, Yves P. a écrit :
Futura-Sciences: Galileo, le GPS européen, est en panne depuis 
plusieurs jours.
https://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/constellation-satellites-galileo-gps-europeen-panne-depuis-plusieurs-jours-76865/ 



___
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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[stevea]

I recall reading an article "The paid mappers are coming!" several years back, 
it seemed to alarm many, though it didn't spell the end of OSM.  Now we have 
"the applied intelligence is here!" doing much the same thing (being poorly 
introduced into the consciousness of our community, tripping alarms that we 
volunteer humans are losing control, etc.).

I took FB's AI tech for a spin and proclaimed it "nice" (after the rather badly 
botched article by the BBC sparked this discussion).  However, does that mean 
that "nice tech" is tech which SHOULD be applied to OSM?  Some (Frederik, 
others) say no, or perhaps holds his nose as he watches it happen anyway.  
Others, who might make an argument that applied AI tech has similar (economic) 
incentives to be applied to OSM in the same way that companies who rely on OSM 
(there are many) pay mappers to improve OSM's data for their corporate 
interests, have a point.  There are Adam Smith ("invisible hand") forces at 
work that will (and do) cause such trends to not only happen in our project, 
but accelerate.  However, consider this very basic tenet of ours:  we have 
every right (as with imports, for example) to insist upon high quality data 
entering OSM.  Should an import, an AI, even an individual contributor enter 
poor quality data, we can, do and should say and do something about that.  OSM 
is "self-healing" in many regards:  it can take time and much back-and-forth, 
but on the whole, our data improve, and become high quality over the 
longer-term.  (Sometimes, it's one step backwards before we take two forwards, 
that does happen).

Rather than take sides (especially if polar opposites, especially as we try to 
avoid ad hominem attacks) I believe we can discuss this rationally.  Whether 
here or elsewhere, AI in OSM, like paid mappers in OSM, are here now and part 
of our future, whether we like it or not.  I believe the best we can do as 
volunteer humans who conscientiously guide our project forward and keep it true 
to its roots and tenets is to MANAGE these trends as best we can.  Some suggest 
that LWG and others determine whether or not FB is true to its agreements, 
that's a start (yes, as mentioned, FB doesn't have a good track record at being 
a good citizen w.r.t. keeping its promises).  Yet it is only a start and much 
more will need doing.

We can differ in opinion, disagree and even dissent (and all are normal in a 
project of millions) but we show how strong a project we are as we urge OSM 
forward with clarity when faced with confusion and decisiveness when faced with 
division.  As difficult as those are to achieve, they are the way forward.

Should "the press" report poorly, let's call them on it.  Should a company 
(whether a corporate sponsor of OSM or not) map poorly, let's call them on it.  
Should anybody applying AI (ditto) map poorly, let's call them on it.  The 
ultimate arbiter should be the quality of our data.  Should we ever give up on 
insisting that our data be as top-quality as humanly (heh) possible, we will 
lose all that is good about OSM.

SteveA
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN/Lancashire import

[Tony Shield]

That's always an issue with imported data, the tag naptan:verified helps 
in this respect.


In the Lancashire dataset there are HAR (Hail and Ride) and  CUS 
(Customary) stops which I think are virtual - there is no mark on the 
ground, these will not be imported, so I think we have the main 
variations covered.


Tony

On 26/07/2019 16:10, Silent Spike wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:08 PM Silent Spike > wrote:


It might be worth mentioning handling for stops present in NaPTAN
which no longer exist.


To clarify, I mean stops marked as active which are no longer 
physically there (implying the NaPTAN record is outdated).


___
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: [Talk-it] Antichi forni per il pane

[Ivo Reano]

Sembra proprio quello che cercavo!
Grazie


Il giorno ven 26 lug 2019 alle ore 16:53 Damjan Gerl  ha
scritto:

> Vedi questo tag che dovrebbe essere appropriato:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbaking_oven
>
> Ciao
> Damjan
>
>
> -- Original Header ---
>
> From  : "Ivo Reano" reano...@gmail.com
> To  : "openstreetmap list - italiano" talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> Cc  :
> Date  : Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:41:12 +0200
> Subject : [Talk-it] Antichi forni per il pane
>
> > Ho due esempi.
> > Uno: una targa evidenzia la presenza di un antico forno per la cottura
> del
> > pane.
> > Due: il forno è ancora usato per la cottura del pane. La legna
> necessaria è
> > raccolta a turno dai paesani, così anche la preparazione del forno.
> > Un tempo il pane si preparava in casa e la cottura veniva fatta in quelli
> > che sono forni a legna di utilizzo comune; in alcuni paese si parla di
> > usanze di decenni fa, in alcune località invece è seguita ancora, in
> > maniera occasionale ma presente!
> >
> > I tag presenti nella wiki parlano solo di panifici/panetterie.
> > Questi invece sono un residuo culturale precedente al consumismo
> > industriale.
> > historic=* andrebbe per quelli non più usati
> > E quelli ancora in funzione?
> > Su quale tag dovrei orientarmi? O ci sono gli estremi per proporne di
> nuovi?
> >
> > Uno: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forno_di_Ciaine.jpg
> > Due: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forno_di_Castagnole.jpg
> >
>
> ___
> 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

[OSM-talk] Proposed new favicons for OSM's subdomains

[Tigerfell]

Dear mappers,

There is currently a ticket [1] in the GitHub repository of the Operations 
Working Group proposing to change the favicons (the little icons displayed next 
to the browser tabs) of multiple subdomains of osm.org (forum, wiki, help, 
...). Please feel free to join in or comment via the list!

Short explanation: It is proposed to choose one mono-coloured icon for all 
subdomains and assign a distinct colour for each subdomain, so the users can 
discriminate between multiple tabs in their browsers, but they would still see 
that they are somehow related to each other. The main webpage openstreetmap.org 
would keep its current icon. 

Cheers,
Tigerfell

[1] https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/248 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN/Lancashire import

[Silent Spike]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:08 PM Silent Spike 
wrote:

> It might be worth mentioning handling for stops present in NaPTAN which no
> longer exist.
>

To clarify, I mean stops marked as active which are no longer physically
there (implying the NaPTAN record is outdated).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN/Lancashire import

[Silent Spike]

No objections from me obviously!

I like that you included handling for records marked as deleted in NaPTAN.
Not something I considered until it was brought up after my import.

It might be worth mentioning handling for stops present in NaPTAN which no
longer exist. I've been following the original import surveying advice (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data)
to remove the bus stop tags and add `physically_present=no` (example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72305337). It makes sense to me to
do this rather than delete the nodes so that if re-imports take place they
can be matched and the stops won't be accidentally re-added if they're
still not updated in NaPTAN.

Along those lines, you may want to update the overpass conflation query to
include such features:

> [out:xml][timeout:25][bbox:{{bbox}}]; (
> node["public_transport"="platform"]; node["highway"="bus_stop"];
> node["naptan:AtcoCode"]; ); (._;>;); out meta;
>

 We could perhaps update much of the wiki pages to reflect that they are
historical from the original import and establish a new page for best
practises dealing with NaPTAN data in OSM.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/07/2019 11:54, Mike N wrote:

On 7/26/2019 4:34 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap


I'm not a corporate wonk, but I'll note that in my region, "Amazon 
Logistics" is effectively solving the Last Mile Mapping problem: how 
to include driveways into routing.

...


  [ I'm well aware that the Amazon mappers are not perfect and have 
made newbie errors in other regions ]


That's an excellent comparison to make.  One key difference is that 
Amazon's mappers have been very reactive when it was made clear to them 
that the way that they were mapping things with (in the UK) incorrect 
access tags, and have since tried to ensure that they're doing it right 
(see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jguthula/diary/390322 ).  
There will still be issues - Amazon's mappers are working with GPS 
traces and imagery, but no local knowledge, so they will get things 
wrong, but if everyone works together the combination of local mappers' 
local knowledge and Amazon's mappers' willingness to spend hours adding 
otherwise boring service roads and farm tracks should be to everyone's 
benefit.


This is in stark contrast to Facebook's approach.  Again and again 
they've been told what their licence of OSM data requires them to do, 
and again and again they have not done it.  Again and again they were 
told that their mapping was garbage, and while they have improved the 
data quality of later additions (in Thailand) they have done nothing to 
clean up the existing mess - it was left for the community and/or the 
DWG to tidy up.


