Re: [Talk-us] Maine leaf-off imagery?

[Michael Patrick]

 > I see some tutorials for extracting buildings, but I'm interested in
traces of former land-use - finding artificial linear ground features under
the foliage.

I use CloudCompare ( open source ) to good result for lidar point clouds. (
https://www.danielgm.net/cc/ ) ...See
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h9EmRFOI-WWsQgz3mq9mZ4fuMcDJFfRn/view?usp=sharing
- your mileage may vary, there is a learning curve, but it is a powerful
tool.

That example was made from 'first' return data. If you wanted to get rid of
vegetation, filtering to 'last return' can remove most of it, especially if
your just tracing.
The "Intensity" data does seem to make the sidewalks and pavement pop out
from grass, etc. It might even be possible to distinguish asphalt vs.
concrete, etc. from the signature.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unUkJTym-V5SrZDrYA-WYInCKkdo0FrJ/view?usp=sharing

All lidar is not created equal, depending on what reason they flew the
mission ( resolution, flight lines, etc. ). But this is some hangers from
the WA DNR King County Lidar near my house at Renton Field. Certainly
sufficient for tracing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RmWPEQkSrSYi3uRjVn1AjeV3xLDu6Ksy/view?usp=sharing

JOSM seems to have a heart attack when importing more than average size
imagery (understandably ). so you may want to clip your lidar data. Or
trace in a GIS program like Qgis and upload the traces to JOSM.

Michael Patrick,
Data Ferret



Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-ja] 太陽電池のマッピングについて

[Talk-ja 経由]

ありがとうございました．
下記のように描いてみました．
一応，location, orientaion, start_dateをわかる範囲で書き込みました．
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/75331007

2019年10月5日(土) 19:05 ribbon :

> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 06:46:18PM +0900, Taro MORI wrote:
> > はじめまして，mori taroと申します．
> > 大学で室内環境とかエネルギー関係の研究をしています．
> >
> いま，研究室で札幌市内の太陽電池がどのくらいあるかを数えてみようとしたのですが，どうせだったらOSMでマッピングしたほうがいいのかなと思って似たような例を探したのですがなかなかないようです．
> > どのように対応したらよいか教えていただけないでしょうか？
> > すでに
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom/Rooftop_Solar_PV
> > https://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2019/03/mapping-roof-top-solar-panels.html
> >
> このあたりはチェックしております．特に上側のをみると形状を描いたうえでPV，場所をrooftopにすればよいのかと思っているのですが，それで間違いないかご意見を頂ければと思っております．
>
> ああ、こういうのあったのですね。
> いつも、
>
> generator:method=photovoltaic
> generator:source=solar
> generator:type=solar_photovoltaic_panel
> power=generator
>
> でやってました。
>
> こんな感じです。
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6415274400
>
> 屋根の上はどうなってるかよく分からないことがあり、地上から見える範囲で
> 書き込んでいます。
>
> あと、屋根の上だけじゃなくて、地面に置いてある太陽光パネル(大規模な発電所)
> なんかもあります。
>
> ribbon
>
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>


-- 
北海道大学大学院工学研究院
建築環境学研究室
森 太郎
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

[Warin]

Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
It applies to the world.

There is nothing Australian specific that I can see in your thoughts ..
Nor can I see why ACT should be different from the rest of the world in 
how it maps bicycle infrastructure.


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

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

[Warin]

On 06/10/19 09:47, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote:

I apologise for the tone of the first post yesterday. I was a bit unwell.
***
# The ATG proposed changes for paths in the ACT
I have decided to write this as a proposal of changes to the ATG in 
the ACT (if any) and consideration of the consequences. For the paths 
found in the ACT, I will describe the CURRENT GUIDELINES and then 
describe the CHANGE PROPOSED (if any). Path types that do not exist in 
the ACT are not considered or discussed here.


## Most common types of ridden paths in the ACT
### CURRENT GUIDELINES
 Type A
Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - There 
were 343km as of 30 June 2012.

The ATG says the tags should be:
- highway=path
- foot=designated
- bicycle=designated
- segregated=no

 Type B
Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any 
“footpath”. A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road. 
There were 2190km of these "footpaths" as of 30 June 2012.

Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared.
- highway=path
- foot=designated
- bicycle=designated
- segregated=no

### CHANGE PROPOSED
NONE

## Pedestrian ONLY path and cyclist ONLY path
### CURRENT GUIDELINES
I don’t find the ATG particularly clear on these and I don’t like the 
space it leaves for interpretation (resulting in confusion and 
inconsistencies). I would, therefore, specify specifically what is 
required. In other words, I am not changing the ATG but adding 
something to it that is specific to the ACT.


### CHANGE PROPOSED
I would propose to add the following text to the ATG.
“In the ACT pedestrian ONLY paths and cyclist ONLY paths should be 
tagged as follows:

 pedestrian ONLY path
-    highway=path
-    foot=designated
-    bicycle=no

No.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway
The tag to use for pedestrian ways

highway=footway
and the addition tags that may be used
foot=yes, bicycle=no, horse=no, width=*, surface=paved/*


 cyclist ONLY path
-    highway=path
-    foot=no
-    bicycle= designated“

No again.

The tag to use for bicycle ways
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
highway=cycleway
and the addition tags that may be used
foot=no, bicycle=yes, horse=no, width=*, surface=paved/*

None of this is Australian specific .. so it does not go on the ATG...



I PROPOSE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE ATG

## Impacts of this proposal
-    Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW)
-    Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW)
-    Impact on relations in OSM (LOW)

### Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW)
The proposal for “default path type” tagging in the ACT is consistent 
with the ATG as they stand. That must be a good thing.


However, other keys that “specialist” mapper could add to highway=path 
to make the description of the path more nuanced are:

-    width=*m
-    surface=paved/unpaved/concrete/asphalt/ground/dirt
-    footway=sidewalk (common: typical for town centres in the ACT 
including Gungahlin, Woden, Civic, Weston Creek shops, and local 
suburban shopping centres)

-    incline=up/down/%
-    access=no/private
-    mountain bike specific path grading as defined by the OSM


How is this Australian specific?


### Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW)
I mentioned this in the table of the original Discussion D post. For 
the most common path types in the ACT (type A and B), the ATG and in 
the ACT legal default path type

-    ID preset: “Path” shows as the preset symbol
-    Tagging: highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated 
segregated=no

-    Tagging ID editor line appearance: grey/brown dotted
-    Mapnik line appearance: blue dotted

How renders show the tagging is up to them, we should not tag for the 
render.



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

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 6/10/19 8:12 am, David Wales wrote:

Why did he remove the bridge tag?