Unless you've been living under a rock, you'll be aware of Facebook's 
other corporate actions over the last year or so and the reputational 
damage that it has caused them (see e.g. 
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-imposes-5-billion-penalty-sweeping-new-privacy-restrictions 
).  That doesn't mean that individual people working for Facebook can't 
be nice people and some of the tools they create can't be useful, but it 
does mean that OSM needs to be careful that it's reputation isn't 
tarnished by being associated with a corporate pariah* such as Facebook.


A statement from the board (or the LWG, if the LWG is looking at it 
rather than the board) about the issues raised here by Nuno over the 
last few months would be a start - either "we believe that Facebook's 
OSM data usage is in compliance with the licence" or "we believe it 
isn't and are trying to change it".  The OSMF has made a decision to 
have Facebook as one of 6 gold corporate members listed at 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Corporate_Members , so without any 
clarification an outside observer would think that the OSMF fully 
supports Facebook both in terms of data use and their "contributions" in 
e.g. Egypt and Thailand, and approves of the use of OSM's brand to 
bolster Facebook's excremental reputation.


Best Regards,

Andy

(writing, as is usual on this list, in an entirely personal capacity)

* far from the only example, of course, and even some organisations set 
up "purely to do good" have struggled with reputational management 
recently - see e.g. 
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jun/11/oxfam-abuse-claims-haiti-charity-commission-report 
.




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

Re: [Talk-it] Antichi forni per il pane

[Damjan Gerl]

Vedi questo tag che dovrebbe essere appropriato:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbaking_oven

Ciao
Damjan


-- Original Header ---

From  : "Ivo Reano" reano...@gmail.com
To  : "openstreetmap list - italiano" talk-it@openstreetmap.org
Cc  : 
Date  : Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:41:12 +0200
Subject : [Talk-it] Antichi forni per il pane

> Ho due esempi.
> Uno: una targa evidenzia la presenza di un antico forno per la cottura del
> pane.
> Due: il forno è ancora usato per la cottura del pane. La legna necessaria è
> raccolta a turno dai paesani, così anche la preparazione del forno.
> Un tempo il pane si preparava in casa e la cottura veniva fatta in quelli
> che sono forni a legna di utilizzo comune; in alcuni paese si parla di
> usanze di decenni fa, in alcune località invece è seguita ancora, in
> maniera occasionale ma presente!
> 
> I tag presenti nella wiki parlano solo di panifici/panetterie.
> Questi invece sono un residuo culturale precedente al consumismo
> industriale.
> historic=* andrebbe per quelli non più usati
> E quelli ancora in funzione?
> Su quale tag dovrei orientarmi? O ci sono gli estremi per proporne di nuovi?
> 
> Uno: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forno_di_Ciaine.jpg
> Due: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forno_di_Castagnole.jpg
> 

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

[Talk-it] Antichi forni per il pane

[Ivo Reano]

Ho due esempi.
Uno: una targa evidenzia la presenza di un antico forno per la cottura del
pane.
Due: il forno è ancora usato per la cottura del pane. La legna necessaria è
raccolta a turno dai paesani, così anche la preparazione del forno.
Un tempo il pane si preparava in casa e la cottura veniva fatta in quelli
che sono forni a legna di utilizzo comune; in alcuni paese si parla di
usanze di decenni fa, in alcune località invece è seguita ancora, in
maniera occasionale ma presente!

I tag presenti nella wiki parlano solo di panifici/panetterie.
Questi invece sono un residuo culturale precedente al consumismo
industriale.
historic=* andrebbe per quelli non più usati
E quelli ancora in funzione?
Su quale tag dovrei orientarmi? O ci sono gli estremi per proporne di nuovi?

Uno: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forno_di_Ciaine.jpg
Due: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forno_di_Castagnole.jpg
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-07-26 15:47, Andy Townsend wrote:

> On 26/07/2019 13:28, David Woolley wrote: On 26/07/2019 12:57, Stephen 
> Colebourne wrote: unless there is an explicit "private" sign 
> There is no legal need for "private" signs.  The default assumption should be 
> that everything is private

... in England and Wales. 

...unless it's "Access Land". 

https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-us] Great Lakes Circle (Tours, bicycle) GIS-folk?

[Max Erickson]

I live in Michigan and regularly drive US 2 in the Upper Peninsula.
The Lake Michigan route isn't signed in any sort of meaningful way.

Max

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Frederik Ramm]

Mikel,

On 26.07.19 11:49, Mikel Maron wrote:
> I for one would not say anything if I did not personally believe it. I
> am not here representing corporate interests (at this very moment I'm
> writing this from the middle of Nairobi's largest slum working on OSM,
> rather than a comfortable room in Europe). You can still draw whatever
> conclusions about me you like.

But you are a rare exception. You were "in OSM" long before it was
economically fashionable. And I guess that if you were to quit your job
tomorrow and go herding sheep in New Zealand, you would still be doing
something with OSM.

When Christoph and I speak of corporate appropriation, we think of
organisations encroaching OSM without any interest other than their own
commercial goals. We think of people who do this *purely* as a job and
who will immediately quit if their employer tasks them with something else.

OSM, by itself, does not need anyone to "turbocharge mapping". This is
purely a concept driven by the commercial motives of Facebook et al; OSM
didn't scale up quickly enough for them because OSM valued first-hand
contributions from hobbyists on the ground. And you know how global
capitalism works these days - it depends on exploiting people in one
part of the world to produce stuff for people elsewhere. Almost every
rule-violating import or mass edit these days is done by low-paid,
exploited workers somewhere in Asia or South America on behalf of US
American companies. And now Facebook gives us another tool whereby
someone with money in country A can pay a poor person in country B a few
peanuts to add a couple thousand roads in country C because that's where
they want to develop new business or whatever.

One thing that Karl Marx was banging on about with regards to Capitalism
was the concept of "alienation". I don't agree with many of his ideas
but I do kind of buy this idea, that people are disenfranchised by
capitalism driving a wedge between the worker and their product. Where
we used to have craftspeople who made a thing and sold it, we now had
people who just add a little thing to something on a conveyour belt and
never get to see the final product.

This is what happens with this "turbocharged" mapping. We used to have
mappers survey and add something, and be the author of it. Facebook and
Co are edging us towards a situation where most of the map will be made
by exploited micro-taskers with the help of AI. Nobody will have the
pride of ownership any more; people will be alienated from the map.

I really struggle to see anything good in this whole project, even if it
didn't come from Facebook and even if it weren't crassly over-sold to
the press. I think that we are allowing corporate interests to take over
the soul of OpenStreetMap, wring it dry, and spit it out in a couple of
years when they find something else to play with.

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-au] Copying address from business website?

[Sebastian S.]

Hi Kim,
If you have added the website tag I must have missed it, too many tabs.
I did not mean to come across condescending. I'm sorry.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

On 26 July 2019 9:51:19 am AEST, Kim Oldfield  
wrote:
>Hi Sebastian,
>
>The source website was in the tag I added: 
>website=http://www.maroondahleisure.com.au/venues/maroondah-nets/
>
>My understanding of how to use source is as a generic description of 
>where the information came from, rather than an exact reference. For 
>example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source lists 
>source="aerial imagery" as commonly used, while I would have expected
>it 
>to be depreciated with preference to the name of the aerial imagery 
>used, eg source=bing.
>
>
>On 26/7/19 9:02 am, Sebastian Spiess wrote:
>> Hi, I find it odd that you state source:website but don't proved the 
>> website in the website tag. Why not?
>>
>> PS: I see the website of the business as the virtual front and 
>> consider the information public as any sign etc on the actual shop.
>So 
>> Yes I do this also all the time. (Individual POIs, not mass import)
>>
>> Am 2019-07-22 15:47, schrieb Kim Oldfield:
>>> Graeme: It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who has done
>this.
>>> This particular change caused me to reconsider how appropriate it is
>>> as it was all sourced from the website so I used source=website
>which,
>>> when viewed superficially, appears to contradict guidelines for
>where
>>> to source map data.
>>>
>>> Andrew: It is nice to know that this is generally considered OK for
>>> individual facts.
>>>
>>> Adrian: As part of manually adding these facts I check that the
>>> address I'm adding is for this physical location, ie at least the
>>> street adjoins the business being tagged.
>>>
>>> On 22/7/19 3:28 pm, Adrian Hobbs wrote:
 Might be issues where contact address (e.g. head office) being 
 copied is different to physical location on map.
 Adrian Hobbs

 ⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

 On 22 Jul. 2019, 15:21, at 15:21, Andrew Harvey 
  wrote:
> This has come up a few times on the mailing lists, and the advise
> usually
> given is it's okay to source a few facts here and there like the
> address or
> contact number, but just don't start taking a whole database of
>venues
> and
> copy that database.
>
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 13:06, Kim Oldfield
>
> wrote:
>
>> Is it acceptable to copy a street address (and other contact
>details)
>> from a business's webpage?
>>
>> For example in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72452124
>(what
>> changed is easier to see at
>> https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/705884944 ) I
>added
> the
>> street address as listed on their website.
>>
>> If this isn't acceptable, what is an acceptable way of getting an
>> address if it is not obvious during a site survey?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kim
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/07/2019 13:28, David Woolley wrote:

On 26/07/2019 12:57, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

unless there is an explicit "private" sign


There is no legal need for "private" signs.  The default assumption 
should be that everything is private


... in England and Wales.  Scotland is somewhat more enlightened about 
things:


https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/act-and-access-code

Best Regards,

Andy



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

[OSM-ja] 8/24 京都！街歩き！マッピングパーティ：第11回 出雲大神宮

[yasunari yamashita]

山下です。皆さんこんにちわ。

京都を街歩きして、楽しみながら 自由な地図である OpenStreetMap を創り上げていくマッピングパーティ！
第11回は、8/24 に丹波國一之宮 出雲大神宮（亀岡市）。

イベント詳細と参加申し込みは connpass にて
https://openstreetmap-kyoto.connpass.com/event/140356/

皆様の参加をお待ちしています！！
-- 
山下康成＠京都府向日市
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Silent Spike]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 1:15 PM Martin Wynne  wrote:

> The tag is *barrier*=gate.
>
> A permanently open gate isn't a barrier, so I don't think it should be
> tagged as such. At least not across a way.
>

It's a common mistake to interpret keys to match their corresponding word
definitions. The gate exists and physically could be closed, therefore
should be mapped as a normal gate.

I've encountered one situation like this in the past which I decided to tag
as `permissive` at the time (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1823375898).
My logic is that (while this is a privately owned gate) the owner of the
gate has decided to leave it open for traffic to pass through the gate,
therefore access through the gate is permissive, but could be taken away
(therefore it would be false to tag it in a way that suggests access will
always be available). Note that I also tagged vehicle access as private,
because this is a gate which always seems to be half closed - but access
could physically be granted for vehicles if needed.

I think the key is to tag the gate's access separate from the way's access
(as Stephen suggests) because they are different things.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[David Woolley]

On 26/07/2019 12:57, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

unless there is an explicit "private" sign


There is no legal need for "private" signs.  The default assumption 
should be that everything is private (even though the OSM default is 
mainly the opposite).


In my part of the country, garden front walls are an endangered species; 
that doesn't mean that the the front yard is public parking space.


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

[Talk-GB] NaPTAN/Lancashire import

[Tony Shield]

Following on from SilentSpike's import of NaPTAN/Aberdeen I am planning 
to perform a similar import for Lancashire.


I've created a wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Lancashire which I have coped 
from SilentSpike Aberdeen and changed the areas, also slightly altered 
the process to use csv files.


I have performed several dry runs, there are approx 8,000 bus stops in 
Lancashire with about 4400 reported by overpass-turbo.


Importing on a town by town basis is the plan.

Comments please.

Tony Shield

TonyS999


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Dan S]

Op vr 26 jul. 2019 om 13:15 schreef Martin Wynne :
>
> The tag is *barrier*=gate.
>
> A permanently open gate isn't a barrier, so I don't think it should be
> tagged as such. At least not across a way.

In OSM tagging, the definition isn't strongly tied to the literal
English meaning, but rather to how it's used and interpreted. Any
object that is tagged with "access=yes" and "barrier=*" could be said
to be "not a barrier" since access would seem to be permitted for
everyone. But we still use the barrier tag.

I'd also suggest that a "permanently open gate" is still a gate that
someone might close in future (e.g. if they change their access
policy). Also, there's usually a gate-post on each side of the way,
not just one side.

So yes, I tag permanently-open gates on the way itself.

Cheers
Dan

> You could add a separate node to one side of the way, and tag that as a
> gate.
>
> A gate which is often open, but sometimes closed, is just an ordinary
> gate. Many farm gates are like that. Potatoes this year = leave the gate
> open. They are not likely to escape, and it saves getting down off the
> tractor. Sheep this year = keep the gate closed.
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> 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: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Martin Wynne]

The tag is *barrier*=gate.

A permanently open gate isn't a barrier, so I don't think it should be 
tagged as such. At least not across a way.


You could add a separate node to one side of the way, and tag that as a 
gate.


A gate which is often open, but sometimes closed, is just an ordinary 
gate. Many farm gates are like that. Potatoes this year = leave the gate 
open. They are not likely to escape, and it saves getting down off the 
tractor. Sheep this year = keep the gate closed.


cheers,

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Stephen Colebourne]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 11:59, Colin Smale  wrote:
> On 2019-07-26 12:26, Gareth L wrote:
> This was discussed on the wiki 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate with the 
> suggestion of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 years ago?!) 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html

Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, there was no resolution to the
discussion AFAICT.

> Access=* denotes the legal position, not the presence or absence of physical 
> obstacles. Access=permissive is just as wrong as access=private as a proxy 
> for gate=normally_open etc. Don't tag incorrectly for the renderer (or 
> router!)

I get that might be the official rule, but in many cases you can't
determine the *legal* position without being a lawyer and doing lots
of research. When doing ground surveys like I am, all I can say is
"can I go here", unless there is an explicit "private" sign. I
strongly suspect that most mappers use the access tag to mean "can I
go here" to some degree. I'd also suggest that it is much more
interesting to users of the data than the legal status.

I'd prefer to see a legal_access tag for those cases where the legal
position is clear (public footpath or "private" sign), with the access
tag treated as the more practical "can I go here". WIth that approach,
access=permissive vs access=private would cover open gates vs ones
where you have to buzz to go in. It would also cover an open
pedestrian gate alongside a closed vehicle gate without the need for a
second pedestrian-only highway/gate. I see legal_access as a little
like the designation=public_footpath tag, useful when you really know
the legal status. eg something like:

- legal_access=private, access=private: privately owned, can't get in,
eg gated/locked
- legal_access=private, access=permissive: privately owned but nothing
stops you going in (refined by foot/bicycle etc)
- access=yes: you can freely access it
- legal_access=public, access=yes: can freely access it and legally
public, eg public footpath or park

The previous thread suggested:
- status=open
- status=unlocked (to mean closed but unlocked)
- staus= locked
which isn't terrible, although it would need agreement to make it
worth tagging. (I don't personally buy into Warin's need to document a
locked open gate, but if it was needed, the status scheme would be
insufficient.)

Otherwise, I guess opening_hours is a possibility, but doesn't feel quite right.

Stephen

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Warin]

On 26/07/19 21:06, Colin Smale wrote:


I guess what we are trying to get out of this, is:

a) as a router, can i feel free to route "Joe Public" through here?


If the gate is open - yes.
If the gate is closed and unlocked - yes.
If the gate is closed and locked - no.

I would expect an access tag would be used if 'Joe' were not allowed or 
inhibited is some way e.g opening_hours, max_height.


b) as a router, how much time penalty should i factor in for passing 
this gate?




Depends. In Australia the gate would be an extension of a fence line. 
Fence lines are where animals tend to run at speed and collide with 
vehicles.
Even if open I tend to slow, if there is plant cover obscuring the 
view10 mph or less, even then I have had a roo collide with the side of 
my vehicle. I stopped, it took off and failed to render details... hit 
and run.


If closed and fastened I have spent a good 10 minutes figuring out how 
to open then close the thing! Most are a minute, but ..
The more difficult one can be seen as an intelligence test, if you pass 
the test you can enter :)



Anything else?


Good luck.



On 2019-07-26 12:58, Warin wrote:


To bring a little international perspective to this.

In outback Australia the convention is "leave the gate as you found 
it". Unfortunately there are some who don't.
To cope with this problem some gates are hung so that they close 
under gravity.
To keep these open the farmer locks the gate open. Few people stop 
and try to close the gate, and are defeated by the lock anyway.