I think he doesn't understand how to tag man_made=bridge because he took 
the bridge tags off the other ways as well:


http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=69845883

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

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

[Herbert.Remi via Talk-au]

I apologise for the tone of the first post yesterday. I was a bit unwell.
***
# The ATG proposed changes for paths in the ACT
I have decided to write this as a proposal of changes to the ATG in the ACT (if 
any) and consideration of the consequences. For the paths found in the ACT, I 
will describe the CURRENT GUIDELINES and then describe the CHANGE PROPOSED (if 
any). Path types that do not exist in the ACT are not considered or discussed 
here.

## Most common types of ridden paths in the ACT
### CURRENT GUIDELINES
 Type A
Common: “Australian Shared Path (bicycle and pedestrian sign)” - There were 
343km as of 30 June 2012.
The ATG says the tags should be:
- highway=path
- foot=designated
- bicycle=designated
- segregated=no

 Type B
Under ACT law, pedestrian and cyclists are both allowed to use any “footpath”. 
A "footpath" is any unsigned path separated from the road. There were 2190km of 
these "footpaths" as of 30 June 2012.
Conclusion: in the ACT, almost all “footpaths” are effectively shared.
- highway=path
- foot=designated
- bicycle=designated
- segregated=no

### CHANGE PROPOSED
NONE

## Pedestrian ONLY path and cyclist ONLY path
### CURRENT GUIDELINES
I don’t find the ATG particularly clear on these and I don’t like the space it 
leaves for interpretation (resulting in confusion and inconsistencies). I 
would, therefore, specify specifically what is required. In other words, I am 
not changing the ATG but adding something to it that is specific to the ACT.

### CHANGE PROPOSED
I would propose to add the following text to the ATG.
“In the ACT pedestrian ONLY paths and cyclist ONLY paths should be tagged as 
follows:
 pedestrian ONLY path
-highway=path
-foot=designated
-bicycle=no

 cyclist ONLY path
-highway=path
-foot=no
-bicycle= designated“

I PROPOSE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE ATG

## Impacts of this proposal
-Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW)
-Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW)
-Impact on relations in OSM (LOW)

### Impact on the Australian Tagging Guidelines (LOW)
The proposal for “default path type” tagging in the ACT is consistent with the 
ATG as they stand. That must be a good thing.

However, other keys that “specialist” mapper could add to highway=path to make 
the description of the path more nuanced are:
-width=*m
-surface=paved/unpaved/concrete/asphalt/ground/dirt
-footway=sidewalk (common: typical for town centres in the ACT including 
Gungahlin, Woden, Civic, Weston Creek shops, and local suburban shopping 
centres)
-incline=up/down/%
-access=no/private
-mountain bike specific path grading as defined by the OSM

### Impact on Mapnik map appearance (LOW)
I mentioned this in the table of the original Discussion D post. For the most 
common path types in the ACT (type A and B), the ATG and in the ACT legal 
default path type
-ID preset: “Path” shows as the preset symbol
-Tagging: highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no
-Tagging ID editor line appearance: grey/brown dotted
-Mapnik line appearance: blue dotted

After all the paths had been changed to ATG and in the ACT legal default path 
type suggested here, the Mapnik style map would show almost all paths in the 
ACT as blue dotted lines.

So how do you distinguish between type A and type B paths? Do you need to 
distinguish between them? The answer to both questions is the use of relations 
in OSM.

Mapnik is only one rendering and there are plenty of others. If the Mapnik 
style does not show what you need for your purpose then another standard 
rendering style may do a better job. I will put links to some that I have found 
in another post.

### Impact on relations in OSM (LOW)
As the type A paths are few but offer often (but not always) a better riding 
experience (faster and safer), I would suggest that it does make sense to use 
them as priority pathways. Some are “signed bike paths”.

I would save this information in OSM as routes of two types:
-Official routes
-Unofficial routes

As mentioned in the “principles of tagging” post yesterday:
“There is NO uniform standard for OLDER paths of any type ACT. They can be any 
width, made of any material, widely varying quality, no consistency in signage, 
don’t usually form complete networks, stop and start arbitrarily (particularly 
at boundaries), there no regular maintenance, and no regular audit of the 
infrastructure. The ACT Government builds it and abandons it.”

It, therefore, makes sense to link the fragments of paths are good into 
identifiable routes. Navigation is a problem in Canberra and the signage poor. 
The ACT Government and cycling advocacy groups are trying to “fill the gaps” 
with better paths to make cycling corridors through the ACT between town 
centres. These I mentioned in Discussion G as Principal Community Routes 
(PCRs), numbered M100, M200 etc to M900.

But also let the unofficial routes in OSM stand. I quote here 

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

[David Wales]

So long as access and gates are correctly tagged, I can't see a reason not to 
map private roads.

On 5 October 2019 8:34:59 pm AEST, Mateusz Konieczny  
wrote:
>
>
>
>5 Oct 2019, 01:44 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>> The problem here is that some raise the "not map the interiorprivate
>roads in detail" as not mapping them at all
>>
>Are they not mapping them or also 
>(incorrectly) deleting what others 
>mapped?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

[David Wales]

Why did he remove the bridge tag?

On 5 October 2019 8:16:35 pm AEST, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
>On 4/10/19 10:53 pm, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> 
>>
>https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-134914770
>
>> 
>
>Thanks for that. I hadn't realised there was yet another prioblem with 
>using the path tag: highway=path bicycle=designated is currently 
>rendered differently to highway=path bicycle=yes. As previously 
>discussed, in Australia the only difference between yes and designated 
>can be the cycleway being old enough for the bikes to have worn the 
>markings off. So we'd end up with a map that just tells us where the 
>signage is still OK.
>
>> the likes of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24377739 in 
>> Perth would also fit too.  
>
>Oh marvelous. Having edited the wiki page he's now editing the map to 
>match his new tagging policy:
>
>http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=24377739
>
>> the 1-liner descriptions you 
>> see at e.g. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values 
>> reflect this use
>
>Classic OSM documentation...the one hand can't agree with the other.
>
>___
>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-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Oct 2019, at 15:01, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Questo mi ricorda che volevo porvi una domanda pertinente ma più generica: 
> esiste un metodo per indicare che certi servizi sono presenti in un posto, 
> senza sapere dove: ufficio postale, alimentare, albergo, bar, altro.


non è diffuso, anche perché quando sai che c’è un alimentare, solitamente 
sapresti anche dove. 
Generalmente puoi usare tutti i tag che vuoi, quindi potresti creare delle 
proprietà ed associarle al place, tipo
place=village
name=* 
post_office=yes
hotel=yes
bar=yes
bakery=yes
convenience_store=yes
telephone=yes
doctor=yes
ecc.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Oct 2019, 16:26 by frede...@remote.org:

>
> Case 1:
>
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png
>
> Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings.
>
It is hard to imagine to me situation where
it would be leisure=park.
> "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a
> "park".
>
Is this a typical quality of this import?
> Case 2:
>
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png
>
(...)
> One mapper says "not a park", the other mapper says that according to
> CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5 this is a park
>
Aerial image is useless here, it
is a tree covered area.