So indicating that a gate is locked .. says little as to if it is 
open or closed to me.


I think the 2 conditions need to be separated and not assumed;

locked = yes/no

closed = yes/no
Not certain how to handle automatic - I think they are mostly 
automatically closing only, some do both closing and opening and 
there is the possibility of automatically opening only. Err some may 
have automatic lock features too...


In addition some gates are fastened, but can be manually opened if 
you figure out the mechanism (some are quite inventive!). A problem I 
have found is on re-fastening these inventive mechanisms .. can take 
some time to remember it or reinvent it. Perhaps these should be 
called 'locked' and the above 'key_locked'???


On 26/07/19 20:26, Gareth L wrote:


This was discussed on the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate 
 with 
the suggestion of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 
years ago?!) 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html 



Tagging things as access=private does impact routing a lot, so I'd 
evaluate that use carefully.


Gareth


*From:* Andy Robinson 
*Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 10:55:37 AM
*To:* 'Stephen Colebourne' ; 'talk-gb OSM 
List' 

*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
If a gate opens automatically I would say it's an access=yes 
regardless of how the way is tagged.


Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebou...@joda.org]
Sent: 26 July 2019 10:47
To: talk-gb OSM List
Subject: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:

- those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
- those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
rarely if ever closed)

Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I
can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect.
One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with
the highway still access=private).

Any suggestions?

Stephen
PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open




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

Re: [Talk-it] Tempesta VAIA

[scratera]

..sul discorso il sentiero esiste ancora non è stato cancellato nel caso
della tempesta è abbastanza discutibile...lo sapremo tra qualche anno quando
e se verranno tolti gli ostacoli...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/45.89090/11.13388
...in questo caso proprio tutto il sentiero risulta inagibile e coperto da
legname di varie dimensioni 
...per le squadre di manutenzione sanno già in partenza dove vanno a
lavorare e non è certo per ripristinare il sentiero ma per liberare tutta
l'area dal legname...che poi di li ci passi un sentiero è un altro paio di
maniche...ora come ora le sterrate sono le uniche riaperte sopratutto per
permettere l'acceso dei mezzi e avere delle vie per eventuali soccorsi
mentre moltissimi sentieri cai o non cai, non ha importanza di chi sono.
sono inagibili 



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Colin Smale]

I guess what we are trying to get out of this, is: 

a) as a router, can i feel free to route "Joe Public" through here? 

b) as a router, how much time penalty should i factor in for passing
this gate? 

Anything else?

On 2019-07-26 12:58, Warin wrote:

> To bring a little international perspective to this.
> 
> In outback Australia the convention is "leave the gate as you found it". 
> Unfortunately there are some who don't.
> To cope with this problem some gates are hung so that they close under 
> gravity. 
> To keep these open the farmer locks the gate open. Few people stop and try to 
> close the gate, and are defeated by the lock anyway. 
> 
> So indicating that a gate is locked .. says little as to if it is open or 
> closed to me. 
> 
> I think the 2 conditions need to be separated and not assumed;
> 
> locked = yes/no
> 
> closed = yes/no 
> Not certain how to handle automatic - I think they are mostly automatically 
> closing only, some do both closing and opening and there is the possibility 
> of automatically opening only. Err some may have automatic lock features 
> too... 
> 
> In addition some gates are fastened, but can be manually opened if you figure 
> out the mechanism (some are quite inventive!). A problem I have found is on 
> re-fastening these inventive mechanisms .. can take some time to remember it 
> or reinvent it. Perhaps these should be called 'locked' and the above 
> 'key_locked'??? 
> 
> On 26/07/19 20:26, Gareth L wrote: 
> 
>> This was discussed on the wiki 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate [1] with the 
>> suggestion of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 years ago?!) 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html [2] 
>> 
>> Tagging things as access=private does impact routing a lot, so I'd evaluate 
>> that use carefully. 
>> 
>> Gareth 
>> 
>> -
>> 
>> FROM: Andy Robinson 
>> SENT: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:55:37 AM
>> TO: 'Stephen Colebourne' ; 'talk-gb OSM List' 
>> 
>> SUBJECT: Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default 
>> 
>> If a gate opens automatically I would say it's an access=yes regardless of 
>> how the way is tagged.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Andy
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebou...@joda.org] 
>> Sent: 26 July 2019 10:47
>> To: talk-gb OSM List
>> Subject: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
>> 
>> I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:
>> 
>> - those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
>> - those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
>> rarely if ever closed)
>> 
>> Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I
>> can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect.
>> One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with
>> the highway still access=private).
>> 
>> Any suggestions?
>> 
>> Stephen
>> PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open
>> 
>> ___
>> 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
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 

Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate
[2]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-07-26 12:26, Gareth L wrote:

> This was discussed on the wiki 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate [1] with the 
> suggestion of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 years ago?!) 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html [2] 
> 
> Tagging things as access=private does impact routing a lot, so I'd evaluate 
> that use carefully.

Access=* denotes the legal position, not the presence or absence of
physical obstacles. Access=permissive is just as wrong as access=private
as a proxy for gate=normally_open etc. Don't tag incorrectly for the
renderer (or router!) 

The state of openness can vary more widely: when it is shut, it may or
may not be locked (perhaps you can open it yourself if required) and may
consist of multiple gates with different rules - like one half open to
allow you to leave the premises, but the other half shut; or the big
gate shut to keep vehicles, and a small gate open for pedestrians. In
these cases mapping a single gate is not going to allow the fine-grained
information to be added easily. 

  

Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate
[2]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Warin]

To bring a little international perspective to this.

In outback Australia the convention is "leave the gate as you found it". 
Unfortunately there are some who don't.
To cope with this problem some gates are hung so that they close under 
gravity.
To keep these open the farmer locks the gate open. Few people stop and 
try to close the gate, and are defeated by the lock anyway.


So indicating that a gate is locked .. says little as to if it is open 
or closed to me.


I think the 2 conditions need to be separated and not assumed;

locked = yes/no

closed = yes/no
Not certain how to handle automatic - I think they are mostly 
automatically closing only, some do both closing and opening and there 
is the possibility of automatically opening only. Err some may have 
automatic lock features too...


In addition some gates are fastened, but can be manually opened if you 
figure out the mechanism (some are quite inventive!). A problem I have 
found is on re-fastening these inventive mechanisms .. can take some 
time to remember it or reinvent it. Perhaps these should be called 
'locked' and the above 'key_locked'???


On 26/07/19 20:26, Gareth L wrote:


This was discussed on the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate with the 
suggestion of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 years 
ago?!) 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html


Tagging things as access=private does impact routing a lot, so I’d 
evaluate that use carefully.


Gareth


*From:* Andy Robinson 
*Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 10:55:37 AM
*To:* 'Stephen Colebourne' ; 'talk-gb OSM List' 


*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
If a gate opens automatically I would say it's an access=yes 
regardless of how the way is tagged.


Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebou...@joda.org]
Sent: 26 July 2019 10:47
To: talk-gb OSM List
Subject: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:

- those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
- those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
rarely if ever closed)

Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I
can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect.
One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with
the highway still access=private).

Any suggestions?

Stephen
PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open

___
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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mike N]

On 7/26/2019 4:34 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap


I'm not a corporate wonk, but I'll note that in my region, "Amazon 
Logistics" is effectively solving the Last Mile Mapping problem: how to 
include driveways into routing.Based on ground truth, they're 
including travel barriers, as well as other routes hidden under tree 
cover.   There's no official data on driveways and it is impractical if 
not dangerous to randomly walk or drive up private driveways to map them.


  Eventually, I'll be able to propose the use of an OSM app to local 
Emergency Services who just recently noted that their response time 
suffers as they attempt to find the proper driveway to enter, as well as 
navigate the correct split driveway.


  [ I'm well aware that the Amazon mappers are not perfect and have 
made newbie errors in other regions ]


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

Re: [talk-au] Road classification in AUS

[Andrew Harvey]

 > I'm not sure why other users are not using attributes/tags like lanes,
surface, smoothness, maxspeed, toll and other attributes which would be of
great help to figure out what is the capacity of the road.

Do you mean OSM mappers, or downstream consumers of OSM data?

A lot of mappers are adding lane count, toll, and maxspeed. I think if you
apply sensible defaults where not tagged (track => unpaved, other roads =>
paved, 50 km/hr for residential, lanes=2), then we have mapped a lot
already, sure there's a lot to go, but we're getting there.

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 18:13, Aleksandar Matejevic (E-Search) via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Like Warin mentioned, you have government data which indicates roads
> priority. For NSW that is LPI NSW Basemap, for other territories shp of
> routes. It is not a deal breaker, but it would be nice to unify the data.
> Warin example for tertiary roads is just one of them but great one, because
> if you have two parallel streets, mapper can decide which one road is more
> important than another just because he/she is using it more frequently.
> This does not mean that it is of greater importance. Government is the one
> making the roads so they plan flow of traffic to be as best/fast/safe as it
> can. Therefore, road classification is important.
>
> If you plan to go from point A to point B almost always you want to travel
> for less time. So, combination of road class, speed limit, road surface,
> turn restrictions... is very important in this case. This will make other
> users life easier. I'm not sure why other users are not using
> attributes/tags like lanes, surface, smoothness, maxspeed, toll and other
> attributes which would be of great help to figure out what is the capacity
> of the road.
>
> Yes, of course that I have checked guidelines, like for example 4wd only
> which is AU specific, etc. but still there is no unique opinion and
> guideline for this problem. It is up to the eye/opinion of mapper to set
> right class. Two-three mappers can have different opinions, but if you have
> 1000 opinions you make most frequent the right one. This is why I asked for
> more opinions and because you guys helped me to clear this one up, I will
> revert motorway to trunk.
>
> Still lot of questions remain, and I would like to keep this discussion
> open so we can make unique decisions.  Government data is not "The Holly
> Bible" but it sure is a great indicator of road importance.
>
> I really appreciate that you all dig into this one. Thank you very much!
>
>
> ___
> 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] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

>"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salarydepends 
>upon his not understanding it." 
Ok it's a pithy quote. Is it possible that however well written, this quote may 
not always be right? that it's difficult but not impossible to get a man or 
woman to understand something, despite their position? and that my salary does 
not depend on me avoiding thinking freely about this project?
Seeing that none of you arguing with me in this thread know me personally, I 
think it's extremely presumptuous that you think you understand me.
> I think it's unfair to accuse Christoph of being uninformed.
Is it unfair that Christoph accuses me of being in a cult?
I did not accuse Christoph of being uninformed. But the general argument here 
certainly is -- about the capability of people involved in OSM in a corporate 
way having no ability to think in another frame; or that even the corporate 
frame can not encompass other viewpoints, only profit.
-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, July 26, 2019, 01:18:11 PM GMT+3, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:  
 
 The most well-know version is from Upton Sinclair's campaign to become
governor of California in the 1930's:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair - See
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/

Upton Sinclair is most famous for writing "The Jungle" as a young man.

> "enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed lines"

I think it's unfair to accuse Christoph of being uninformed. From what
I've read over the past year, he appears to be one of the few
individuals who are informed about the goings-on between the OSMF
board and corporations, who is not actually a member of either body.

On 7/26/19, Mikel Maron  wrote:
>
> From Christoph...
>> The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community
>> has meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult .. But i have strong
>> doubts meanwhile that arguing with people who are  fully immersed into the
>> belief system of corporate PR regarding OSM is  of benefit in most cases.
> Well this is pretty much a statement to end the conversation, isn't it? I
> could say the same "cult" about the knee jerk reaction of the self appointed
> representatives of the "hobby mapper". It does lead me to the same
> conclusion, almost -- which is that there is no point discussing these
> topics with you people here. But where would that get us?
> I for one would not say anything if I did not personally believe it. I am
> not here representing corporate interests (at this very moment I'm writing
> this from the middle of Nairobi's largest slum working on OSM, rather than a
> comfortable room in Europe). You can still draw whatever conclusions about
> me you like.
> For me, enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed
> lines.
> From Martin...> Fakeboosts
> good one :)
>> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of
>> the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the
>> OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.
> Well that very well might be true about perception. But Facebook did not say
> that OSMF was supporting the project. They representing correctly. We all
> here get the difference and understand that HOT is a different organization.
> Making this distinction is not Facebook's problem, but rather HOT and OSMF
> should do a better job explaining the complexity of the whole universe of
> OSM.
> -Mikel
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>    On Friday, July 26, 2019, 12:17:38 PM GMT+3, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>
>  @mikel in Fakeboosts own blog post there is still the misrepresentation of
> the role OSM plays in this project, due to HOT appearing to be an official
> OSM body (by the mere utilization of the OpenStreetMap trademark in their
> company name):
>
>
> “The RapiD tool was developed in conjunction with those in the mapping
> community who have been working in this area for many years. Because this
> tool was built with their input, it is already having an impact,” says Tyler
> Radford, the executive director of the Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT), which
> aims to make sure OSM represents all parts of the world."
>
>
> and
>
>
> The Map With AI team is collaborating with HOT to add more features to
> RapiD. For one step in that process, they’ve integrated RapiD into a
> development branch of HOT Tasking Manager,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of
> the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the
> OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.
>
> I am not sure if being a "corporate Gold member" already counts as being in
> collaboration with OSMF (likely not, because "collaboration" means "working"
> (labor) together, not just providing funds)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> 

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 26 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> The most well-know version is from Upton Sinclair's campaign to
> become governor of California in the 1930's:
>
> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
> depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair - See
> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/
>
> Upton Sinclair is most famous for writing "The Jungle" as a young
> man.

Ah, thanks - that is indeed the likely origin.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Gareth L]

This was discussed on the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate with the suggestion 
of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 years ago?!) 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html



Tagging things as access=private does impact routing a lot, so I’d evaluate 
that use carefully.



Gareth




From: Andy Robinson 
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:55:37 AM
To: 'Stephen Colebourne' ; 'talk-gb OSM List' 

Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

If a gate opens automatically I would say it's an access=yes regardless of how 
the way is tagged.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebou...@joda.org]
Sent: 26 July 2019 10:47
To: talk-gb OSM List
Subject: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:

- those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
- those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
rarely if ever closed)

Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I
can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect.
One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with
the highway still access=private).

Any suggestions?

Stephen
PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open

___
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] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The most well-know version is from Upton Sinclair's campaign to become
governor of California in the 1930's:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair - See
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/

Upton Sinclair is most famous for writing "The Jungle" as a young man.

> "enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed lines"

I think it's unfair to accuse Christoph of being uninformed. From what
I've read over the past year, he appears to be one of the few
individuals who are informed about the goings-on between the OSMF
board and corporations, who is not actually a member of either body.

On 7/26/19, Mikel Maron  wrote:
>
> From Christoph...
>> The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community
>> has meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult .. But i have strong
>> doubts meanwhile that arguing with people who are  fully immersed into the
>> belief system of corporate PR regarding OSM is  of benefit in most cases.
> Well this is pretty much a statement to end the conversation, isn't it? I
> could say the same "cult" about the knee jerk reaction of the self appointed
> representatives of the "hobby mapper". It does lead me to the same
> conclusion, almost -- which is that there is no point discussing these
> topics with you people here. But where would that get us?
> I for one would not say anything if I did not personally believe it. I am
> not here representing corporate interests (at this very moment I'm writing
> this from the middle of Nairobi's largest slum working on OSM, rather than a
> comfortable room in Europe). You can still draw whatever conclusions about
> me you like.
> For me, enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed
> lines.
> From Martin...> Fakeboosts
> good one :)
>> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of
>> the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the
>> OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.
> Well that very well might be true about perception. But Facebook did not say
> that OSMF was supporting the project. They representing correctly. We all
> here get the difference and understand that HOT is a different organization.
> Making this distinction is not Facebook's problem, but rather HOT and OSMF
> should do a better job explaining the complexity of the whole universe of
> OSM.
> -Mikel
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
> On Friday, July 26, 2019, 12:17:38 PM GMT+3, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>
>  @mikel in Fakeboosts own blog post there is still the misrepresentation of
> the role OSM plays in this project, due to HOT appearing to be an official
> OSM body (by the mere utilization of the OpenStreetMap trademark in their
> company name):
>
>
> “The RapiD tool was developed in conjunction with those in the mapping
> community who have been working in this area for many years. Because this
> tool was built with their input, it is already having an impact,” says Tyler
> Radford, the executive director of the Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT), which
> aims to make sure OSM represents all parts of the world."
>
>
> and
>
>
> The Map With AI team is collaborating with HOT to add more features to
> RapiD. For one step in that process, they’ve integrated RapiD into a
> development branch of HOT Tasking Manager,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of
> the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the
> OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.
>
> I am not sure if being a "corporate Gold member" already counts as being in
> collaboration with OSMF (likely not, because "collaboration" means "working"
> (labor) together, not just providing funds)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Nuno Caldeira]

> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings 
of the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part 
of the OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.