It may be in addition leisure=park,
it may be a dump of nuclear waste,
it may be a military polygon.

Is there a chance of on ground photo?
I am unfamiliar with CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5.

Is there a good reason to expect that their classification
matches OSM classification of objects?
> "It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is
> a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park,
> meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and
> other amenities.
>
I would not expect restrooms to 
be indicator of leisure=park
> However, it is an "urban green space open to public
> recreation"
>
I am one of people that attempted to
improve OSM Wiki documentation
of leisure=park

Note that it (IMHO correctly) explicitly
mentions and excludes urban forests.

See Las Wolski example at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en 


I suspect that it may be situation here.
> Case 3:
>
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case3.png
>
> The highlighted area in the middle of the picture straddles a street and
> parts of an amenity=parking north and south of the street and seems to
> rather arbitrarily cut through the woodland at its northern edge.
>
> Mapper 1: "This isn't a park. It's just a small fenced off grassy
> area.". Mapper 2: "It is a park according to County Park as it meets the
> leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and
> contains amenities (parking)."
>
> It is currently tagged leisure=park.
>
Is there a chance of on ground photo?

Provided data - description and arterial is unable to 
distinguish between a decorated park lot 
and a really small park.

I would give low weight to whatever it is officially considered as a county 
park 
> Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land
> managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map
> this?"
>
Park is not there so I would not map.

I would map tree-covered area, maybe trees,
water features and paths if present.

Again, is there a chance for on ground photo?
> I> would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name
> (or if it's not more than  sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just
> some trees" or so. 
>
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490987980 

that is in my opinion will mapped as
leisure=park desire very small 

Though mapping it as a garden may also work.
> Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is
> technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to
> call it a park in OSM,
>
+1
> and the idea that any patch of earth with three
> trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to
> the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me.
>
+1
> Also, mapping micro-protected areas on a rocky shore seems to be of
> limited value to me and puts a big burden on anyone who wants to verify
> that.
>
+1___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-it] Vorrei che qualcuno controllasse le mie modifiche

[Andrea Albani]

Il processo di "ingaggio" con l'utente che abilita il flag è descritto bene
qui [1].
Per vedere i changeset di questo tipo in Italia puoi usare [2] modificando
eventualmente i filtri come più ti aggrada.

[1] https://neis-one.org/2017/09/review-requests-osm/
[2]
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious?country=103=12=review_requested%3Dyes=-1=t=%3E=10=d=n=#6/43.755/10.734


Il giorno sab 5 ott 2019 alle ore 18:40 canfe  ha
scritto:

> Prima si salvare su ID compare un quadratino di spunta con scritto. "Vorrei
> che qualcuno controllasse le mie modifiche." posizionata appena sopra il
> bottone "annulla".
> La stessa cosa con JOSM compare: "vorrei che qualcuno controllasse queste
> modifiche" quando si sta per fare l'upload (posizionato sopra il tasto
> "carica le modifiche".
>
> Orbene, esiste un metodo *semplice *per poter aiutare chi, appunto, chiede
> aiuto?
> Ed anche al contrario: posso sapere se la mia modifica, di cui non sono
> tanto sicuro, sia stata "approvata" da qualcuno?
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-us] Townships, Counties, Great Lakes

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 10:18 AM Max Erickson  wrote:

> I've recently been working on adding administrative boundaries for
> townships in Michigan (old USGS paper maps show the boundaries, I'm tracing
> those). Previously I've concluded that counties in Michigan don't really
> extend into the Great Lakes. The sheriff has jurisdiction on the water
> (extending into the water near adjacent counties), but that's about the end
> of it. For the most part Michigan counties are modeled like that, using the
> shoreline as part of the boundary.
>
> What I am wondering about is whether townships should also use the
> shoreline, splitting it into quite a few more pieces than currently exist.
> The alternative would be a ways that share nodes with the shoreline. I'm
> leaning in that direction but I figure it will be a pretty noisy change, so
> I'm asking what people think before proceeding.
>
> Just recently I looked at some of the county borders in Washington State.
For example, Skagit County, where I reside, extends into Puget Sound where
it shares boundaries with Island County, San Juan County and Whatcom County
to the north. Each of the counties like you said have jurisdiction not only
of the water but also tide flats. Other counties share boundaries using the
middle of rivers. Having the boundaries exactly as the state specifies can
help OSM users determine which agency to contact. In fact, I reported to
our county gis their parcel layer doesn't match the states description of
the county boundary. (Whether or not they fix it is a whole different can
of worms.)

On the other hand, State Parks often extend into lakes and ocean. I've
talked to the state parks department who is okay with the boundary stopping
at the shoreline.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Townships, Counties, Great Lakes

[Max Erickson]

I've recently been working on adding administrative boundaries for
townships in Michigan (old USGS paper maps show the boundaries, I'm tracing
those). Previously I've concluded that counties in Michigan don't really
extend into the Great Lakes. The sheriff has jurisdiction on the water
(extending into the water near adjacent counties), but that's about the end
of it. For the most part Michigan counties are modeled like that, using the
shoreline as part of the boundary.

What I am wondering about is whether townships should also use the
shoreline, splitting it into quite a few more pieces than currently exist.
The alternative would be a ways that share nodes with the shoreline. I'm
leaning in that direction but I figure it will be a pretty noisy change, so
I'm asking what people think before proceeding.


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

[Talk-it] Vorrei che qualcuno controllasse le mie modifiche

[canfe]

Prima si salvare su ID compare un quadratino di spunta con scritto. "Vorrei
che qualcuno controllasse le mie modifiche." posizionata appena sopra il
bottone "annulla".
La stessa cosa con JOSM compare: "vorrei che qualcuno controllasse queste
modifiche" quando si sta per fare l'upload (posizionato sopra il tasto
"carica le modifiche".

Orbene, esiste un metodo *semplice *per poter aiutare chi, appunto, chiede
aiuto?
Ed anche al contrario: posso sapere se la mia modifica, di cui non sono
tanto sicuro, sia stata "approvata" da qualcuno?



--
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: [OSM-talk-fr] Géocodage : différence entre les API

[mga_geo via Talk-fr]

Merci pour la réponse Jean-Yvon
Je ne connaissais pas la version "all" et je n'ai plus d'échec.
On trouve où la document sur cette API ?
Marc



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html

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

[Talk-it] Pagina welcome.openstreetmap.it irraggiungibile

[Marcello]

Salve,

la pagina per i messaggi di benvenuto non è più raggiungibile, sia
usando http che https rimanda alla pagina https://cortesi.com, dove
Simone ci fa un bel sorriso. L'avevo usata domenica scorsa e ancora era
funzionante.

-- 
Ciao
Marcello


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

Re: [Talk-bo] Mapilleada el 20 Octubre en Bolivia

[Juan Jose Iglesias]

En Mapillary la ruta Tiquipaya-Plazuela Tarija para ir a votar en Bicicleta

-Original Message-
From: Marco Antonio [mailto:marcoantoniofr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 5:13 PM
To: OSM Bolivia 
Subject: [Talk-bo] Mapilleada el 20 Octubre en Bolivia

Hola,

Aprovechando el día de las elecciones en Bolivia, vendría bien animamos a 
mapillear lugares que no tiene fotos? o quizá añadir algunas calles que no 
tienen datos como nombre, sentido, superficie? o quizá la escuela y sus nombres?

Es ideal un día que no hay autos y hay poca gente en las calles!

covertura mapillary
http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=12/-17.4021/-66.1741/standard,mapillary-coverage-raster=-13.666992,57.420299

calles sin nombre
http://qa.poole.ch/?zoom=5=-16.43=-64.50

Abrazos,

Marco Antonio

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


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

Re: [Talk-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Volker Schmidt]

Questo mi ricorda che volevo porvi una domanda pertinente ma più generica:
esiste un metodo per indicare che certi servizi sono presenti in un posto,
senza sapere dove: ufficio postale, alimentare, albergo, bar, altro.

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, 14:27 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 5. Oct 2019, at 11:37, Andrea Musuruane  wrote:
> >
> > Se non c'è rilevamento in loco e l'unica informazione che si ha è
> mediata da un comunicato stampa che afferma che un postamat è stato
> installato in un comune (e non si sa dove), allora non si inserisce niente.
>
>
> +1, condivido in pieno. OpenStreetMap è un progetto che raccoglie le
> conoscenze delle persone, se non si sa di certo dove si trova qualcosa
> bisogna andarci oppure non inserirlo.
>
>
> Ciao Martin
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] HOT Microgrants 2020 - Call for Applications

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2 Oct 2019, 11:30 by rebecca.fi...@hotosm.org:

> The form to pitch your project is relatively simple
>
Note that pitch form is limited to public YouTube videos.

Solely in places where YouTube is unavailable it is possible to send a private 
proposal, also limited to a video form.

It is going to significantly discourage people
that are not native English speakers or are
 not fans of agreeing to YouTube terms.

>
> andyou can reach out to > microgra...@hotosm.org 
> >  with any questions. Pitches are due by > 9 
> October> . 
>
Online form mentions 

"Applications must be submitted no later than 12 midnight EST on Wednesday, 
October 16"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Oct 2019, 12:53 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>  As I see it the options are;
>  
>  * Do not map.
>  * Map the entry only.
>  * Map it all.
>
There are some objects where not mapping
them and removal of mapped objects is justifiable[1].

Maybe even hiding old entries in history.
It is not one of them.

[1] unsigned shelters for victims of domestic violence, 
nests of rare birds, places of worship of
religions that are prosecuted etc

Or undiscussed imports or data on s wrong licence.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Oct 2019, at 11:37, Andrea Musuruane  wrote:
> 
> Se non c'è rilevamento in loco e l'unica informazione che si ha è mediata da 
> un comunicato stampa che afferma che un postamat è stato installato in un 
> comune (e non si sa dove), allora non si inserisce niente.


+1, condivido in pieno. OpenStreetMap è un progetto che raccoglie le conoscenze 
delle persone, se non si sa di certo dove si trova qualcosa bisogna andarci 
oppure non inserirlo.


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

Re: [Talk-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Alecs via Talk-it]

Andrea Musuruane wrote
> Sono decisamente contrario a questo modo di procedere.
> 
> Se non c'è rilevamento in loco e l'unica informazione che si ha è mediata
> da un comunicato stampa che afferma che un postamat è stato installato in
> un comune (e non si sa dove), allora non si inserisce niente.
> 
> Questo a prescindere dalla numerosità dei mapper che possono visitare
> questi luoghi.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Andrea

Concordo

Ciao,
Alecs




--
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

[OSM-talk-fr] lotissements

[osm . sanspourriel]

J'aimerais avoir une clé pour les lotissements : les bornes sont claires
(et je n'utilise pas deux landuse nommés pour deux lotissements : ça
fait apparaître des traits qui n'ont pas lieu d'être entre les deux).
city_block me semble plus urbain et correspond à un plan à l'américaine.
En Bretagne je trouve pour les noms comportant Lotissement :
60 hamlet - plutôt en limite de zone urbaine ?
17 neighbourhood - plutôt en zone urbaine ?
11 locality - absurde un lotissement est habité
4 quarter - pas bon, trop grand
1 farm - ce n'est plus une ferme si c'est devenu un lotissement ?
1 isolated_dwelling - certes en théorie à compter de 3 maisons c'est un
lotissement, mais on ne le nommera pas lotissement. Là il y en a 6.

Vous en pensez quoi ?

Jean-Yvon

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Lieux-dits Fantoir surfaciques

[osm . sanspourriel]

Le 03/10/2019 à 23:13, Vincent de Château-Thierry - osm.v...@free.fr a
écrit :


Je n'ai pas l'impression qu'on gagnera en pertinence en important des
agrégats de parcelles nommées issues du cadastre (notre seule source
surfacique) tant c'est un contenu partiel (on a bien plus de
lieux-dits sur le terrain que de parcelles nommées côté Cadastre) et
arbitraire, voire divergent par rapport au terrain.

vincent


Ça doit dépendre beaucoup des endroits car par chez moi il y a bien plus
de noms (oui des lieux-dits, c'est à dire des parcelles ou groupes de
parcelles nommées) sans habitation et tous les lieux habités, y compris
les écarts y sont.

En général les endroits habités ont une représentation surfacique.

Je parle de la partie campagne. En ville c'est différent.

Oui, ça peut être incomplet avec des noms disparaissant quand le hameau
se fait manger par la ville.

Oui, avec l'urbanisation des endroits peuvent être trop petits par
rapport à l'existant.

Mais je tombe plus sur des maisons ajoutées en limite, donc des
corrections à la marge. De la même façon des bouts de rue en trop ou en
pas assez dus à la modélisation en groupement de parcelles pour le
cadastre : certains chemins ne sont pas découpés en parcelles à la
limite du lieu-dit. Mais grosso-modo ça ne change pas la topologie, J'ai
trouvé des hameaux coupés en deux par une route et qu'il faudrait fusionner.
Quand ça semble arbitraire, c'est sans doute qu'il n'y a pas grand chose
à côté et donc sans grand enjeu.

Comme les lotissements se font souvent sur des champs complets, les
limites restent utiles (et les noms quelques fois retrouvés dans les
noms de rue ou de résidence).