Well that very well might be true about perception. But Facebook did 
not say that OSMF was supporting the project. They representing 
correctly. We all here get the difference and understand that HOT is a 
different organization. Making this distinction is not Facebook's 
problem, but rather HOT and OSMF should do a better job explaining the 
complexity of the whole universe of OSM.


I'm sure Facebook are not aware of it, like they are not Corporate 
members of OSMF. If they can't simple understand and comply with the 
attribution, it's sure a third party duty to elucidate outsiders of the 
OSM the differences between those two.


Also about the attribution, some of their maps (not all, some still do 
not have attribution) since yesterday are displaying this attribution 
after clicking on the "i" https://i.ibb.co/mvxRgg4/facebook.jpg . Can 
someone explain them that the required attribution is “© OpenStreetMap 
contributors” and not “© OpenStreetMap”. There's plenty of space to show 
it properly as "Report a problem with the map" is longer than “© 
OpenStreetMap contributors”. I would do it myself, but they stopped 
replying to my emails. Maybe they are not aware how to properly 
attribute, must be someone else's duty to explain.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[David Woolley]

On 26/07/2019 10:46, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:

- those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
- those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
rarely if ever closed)


I'd suggest opening_hours with a narrative time (assuming that they are 
only used at very long intervals to avoid giving a public right of way.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Andy Robinson]

If a gate opens automatically I would say it's an access=yes regardless of how 
the way is tagged.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebou...@joda.org] 
Sent: 26 July 2019 10:47
To: talk-gb OSM List
Subject: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:

- those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
- those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
rarely if ever closed)

Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I
can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect.
One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with
the highway still access=private).

Any suggestions?

Stephen
PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open

___
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] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

>From Christoph...
> The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community has 
> meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult .. But i have strong doubts 
> meanwhile that arguing with people who are  fully immersed into the belief 
> system of corporate PR regarding OSM is  of benefit in most cases.
Well this is pretty much a statement to end the conversation, isn't it? I could 
say the same "cult" about the knee jerk reaction of the self appointed 
representatives of the "hobby mapper". It does lead me to the same conclusion, 
almost -- which is that there is no point discussing these topics with you 
people here. But where would that get us?
I for one would not say anything if I did not personally believe it. I am not 
here representing corporate interests (at this very moment I'm writing this 
from the middle of Nairobi's largest slum working on OSM, rather than a 
comfortable room in Europe). You can still draw whatever conclusions about me 
you like.
For me, enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed lines.
>From Martin...> Fakeboosts
good one :)
> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of the 
>OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the OSMF / 
>OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.
Well that very well might be true about perception. But Facebook did not say 
that OSMF was supporting the project. They representing correctly. We all here 
get the difference and understand that HOT is a different organization. Making 
this distinction is not Facebook's problem, but rather HOT and OSMF should do a 
better job explaining the complexity of the whole universe of OSM.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, July 26, 2019, 12:17:38 PM GMT+3, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:  
 
 @mikel in Fakeboosts own blog post there is still the misrepresentation of the 
role OSM plays in this project, due to HOT appearing to be an official OSM body 
(by the mere utilization of the OpenStreetMap trademark in their company name):


“The RapiD tool was developed in conjunction with those in the mapping 
community who have been working in this area for many years. Because this tool 
was built with their input, it is already having an impact,” says Tyler 
Radford, the executive director of the Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT), which aims 
to make sure OSM represents all parts of the world."


and


The Map With AI team is collaborating with HOT to add more features to RapiD. 
For one step in that process, they’ve integrated RapiD into a development 
branch of HOT Tasking Manager, 








Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of the 
OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the OSMF / 
OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.

I am not sure if being a "corporate Gold member" already counts as being in 
collaboration with OSMF (likely not, because "collaboration" means "working" 
(labor) together, not just providing funds)


Cheers,


Martin

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

[Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Stephen Colebourne]

I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:

- those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
- those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
rarely if ever closed)

Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I
can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect.
One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with
the highway still access=private).

Any suggestions?

Stephen
PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] filaire rivières

[osm . sanspourriel]

> A blue raised pavement marker denotes a fire hydrant on the left sidewalk. 
Dans ta propale, ce ne serait pas plutôt right ou c'est en Grande-Bretagne.

Ce qui est ru ou fossé drainant n'est pas forcément identifiable par imagerie 
satellite notamment à cause du couvert.
Et si les données OD les expurgent ça devient plus difficile.

Jean-Yvon

> Gesendet: Samstag, 20. Juli 2019 um 11:51 Uhr
> Von: "François Lacombe - fl.infosrese...@gmail.com" 
> 
> An: "Discussions sur OSM en français" 
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] filaire rivières
>
> Bonjour Jean-Yvon,
> 
> Si le politique a effectivement fait modifié les bases descriptives pour
> masquer d'autres problèmes c'est déplorable.
> On lit beaucoup de choses à ce sujet, comme d'habitude cela prend du temps
> de démêler le vrai du faux.
> 
> En ce qui me concerne sur OSM, je déclare tous les cours d'eau, c'est plus
> simple :)
> 
> Bon weekend
> 
> François
> 
> Le sam. 20 juil. 2019 à 11:17,  a écrit :
> 
> > Certains ont des méthodes peu orthodoxes pour améliorer le taux de
> > couverture d'OpenStreetMap :
> >
> > // cyber action N° 1130: Indre-et-Loire : 3 000 km de ruisseaux rayés de
> > la carte par la préfecture
> > Près de 43% des cours d'eau ont disparu des cartes dressées par la
> > préfecture d'Indre-et-Loire.
> > https://is.gd/cVu5aa
> >
> > Si je le dis sur un ton humoristique, le problème est réel : quelle est la
> > pertinence de Sandre si le politique s'en mêle ? N. B. : dans certaines
> > régions, les associations environnementales ont été vigilantes et le
> > filaire est resté à peu près stable.
> > Mais si elles sont plus vigilantes c'est aussi que la qualité de l'eau y
> > pose plus de problèmes...
> >
> > Jean-Yvon
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

@mikel in Fakeboosts own blog post there is still the misrepresentation of
the role OSM plays in this project, due to HOT appearing to be an official
OSM body (by the mere utilization of the OpenStreetMap trademark in their
company name):

“The RapiD tool was developed in conjunction with those in the mapping
> community who have been working in this area for many years. Because this
> tool was built with their input, it is already having an impact,” says
> Tyler Radford, the *executive director of the Humanitarian OSM Team
> (HOT), which aims to make sure OSM represents all parts of the world."*
>
and

> The *Map With AI team is collaborating with HOT* to add more features to
> RapiD. For one step in that process, they’ve integrated RapiD into a 
> development
> branch  of HOT Tasking Manager
> ,
>


Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of
the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the
OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.

I am not sure if being a "corporate Gold member" already counts as being in
collaboration with OSMF (likely not, because "collaboration" means
"working" (labor) together, not just providing funds)

Cheers,

Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Nuno Caldeira]

i share the thoughts and concerns shared by Christoph. It's not 
surprisingly that most of these companies are "tied" or are 
client/service providers of each other, some are even Corporate members 
of OSMF. Who would bite the hand the feeds?


Blaming third party media outlets, when Facebook article title is "AI is 
supercharging the creation of maps around the world" says a lot. What 
maps? Bit of misleading title oh well, not clear enough. #options


Also the video they have on the article shows in the end the 
attribution. Funnily uploaded on Vimeo, that regarding this 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-July/082927.html 
replied me yesterday mentioning they are having an investigation between 
their engineers and their legal department to add the attribution on the 
map on their LiveStream platform hope it does not take as long as 
the steam engine speed legal dept of facebook that still hasn't figured 
out since October what to do about the attribution as when they replied 
to me in October 2018, as reported here 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082702.html


For a *tv, film or video production*, the attribution should typically 
appear in a corner of the map. *As long as the credit is on screen 
long enough to be read*, it does not have to remain in view during 
panning or zooming. For productions with end credits, *we would also 
welcome a credit there*


from 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Where_to_put_it.3F




Às 09:34 de 26/07/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

On Friday 26 July 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:

This is probably normal for corporate PR people, but for me it's just
disgusting.