De plus je ne propose pas de faire l'intégration du surfacique à la
place du ponctuel mais en complément.

Je ne comprends pas la remarque de Christian sur les conflits de nom
entre génération : si besoin on met old_name (et old_name:br ^^).

Ni d'ailleurs sur "Au gré du temps, des noms voisins apparaissent, le
limitent ou l’avalent." : OSM représente l'actuel, si la version du
cadastre n'est pas à jour on n'intègre pas bêtement et c'est tout.

C'est comme si on disait qu'on n'importe pas les routes parce que de
nouvelles routes vont être créées ou vont disparaître. Et bien non, on
prend le bâti actuel et on fait des mises à jour.

J'ai l'impression que Christian confond représentation en base et
représentation graphique. Je ne dis pas qu'il faut rendre ces limites
visibles sur la carte, le landuse me semble ici plus pertinent. Par
contre Nominatim est à la ramasse. Car quand on dit logique floue on est
d'accord sauf qu'entre logique floue et information ponctuelle il y a un
monde : il suffit de voir comment Nominatim merdouille sur les lieux-dit
pour essayer de dire que X est dans le hameau Y pour voir que la
définition actuelle est insuffisante (et Nominatim pourrait aussi mieux
exploiter la donnée actuelle).

Donc quand c'est dedans, c'est dedans, quand c'est dehors mais juste à
côté et que les autres noms sont un peu plus loin, ça se discute. Si
c'est isolated_dwelling très près alors mais pour city_block ou sur une
zone administrative, non.

Ceci permet de faire fonctionner plus logiquement Nominatim (Cf. ticket
#1505 ) et
accessoirement la modélisation proposée afin aussi d'éviter les
problèmes de représentation des place= en surfacique (on affiche au
niveau du nœud "centre" s'il existe mais on peut quand même avoir en
plus une représentation surfacique).

C'est d'ailleurs marrant, c'est en voulant vérifier un lieu-dit qui me
semblait mal placé (représentation ponctuelle dans le cadastre) que j'ai
vu qu'un ancien nom "plus grand" (représentation surfacique dans le
cadastre) s'était mis à prendre de facto le nom de ce lieu-dit. Et donc
name et alt_name (pas old_name car c'est le nom du transformateur pour
Enedis).

Christian, après tu peux mettre des name:-1970= si besoin ;-).
http://remonterletemps.ign.fr

Et donc je vais garder le positionnement du nœud  pour le nom du
lieu-dit, utiliser la délimitation de l'autre comme limite. Ça
correspond au terrain (l'IGN et la DGFIP). Oui le cadastre de la DGFIP
et les adresses de la DGFIP ne correspondent pas toujours.

Donc oui, je pense utile de pouvoir facilement intégrer cette donnée.

Ce n'est pas du 100% on est d'accord. 80% ça me va^^.

Car à ma question "Est-ce que ça ne vaut pas le coup de tenter de
faciliter leur intégration ?" je réponds évidemment par la positive.

Jean-Yvon


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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

[Warin]

On 05/10/19 20:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




5 Oct 2019, 01:44 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

The problem here is that some raise the "not map the interior
private roads in detail" as not mapping them at all

Are they not mapping them or also
(incorrectly) deleting what others
mapped?


I am aware of 2 cases of deletion. In both cases at least some of the 
information has been re-added, possibly with access tagging too.
I have not looked into it too deeply. Not too interested in the past 
practices or attitudes, but what principle should we adopt?


I am seeking thoughts on the mapping these roads/tracks within OSM... 
should we map them and if so how detailed?


As I see it the options are;

* Do not map.
* Map the entry only.
* Map it all.

Add an access tag if thought appropriate, possibly err on the side of 
restriction (tag access=private) rather than public (no access tag)?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Oct 2019, 01:44 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
> The problem here is that some raise the "not map the interiorprivate roads in 
> detail" as not mapping them at all
>
Are they not mapping them or also 
(incorrectly) deleting what others 
mapped?___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 4/10/19 10:53 pm, Andy Townsend wrote:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-134914770 



Thanks for that. I hadn't realised there was yet another prioblem with 
using the path tag: highway=path bicycle=designated is currently 
rendered differently to highway=path bicycle=yes. As previously 
discussed, in Australia the only difference between yes and designated 
can be the cycleway being old enough for the bikes to have worn the 
markings off. So we'd end up with a map that just tells us where the 
signage is still OK.


the likes of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24377739 in 
Perth would also fit too.  


Oh marvelous. Having edited the wiki page he's now editing the map to 
match his new tagging policy:


http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=24377739

the 1-liner descriptions you 
see at e.g. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values 
reflect this use


Classic OSM documentation...the one hand can't agree with the other.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Géocodage : différence entre les API

[osm . sanspourriel]

Ça vaudrait le coup de télécharger les données BAN sur le 35.

Sur all
(http://*all*.addok.xyz/search/?q=6+rue+Chateaurenault=35238
) tu
vois que la bonne info vient de la BANO pas de la BAN.

Jean-Yvon

Le 05/10/2019 à 09:08, Marc Gauthier via Talk-fr -
talk-fr@openstreetmap.org a écrit :

Bonjour à tous,

J'ai quelques échecs de géocodage sur l'ancienne API, par exemple
https://api-adresse.data.gouv.fr/search/?q=6+rue+Chateaurenault=35238


La requête
http://demo.addok.xyz/search/?q=6+rue+Chateaurenault=35238
fournit la bonne localisation.

Quelle est l'origine de la différence de réponse : bases, logiciel ...
???

Bonne journée
Marc



___
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-au] On the origin of path tags (Was: Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 4/10/19 10:53 pm, Andy Townsend wrote:


In places like Germany, however, dedicated infrastructure is more 
common, and there are usually signs telling you exactly what you are 
allowed to do.  As I understand it (and this was before my time, so this 
is largely hearsay) "cycleway" and "footway" got used by the local 
community for the dedicated infrastructure there, leaving a problem of 
what to tag what we in the UK would now call "shared-use" or "multi-use" 
paths


Ah yes, I've also heard the "it was the Germans" theory [1]. Other 
theories I've heard: the we're all equal theory [2], the people that 
could not cope with pedestrians on cycleway theory [3], the horse guy 
theory [4], and the snowmobile guy theory [5].


Given the fact that the proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path

was made by a snowmobile guy and a user from German then, maybe, a 
combined German/snowmobile guy theory might be the best.