And in that conflict in my eyes you can see the core of the problem.
The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community has
meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult.  You can see in the
reactions of corporate representatives here - as well as in other cases
where corporate PR misrepresenting OSM is presented, see for example
the comments to the Facebook diary entry that has been linked to or in
the discussion with the Thailand community, that many of them are so
detached from the reality of the hobby mapper community and
non-corporate data users that functional communication is essentially
not possible any more.

I have no solution for this - at least none that works within OSM alone.
But i have strong doubts meanwhile that arguing with people who are
fully immersed into the belief system of corporate PR regarding OSM is
of benefit in most cases.  This in itself is a pretty frightening
realization.

There is a famous saying (not sure of its origin) - that fits pretty
well here:  It is hard to make people understand something if their
livelihood depends on not understanding it.

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

[OSM-talk-fr] data Office National des Forêts et OSM

[Jacques Martin]

 

Bonjour

milles excuses si le sujet a déjà été abordé sur la mailing liste.

 

L'ONF mets à disposition un jeu de données georeferences sur les forêts publiques https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/forets-publiques-diffusion-publique/

mais je n'en trouve aucune trace sur openstreetmaps, cad quand je tape le nom fourni par l'ONF, rien ne matche sur openstreetmaps.org

ou inversement quand j'insère les coordonnées géographiques, je suis bien en forêt mais je ne retrouve pas de nom.

Ma question est donc

Est ce que ces données posent des problèmes au point de ne pas être utilisé comme référentiel ?

Je comprendrais aussi qu'openstreetmaps est un projet basé sur le temps libre de chacun et que tout le monde manque de temps.

bonne journée

 

Jacques

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

[Talk-ca] hebdoOSM Nº 469 2019-07-09-2019-07-15

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 469 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/12246/

Bonne lecture !

Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note 
hebdomadaire sans être membre ? Il vous suffit de vous connecter sur 
https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login avec votre compte OSM. Pour en savoir plus 
sur la rédaction d'un article, cliquez ici: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[OSM-talk-fr] hebdoOSM Nº 469 2019-07-09-2019-07-15

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 469 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/12246/

Bonne lecture !

Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note 
hebdomadaire sans être membre ? Il vous suffit de vous connecter sur 
https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login avec votre compte OSM. Pour en savoir plus 
sur la rédaction d'un article, cliquez ici: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[Talk-ht] hebdoOSM Nº 469 2019-07-09-2019-07-15

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 469 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/12246/

Bonne lecture !

Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note 
hebdomadaire sans être membre ? Il vous suffit de vous connecter sur 
https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login avec votre compte OSM. Pour en savoir plus 
sur la rédaction d'un article, cliquez ici: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ht mailing list
Talk-ht@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ht
Notez! Vous pouvez utiliser Google Translate (http://translate.google.com) pour 
traduire les messages.

[Talk-africa] hebdoOSM Nº 469 2019-07-09-2019-07-15

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 469 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/12246/

Bonne lecture !

Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note 
hebdomadaire sans être membre ? Il vous suffit de vous connecter sur 
https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login avec votre compte OSM. Pour en savoir plus 
sur la rédaction d'un article, cliquez ici: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-africa mailing list
Talk-africa@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-africa

Re: [Talk-it] Tempesta VAIA

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 10:31 Uhr schrieb Andreas Lattmann <
andrea.lattm...@ga-2.it>:

> La realtà è che il sentiero esiste ancora, non è stato cancellato.
>



+1, posso capire che non si può più seguire il sentiero e arrivare dove una
volta si arrivava, ma le interruzzioni saranno soltanto puntuali, e volendo
fino lì si arriva probabilmente da ambi lati.

Poi farei distinzione tra un sentiero franato (quindi non esiste più e
probabilmente non sarà più ripristinabile al punto franato, e si dovrà
trovare una via alternativa) e uno coperto di cose "sopra", quindi
probabilmente ripristinabile e forse con gli ostacoli anche valicabili.

In ogni caso sono da evitare i divieti legali per mappare situazioni dove
fisicamente non si può passare, ma dove legalmente non esiste nessun
divieto. Questo è un punto fondamentale.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 26 July 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> This is probably normal for corporate PR people, but for me it's just
> disgusting.

And in that conflict in my eyes you can see the core of the problem.  
The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community has 
meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult.  You can see in the 
reactions of corporate representatives here - as well as in other cases 
where corporate PR misrepresenting OSM is presented, see for example 
the comments to the Facebook diary entry that has been linked to or in 
the discussion with the Thailand community, that many of them are so 
detached from the reality of the hobby mapper community and 
non-corporate data users that functional communication is essentially 
not possible any more.

I have no solution for this - at least none that works within OSM alone.  
But i have strong doubts meanwhile that arguing with people who are 
fully immersed into the belief system of corporate PR regarding OSM is 
of benefit in most cases.  This in itself is a pretty frightening 
realization.

There is a famous saying (not sure of its origin) - that fits pretty 
well here:  It is hard to make people understand something if their 
livelihood depends on not understanding it.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tempesta VAIA

[Andreas Lattmann]

>...ma che chi lo vedrà sula mappa come lo interpreterà???
>...ora sulla mia mappa sparirà ma chi lo >guarderà sul cessofono come fara a
>capire che da li non ci si passa???

Se sul cessofono hanno una buona app, non avranno problemi ne di routing ne di 
rappresentazione, visto che verrà evidenziato. La regola del "non si mappa per 
il rendering/renderer" è perché non possiamo sapere a priori come verranno 
usati i dati OSM. Se venissero usate da squadre che fanno manutenzione dei 
sentieri? Farebbe comodo per loro sapere che c'è un sentiero e che è bloccato 
dagli alberi. La realtà è che il sentiero esiste ancora, non è stato cancellato.


--
I❤️ Software Libero.

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

Re: [talk-au] Road classification in AUS

[Warin]

On 26/07/19 18:11, Aleksandar Matejevic (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote:


Still lot of questions remain,



Keep asking.

Government data is not "The Holly Bible" but it sure is a great 
indicator of road importance.




It is a guide.

Better than satellite imagery for things that are too similar in 
physical features to differentiate. Better than many causal visitors.




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

[OSM-talk-be] Ideas & osoc2019

[Nicolas Pettiaux]

Dear all,

yesterday, I have discovered with much pleasure numerous projects
relate to OSM at OSOC2019 (Open summer of code) public presentation.

See https://2019.opensummerofcode.be/2019 

I have been really impressed by

* https://2019.opensummerofcode.be/2019/open-heritage-map
* https://2019.opensummerofcode.be/2019/configuroute
* https://2019.opensummerofcode.be/2019/hopper
* https://2019.opensummerofcode.be/2019/cycling-up
* https://2019.opensummerofcode.be/2019/road-report

to name a few.

I dream that soon, hopper be another (a third one) routing proposal of
the official osm.org for example as well as configuroute.

Or that configuroute would ask "why" a user at some point wants to
change the default proposed route and that this reason be automatically
entered, it the users wants and confirm, into a road-report to add
another point of concern related to the street states (eg as a cyclist
I could rather say change the route due to bad road state than enter
the case in road-report).

I dream that road-report would have results and data that are
completely public to allow the public to follow and spot the treatment
by the administration of the reported cases and problems. 
for example.

For this, I think that we, the Belgian OSM-be people coult help improve
the projects and then support their addition to OSM.

What do you think ?

Have a good day,

Nicolas

-- 
Nicolas Pettiaux, phd - nico...@pettiaux.be - portable 0496 24 55 01
Educode - asbl - informer, former & réfléchir aux défis du numérique
https://educode.be & https://wiki.educode.be - ven 27/9 & lun 7/10 2019



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

This is just another badly written article by a third party. As someone else on 
thread said, hardly the first time a media piece gets OSM wrong.
Take a look at facebook’s own words here 
https://tech.fb.com/ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world/
I’m sure there’s plenty of phrases in FB’s own post to get worked about, if 
you’re looking for things to flame Facebook and the entire corporate world 
about. 
Myself, I like what they’re doing.
Mikel

On Friday, July 26, 2019, 10:47 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

Hi,

On 25.07.19 22:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> This press release is on the same level as "Cloudmade's
> OpenStreetMap Project" so many years ago.