[1] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-August/018892.html
[2] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/019949.html
[3] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/019951.html
[4] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/019952.html
[5] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/019955.html


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

Re: [Talk-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Il sab 5 ott 2019, 11:19 Lorenzo Rolla  ha scritto:

> @Andrea: chiaro il concetto di inserire "ictu oculi"; il problema nasce
> dal fatto che questi comunelli hanno poco più di cento, trecento abitanti e
> quindi difficilmente saranno oggetto di una rilievo specifico e quindi la
> presenza della macchinetta sarà un "segreto" circoscritto alla popolazione
> locale... Come compromesso, avevo pensato di inserire il tag nei pressi dei
> locali del municipio (generalmente la macchinetta viene collocata lì),
> inserendo la nota "da posizionare". A questo punto farò una selezione e
> tralascerò le note stampa che NON contengono riferimenti topografici.
> Allego il link da cui trarrò le indicazioni.
> https://www.posteitaliane.it/it/postamat-installati.html
> @Francesco: in questi comuni l'ufficio postale non esiste proprio...
>
>>
>>
Vedo che nei file PDF è indicata la posizione (indirizzo, edificio e
piano), se riesce ad individuare la posizione (sfruttando mapillary o i
dati esistenti su OSM) con una certa precisione, penso che il dato possa
essere considerato veritiero. Magari fixme="adjust position" e source con
link al file potrebbero già andare bene.
Per favore però non inserisca i dati senza tutte le opportune verifiche,
perché viceversa si avvelena la bontà dei dati che inseriscono tutti.



>> Il giorno sab 5 ott 2019 alle ore 09:52 Francesco Ansanelli <
> franci...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Buongiorno Lorenzo,
>>
>> se sono all'interno (o anche all'esterno) di un ufficio postale
>> (amenity=post_office), puoi aggiungere a quest'ultimo il tag atm=yes.
>> Suggerisco anche di indicare operator="Poste Italiane" se non è presente.
>>
>> Saluti,
>> Francesco
>>
>>
>> Il sab 5 ott 2019, 08:45 Lorenzo Rolla  ha scritto:
>>
>>> Buongiorno a tutti. Desidero sottoporre alla vostra attenzione di tutti
>>> questa criticità (derubricabile in corbelleria...). Poste Italiane sta
>>> installando numerosi postamat in paesini piccolissimi: lodevolissima
>>> iniziativa, ma circoscritta a un comunicato stampa aziendale e quindi
>>> sconosciuta ai turisti, ai visitatori occasionali, a semplici cittadini. Il
>>> quesito è molto semplice: segnalo il tag non preoccupandomi della posizione
>>> della "macchinetta sputasoldi" oppure ignoro la notizia per non
>>> "contaminare" la mappa da un'indicazione imprecisa?
>>> Lieto di leggere le riflessioni altrui. Lorenzo.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lorenzo Rolla
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Lorenzo Rolla
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Andrea Musuruane]

Sono decisamente contrario a questo modo di procedere.

Se non c'è rilevamento in loco e l'unica informazione che si ha è mediata
da un comunicato stampa che afferma che un postamat è stato installato in
un comune (e non si sa dove), allora non si inserisce niente.

Questo a prescindere dalla numerosità dei mapper che possono visitare
questi luoghi.

Ciao,

Andrea


On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 11:19 AM Lorenzo Rolla  wrote:

> @Andrea: chiaro il concetto di inserire "ictu oculi"; il problema nasce
> dal fatto che questi comunelli hanno poco più di cento, trecento abitanti e
> quindi difficilmente saranno oggetto di una rilievo specifico e quindi la
> presenza della macchinetta sarà un "segreto" circoscritto alla popolazione
> locale... Come compromesso, avevo pensato di inserire il tag nei pressi dei
> locali del municipio (generalmente la macchinetta viene collocata lì),
> inserendo la nota "da posizionare". A questo punto farò una selezione e
> tralascerò le note stampa che NON contengono riferimenti topografici.
> Allego il link da cui trarrò le indicazioni.
> https://www.posteitaliane.it/it/postamat-installati.html
> @Francesco: in questi comuni l'ufficio postale non esiste proprio...
>
> Il giorno sab 5 ott 2019 alle ore 09:52 Francesco Ansanelli <
> franci...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Buongiorno Lorenzo,
>>
>> se sono all'interno (o anche all'esterno) di un ufficio postale
>> (amenity=post_office), puoi aggiungere a quest'ultimo il tag atm=yes.
>> Suggerisco anche di indicare operator="Poste Italiane" se non è presente.
>>
>> Saluti,
>> Francesco
>>
>>
>> Il sab 5 ott 2019, 08:45 Lorenzo Rolla  ha scritto:
>>
>>> Buongiorno a tutti. Desidero sottoporre alla vostra attenzione di tutti
>>> questa criticità (derubricabile in corbelleria...). Poste Italiane sta
>>> installando numerosi postamat in paesini piccolissimi: lodevolissima
>>> iniziativa, ma circoscritta a un comunicato stampa aziendale e quindi
>>> sconosciuta ai turisti, ai visitatori occasionali, a semplici cittadini. Il
>>> quesito è molto semplice: segnalo il tag non preoccupandomi della posizione
>>> della "macchinetta sputasoldi" oppure ignoro la notizia per non
>>> "contaminare" la mappa da un'indicazione imprecisa?
>>> Lieto di leggere le riflessioni altrui. Lorenzo.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lorenzo Rolla
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Lorenzo Rolla
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Lorenzo Rolla]

@Andrea: chiaro il concetto di inserire "ictu oculi"; il problema nasce dal
fatto che questi comunelli hanno poco più di cento, trecento abitanti e
quindi difficilmente saranno oggetto di una rilievo specifico e quindi la
presenza della macchinetta sarà un "segreto" circoscritto alla popolazione
locale... Come compromesso, avevo pensato di inserire il tag nei pressi dei
locali del municipio (generalmente la macchinetta viene collocata lì),
inserendo la nota "da posizionare". A questo punto farò una selezione e
tralascerò le note stampa che NON contengono riferimenti topografici.
Allego il link da cui trarrò le indicazioni.
https://www.posteitaliane.it/it/postamat-installati.html
@Francesco: in questi comuni l'ufficio postale non esiste proprio...

Il giorno sab 5 ott 2019 alle ore 09:52 Francesco Ansanelli <
franci...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Buongiorno Lorenzo,
>
> se sono all'interno (o anche all'esterno) di un ufficio postale
> (amenity=post_office), puoi aggiungere a quest'ultimo il tag atm=yes.
> Suggerisco anche di indicare operator="Poste Italiane" se non è presente.
>
> Saluti,
> Francesco
>
>
> Il sab 5 ott 2019, 08:45 Lorenzo Rolla  ha scritto:
>
>> Buongiorno a tutti. Desidero sottoporre alla vostra attenzione di tutti
>> questa criticità (derubricabile in corbelleria...). Poste Italiane sta
>> installando numerosi postamat in paesini piccolissimi: lodevolissima
>> iniziativa, ma circoscritta a un comunicato stampa aziendale e quindi
>> sconosciuta ai turisti, ai visitatori occasionali, a semplici cittadini. Il
>> quesito è molto semplice: segnalo il tag non preoccupandomi della posizione
>> della "macchinetta sputasoldi" oppure ignoro la notizia per non
>> "contaminare" la mappa da un'indicazione imprecisa?
>> Lieto di leggere le riflessioni altrui. Lorenzo.
>>
>> --
>> Lorenzo Rolla
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>


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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

[Nemanja Bračko]

Even I'm not from AU, I would recommend adding private roads, especially
because we had a flood situation couple of years ago. In that time we were
mapping buildings (for rescue teams) and all kind of trails or roads just
to help people to escape flooded area. We didn't pay attention if it is
private or not. I haven't got any feedback if these roads were helpful to
anyone, but I know that buildings helped rescue teams to split and to
organise themselves much better and much easier.

There are appropriate tags for private roads/gates/etc. so it can be easily
added. The only thing is that maybe I'm personally not aware which road is
private (let's say imagery is not so good so I'm unable to spot entry
gate), but anyway, somebody will come and add appropriate tag. It will last
20 seconds instead of 10 minutes to add the road.

Thanks,
Nemanja

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, 09:12 Mateusz Konieczny, 
wrote:

> 5 Oct 2019, 02:43 by mapp...@consebt.de:
>
> Thinking of a delivery vehicle I am even considering if access=permissive
> would be appropriate.
>
> access=permissive is used in cases where everyone
> may enter, but owner may revoke access at any time
>
>
> ___
> 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-cz] pozvánka na další brněnský mapathon pro Lékaře bez hranic

[r.stampach]

Zdravím,

jsem zaměstnancem Geografického ústavu Přírodovědecké fakulty Masarykovy 
univerzity.

V Brně se pravidelně uskutečňují brněnské Missing Maps mapathony pro organizaci 
Lékařů bez hranic, kde se vytváří data OpenStreetMap pro krizové části světa, 
které dosud nejsou dobře zmapované. Tato data pak používají humanitární 
organizace pro svou práci. Píši sem, protože mapathonů se pravidelně účastní i 
čtenáři tohoto fóra.

Aktuálně se připravuje další mapathon. Tentokrát se koná v brněnské pobočce 
společnosti Red Hat.

Uskuteční se v pondělí 14. října 2019 od 18:00 do 22:00. 
Místo: ve společnosti Red Hat, Purkyňova 647/111, Brno 61200
Mapa: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/417250024

Lze si vybrat ze tří školených skupin. Kromě skupiny začátečníků a skupiny 
zájemců o editaci OpenStreetMap v editoru JOSM, bude i možnost stát se 
validátorem - kontrolorem práce ostatních mapérů. Je to mnohem jednodušší, než 
to zní. Právě validátoři jsou nyní v projektu Missing maps nejvíce potřeba. 
Vítáni jsou ovšem i zkušení mapéři, kteří si chtějí jen přijít zamapovat a 
nebýt přitom rušeni školením, které již znají. Pokud byste se chtěli přidat do 
organizačního týmu, tak výborně. Rádi se na tom s Vámi na mapathonu domluvíme.

Registraci a více informací najdete na adrese 
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/brnensky-rijnovy-missing-maps-mapathon-ve-spolecnosti-red-hat-tickets-75409540967

Radim Štampach
Geografický ústav
Přírodovědecká fakulta
Masarykova univerzita

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[ndrw6]

On 04/10/2019 20:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:

The reality is that people expect postcodes to be a functional search term on 
online mapping, at least in the UK,

You *are* ware that UK post codes are fully findable on the OSM website
and any site that runs the Nominatim geocoder? It must have been
mentioned somewhere in this thread. This means that our web site and
anything that uses Nominatim for geocoding already knows UK post codes
without importing them to OSM.


It is not like they were telling us "don't add addresses, we can do it 
better". They have done it to workaround two issues, one with OSM data, 
the other with Nominatim itself:


- For a long time we had close to zero coverage of unique postcodes. 
Even now are are at around 16%.


- Nominatim doesn't support searching addr:postcode tags (don't ask me why).

Both are fixable, making the database more useful to everyone, including 
people not using external data.


ndrw6



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[ndrw6]

On 04/10/2019 15:41, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

2. However... just blindly importing them seems to be a real missed
opportunity. If you give me a nice interface with centroids for Charlbury, I
will have a go at mapping them to actual, useful polygons, based on my
knowledge of the street layout and Carla the post-lady's daily rounds (or I
could ask her, but I'm not sure of the IP of asking an RM employee...). If
you dump them into the database as-is I almost certainly won't get round to
it.


Having address points you can "copy" to buildings or POIs does help a 
lot, though.


You can download my .osm files with address points from 
https://github.com/ndrw6/import_postcodes and try them out yourself. 
They work almost the same to what you would get after the import, but 
they are _not_ intended for importing into OSM. Just open them up as a 
temporary data layer in jOSM, and delete them before an upload.


Some benefits of having address points I found in my testing:

- Much faster and easier merging (about 3-5 times) than raster tiles. I 
was regularly adding ~1000 points per ~1 hr session this way. Basically, 
I used copy/paste-tags feature in jOSM, which I remapped to keys 2 and 3 
to make it less taxing than default Ctrl-C and Ctrl-Shift-V.


- More accurate (no typing required). I had a fair number of typos when 
using Chris's tile (entirely my fault).


- It is easy to see which points have already been merged - simply 
delete ones that have been merged. This is very important when working 
on a larger area over multiple sessions. It is super easy to miss some 
sections. This is where Robert's page 
(https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/) helps but you need to wait 
a day or two for it to update.


- It is easy to see multiple/overlapping postcodes

- In some cases (sub-urban residential areas) It may be possible to 
merge addresses with building automatically. I've described the 
procedure in one of the earlier threads. That could be an option for 
places like Sheffield, which have tens of thousands of postcodes ready 
to merge.


ndrw6



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

Re: [talk-au] Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law

[Warin]

On 05/10/19 10:03, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote:

# Principle of tagging
1. Tagging should be consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction
2. Tagging should not be code but be explicit
3. Tagging should be useful
4. Tagging should be intuitive
5. Tagging should be easy (regional presets)

I will comment on the first two.

## Principle 1
ONE set of rules for tagging paths across all Australia is not 
possible ie each state needs its own section on the ATG. Australia is 
a federation. Each state makes its own road rules.


You are confusing law with mapping. A "path' in OSM is not a 'path' 
necessary in some Australian law. The definitions can be different.
State road rules override the “Australian Road Rules”. You cannot sign 
everything. Even when it is not signed, the laws still apply with 
penalties and potential prosecution and imprisonment (8 months in one 
recent example, 2019). Most states laws are not signed.