In case anyone doubts that -

https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/07/facebook-ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world.html

"Recently, Facebook released a statement about its new effort to create
an OpenStreetMap project to not only benefit from mapping data but also
making this platform an open-source navigational source for users."

And the rest of the article is about how Facebook's only purpose is to
bring comfort to people's lives etc.

This is probably normal for corporate PR people, but for me it's just
disgusting.

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



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

[Talk-ht] École d'été du numérique recherche fournisseur d'accès internet

[adelaide.calais via Talk-ht]

Bonjour à  toutes et à  tous,Vous avez peut-être entendu parler de l'école 
d'été du numérique qui aura lieu à  Port au Prince du 20 au 23 Août. 
L'organisateur (en cc) cherche un fournisseur d'accès internet, de préférence 
libre. Il lui faudrait une connexion pour 50 personnes pendant trois jours dans 
la bibliothèque de l'université quisqueya. Avez vous des pistes ? Si jamais 
vous ne connaissez personne vous-même,  je serais ravie si vous pouviez me 
donner un contact susceptible d'avoir une idée.Sur une toute autre note, 
l'organisateur de l'école  d'été du numérique anime aussi une communauté  de 
wikimédiens toute l'année.  Ne sachant pas si vous travaillez déjà  avec lui, 
je me permets de vous recommander d'aller jeter un œil à  ses formations à  la 
contribution sur Wikipédia.  Voici un exemple d'un atelier qu'il a organisé  
dernièrement. Bien cordialement.,Adélaïde Calais06 38 36 13 32Chargée de 
mission francophonieWikimédia FranceAssociation pour le libre partage de la 
connaissance40 rue de Cléry, 75002 ParisEnvoyé depuis mon téléphone.
___
Talk-ht mailing list
Talk-ht@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ht
Notez! Vous pouvez utiliser Google Translate (http://translate.google.com) pour 
traduire les messages.

Re: [talk-au] Road classification in AUS

[Aleksandar Matejevic (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Like Warin mentioned, you have government data which indicates roads priority. 
For NSW that is LPI NSW Basemap, for other territories shp of routes. It is not 
a deal breaker, but it would be nice to unify the data. Warin example for 
tertiary roads is just one of them but great one, because if you have two 
parallel streets, mapper can decide which one road is more important than 
another just because he/she is using it more frequently. This does not mean 
that it is of greater importance. Government is the one making the roads so 
they plan flow of traffic to be as best/fast/safe as it can. Therefore, road 
classification is important.
If you plan to go from point A to point B almost always you want to travel for 
less time. So, combination of road class, speed limit, road surface, turn 
restrictions... is very important in this case. This will make other users life 
easier. I'm not sure why other users are not using attributes/tags like lanes, 
surface, smoothness, maxspeed, toll and other attributes which would be of 
great help to figure out what is the capacity of the road.
Yes, of course that I have checked guidelines, like for example 4wd only which 
is AU specific, etc. but still there is no unique opinion and guideline for 
this problem. It is up to the eye/opinion of mapper to set right class. 
Two-three mappers can have different opinions, but if you have 1000 opinions 
you make most frequent the right one. This is why I asked for more opinions and 
because you guys helped me to clear this one up, I will revert motorway to 
trunk.
Still lot of questions remain, and I would like to keep this discussion open so 
we can make unique decisions.  Government data is not "The Holly Bible" but it 
sure is a great indicator of road importance.
I really appreciate that you all dig into this one. Thank you very much!

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tempesta VAIA

[Marcello]

Il 25/07/19 23:43, scratera ha scritto:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/45.8923/11.1345
> ...quello che mi fa paura e che li c'è ora un sentiero taggato con 
> access=no
> bicycle=no
> foot=no
> highway=path
> horse=no
> mtb:scale=2
> note=impraticabile causa tempesta VAIA
> obstacle=fallen_tree
> sac_scale=mountain_hiking
> smoothness=impassable
> trail_visibility=no
>
> ...ma che chi lo vedrà sula mappa come lo interpreterà???
> ...ora sulla mia mappa sparirà ma chi lo guarderà sul cessofono come fara a
> capire che da li non ci si passa???
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html
>
>
Alla fine del discorso però si ritorna al render, il problema non è
della mappatura ma del render. "Chi lo vedrà sulla mappa come lo
interpreterà?" significa che il render dell'applicazione che si utilizza
non è in grado di riprodurre una mappa decente, dove c'è access=no non
dovrebbe visualizzare il sentiero esattamente come gli altri, ma in modo
ben distinguibile, se addirittura c'è abandoned:* non dovrebbe
visualizzarlo per nulla.

-- 
Ciao
Marcello


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 25.07.19 22:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> This press release is on the same level as "Cloudmade's
> OpenStreetMap Project" so many years ago.

In case anyone doubts that -

https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/07/facebook-ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world.html

"Recently, Facebook released a statement about its new effort to create
an OpenStreetMap project to not only benefit from mapping data but also
making this platform an open-source navigational source for users."

And the rest of the article is about how Facebook's only purpose is to
bring comfort to people's lives etc.

This is probably normal for corporate PR people, but for me it's just
disgusting.

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

[OSM-talk-be] vertaalhulp gezocht

[joost schouppe]

Hoi,

Er zijn nog drie pagina's op de openstreetmap.be website die vertaald
moeten worden naar het Nederlands. Als iemand daar even tijd voor heeft, de
details staan hier:

https://github.com/osmbe/website/issues

Als er iets niet duidelijk is, laat maar weten.

(mail in Dutch since it's about translating to Dutch :)

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tempesta VAIA

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jul 2019, at 08:28, Andrea Albani  wrote:
> 
> Ok... Cosa proponi di usare quindi in questi casi? Un obstacle blocca 
> l'accesso nel punto in cui viene posizionato, ma se qui vuoi indicare che la 
> strada non è proprio da prendere?


se la strada è da prendere o meno dipende da dove vuoi arrivare, e dov’è 
ostruita. Io metterei l’interruzione dove è interrotta, ma probabilmente non 
toglierei tutto il percorso.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tempesta VAIA

[Francesco Pelullo]

Il ven 26 lug 2019, 08:28 Andrea Albani  ha scritto:

>
>
>
> Ok... Cosa proponi di usare quindi in questi casi? Un obstacle blocca
> l'accesso nel punto in cui viene posizionato, ma se qui vuoi indicare che
> la strada non è proprio da prendere?
>

Premesso che a me la proposta di Scratera non dispiaceva (togliere il tag
highway), anche se ripensandoci mi sembra eccessiva. Voglio dire, magari un
generico sentiero è lungo qualche chilometro ma è interrotto solo per un
breve tratto.

Mi chiedo: non si fa prima ad aggiungere in mappa i poligoni rappresentanti
le aree di foresta abbattute?

Esiste un tag apposito, anche se solo proposto e non renderizzato (è in una
fase di "approval" dal 2012):

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle

Il problema non è sapere quali sentieri sono aperti, piuttosto sapere dove
ci sono alberi di traverso.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tempesta VAIA

[Andrea Albani]

Il ven 26 lug 2019, 06:59 solitone  ha scritto:

>
> > On 25 Jul 2019, at 22:09, Andrea Albani  wrote:
> >
> > Se non è più percorribile lo segno come tale con gli appositi tag...
> Access=no e description=sentiero inagibile, etc.
>
> Secondo me access=no (come foot=no. bicycle=no) non sono adeguati per
> specificare la percorribilità di un sentiero. Quei tag servono infatti per
> specificare le possibilità di accesso da un punto di vista *legale*:
> > *Access values* are used to describe the *legal* access for highways
>

Ok... Cosa proponi di usare quindi in questi casi? Un obstacle blocca
l'accesso nel punto in cui viene posizionato, ma se qui vuoi indicare che
la strada non è proprio da prendere?
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Tempesta VAIA

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jul 2019, at 06:59, solitone  wrote:
> 
> Secondo me access=no (come foot=no. bicycle=no) non sono adeguati per 
> specificare la percorribilità di un sentiero. Quei tag servono infatti per 
> specificare le possibilità di accesso da un punto di vista *legale*:


+1, anche horse=no

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