The ACT the law is clear. All paths can be used by cyclists, 
pedestrians, but any wheeled vehicle that is not motorised, without 
exception.


An OSM highway=path with the tag bicycle=no should not be used by a 
bicycle! You see OSM's 'path' is not necessarily an ACT law's 'path'!!!


Combustion motored vehicles are not permitted on paths of all types. 
Electric motored skateboards, bikes, mobility devices, and soon 
scooters ARE permitted. The motors have power limits (not sure what, 
around 200W).


250 Watts


Speed limits apply for footpaths of 25kmh for all e-devices.


I think you will find that wrong. The power assistance must cut out at 
25 kmh .. does not stop the rider going faster under their own power.


A speed limit can be imposed on a section .. but that would be for all, 
just as it is for cars, e.g. a Toyota Echo has the same speed limit 
imposed as a VW Vernon.





The liability situation is also clear. If a bike hits a pedestrian the 
cyclist is always at fault.


Always? A cyclist may have to 'give way' to a pedestrian .. that does 
not stop a pedestrian leaping in front of the cyclist give the cyclist 
no reaction time.

I think not 'always', there may be exceptions.


I think your understanding is very limited. And I don't think you know 
enough to make changes to the wiki.




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

Re: [Talk-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Buongiorno Lorenzo,

se sono all'interno (o anche all'esterno) di un ufficio postale
(amenity=post_office), puoi aggiungere a quest'ultimo il tag atm=yes.
Suggerisco anche di indicare operator="Poste Italiane" se non è presente.

Saluti,
Francesco


Il sab 5 ott 2019, 08:45 Lorenzo Rolla  ha scritto:

> Buongiorno a tutti. Desidero sottoporre alla vostra attenzione di tutti
> questa criticità (derubricabile in corbelleria...). Poste Italiane sta
> installando numerosi postamat in paesini piccolissimi: lodevolissima
> iniziativa, ma circoscritta a un comunicato stampa aziendale e quindi
> sconosciuta ai turisti, ai visitatori occasionali, a semplici cittadini. Il
> quesito è molto semplice: segnalo il tag non preoccupandomi della posizione
> della "macchinetta sputasoldi" oppure ignoro la notizia per non
> "contaminare" la mappa da un'indicazione imprecisa?
> Lieto di leggere le riflessioni altrui. Lorenzo.
>
> --
> Lorenzo Rolla
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Andrea Musuruane]

Ciao,
Forse è il caso di ricordare che, import a parte, in OpenStreetMap si
inserisce quello che si rileva sul posto.

Quindi non si inseriscono informazioni prese da un comunicato stampa che,
tra le altre cose, viene giudicato impreciso.

Semmai si usa lo stesso comunicato per fare delle verifiche sul posto.

Ciao,

Andrea



Il sab 5 ott 2019, 08:45 Lorenzo Rolla  ha scritto:

> Buongiorno a tutti. Desidero sottoporre alla vostra attenzione di tutti
> questa criticità (derubricabile in corbelleria...). Poste Italiane sta
> installando numerosi postamat in paesini piccolissimi: lodevolissima
> iniziativa, ma circoscritta a un comunicato stampa aziendale e quindi
> sconosciuta ai turisti, ai visitatori occasionali, a semplici cittadini. Il
> quesito è molto semplice: segnalo il tag non preoccupandomi della posizione
> della "macchinetta sputasoldi" oppure ignoro la notizia per non
> "contaminare" la mappa da un'indicazione imprecisa?
> Lieto di leggere le riflessioni altrui. Lorenzo.
>
> --
> Lorenzo Rolla
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Oct 2019, 02:43 by mapp...@consebt.de:

> Thinking of a delivery vehicle I am even considering if access=permissive 
> would be appropriate.
>
access=permissive is used in cases where everyone
may enter, but owner may revoke access at any time


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

[OSM-talk-fr] Géocodage : différence entre les API

[Marc Gauthier via Talk-fr]

Bonjour à tous,

J'ai quelques échecs de géocodage sur l'ancienne API, par exemple 
https://api-adresse.data.gouv.fr/search/?q=6+rue+Chateaurenault=35238


La requête 
http://demo.addok.xyz/search/?q=6+rue+Chateaurenault=35238 
fournit la bonne localisation.


Quelle est l'origine de la différence de réponse : bases, logiciel ... ???

Bonne journée
Marc



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

[Talk-it] inserimento postamat piccoli comuni

[Lorenzo Rolla]

Buongiorno a tutti. Desidero sottoporre alla vostra attenzione di tutti
questa criticità (derubricabile in corbelleria...). Poste Italiane sta
installando numerosi postamat in paesini piccolissimi: lodevolissima
iniziativa, ma circoscritta a un comunicato stampa aziendale e quindi
sconosciuta ai turisti, ai visitatori occasionali, a semplici cittadini. Il
quesito è molto semplice: segnalo il tag non preoccupandomi della posizione
della "macchinetta sputasoldi" oppure ignoro la notizia per non
"contaminare" la mappa da un'indicazione imprecisa?
Lieto di leggere le riflessioni altrui. Lorenzo.

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping 'private roads'

[forster]

Maybe add the tag norender=yes when the owner or responsible body  
requests that a feature not be rendered. This might apply to private  
property, illegal tracks on public land , military bases and more. It  
would be up to individual map renderers whether they would respect the  
norender request. They might respect the tag differently for example  
in different countries.


I would not render at openstreetmap.org (excluding for example country  
wide requests) but would render in the ID editor.


The downside of my suggestion is that it might be adding another layer  
of complexity for little real improvement.


Tony


As you mention I can see these being useful for emergency services or
anyone who has been granted access to private roads/tracks.

If you're mapping based on what you can see from the aerial imagery, then I
see no issue with mapping these as access=private.

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 09:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


Hi,

I am in 2 minds about this ... these roads exist so they can be seen.

They might be usefull navigational features;

firstly to plot progress along a public road - you have just past   
this private road so you must he here on the map.


secondly for any emergency services - mainly thinking of fire,   
particularly of non local fireies.


Some object as mapping them may encourage inappropriate use.. "its   
on my map, so I can use it" is one of the responses. Sigh.


Adding access=private works for some renders and not others.

-

I do like to see the map with all these tracks, even private ones.

On the other hand I don't want people seeing a line on the map and   
thinking they can use it...


===

A middle ground? Show the start of the track and no more???

--- From the Aust. Tagging Guidelines

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging

How I would tag farm tracks..
"highway=track Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and   
similar roads. "


Then goes on to

"highway=service Unnamed access roads. e.g.
Entrance ways and roads in parks, government properties, beach access
etc. Use a short service road where you may want to mark the entrance
to a private/government area, but not map the interior private roads
in detail."

The problem here is that some raise the "not map the interior
private roads in detail" as not mapping them at all.


 ___
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