Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

29 Oct 2021, 09:08 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:

> You could map a track under the "if it exists then map it" rule but you don't 
> have to. We do not map women's refuges and they exist. We don't have to map 
> every informal trail.
>
Note that "do not map women's refuges" applies to ones which are kept secret,
what is already covered by verifiability requirements.

There are also ones advertising their locations which want to be known, so
people who would need to get there know about it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Breaking a beach?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

1) I think it is fine to consider differently named sections
of shoreline beach as separate objects 
(it gets trickier when areas overlap)

2) it is likely much easier to edit it in JOSM


Sep 15, 2021, 02:22 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> Have had a look at this several times & can't figure out how to fix it?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17960956>  has been mapped as one beach for 
> the entire northern part of the Gold Coast, which is fair enough as it is an 
> unbroken length of sand the whole way.
>
> However, at some stage, several years ago, the entire length was named as  
> "Main Beach", which is actually only one relatively short section. A few 
> years later, the name was then changed to "Surfers Paradise Beach", which, 
> while more famous (?), is even shorter! In actual fact, this stretch of sand 
> covers 9 separate named beaches / areas.
>
> Is there any way of breaking this one area into multiple beaches? (& I only 
> use iD, which probably makes things harder?)
>
> To make matters worse, there are a host of relations involved in the same 
> line/s: suburb (multiple), City, Qld & Australian boundaries; Mainland 
> Australia relation; Coastline; watershed & undoubtedly more, of which 
> breaking any one will mean the end of civilisation!
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=-28.05921=153.44282#map=19/-28.05899/153.44394
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Friend requests from 'Porn Bots'

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

>> but I was wondering if anybody else has seen dodgy friend  requests
>>
>
> There were a few last month: > 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-August/014922.html>  
> and they just seem to have kicked off again.  I've seen reports  
> elsewhere and have had a couple myself.
>
>
> The best thing to do is to click the "report user" button in the  user 
> profile and report it as spam. The admins tend to delete them  fairly 
> quickly.
>
>
See also https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/3310
for some possible systematic solutions

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Historic railways and route=train - is this good practice?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

2 Sep 2021, 20:08 by skqu...@rushpost.com:

> On 9/2/21 12:03, Tony Shield wrote:
>
>> Guys
>>
>> Wandering through OPNVKarte I noted a railway line running through
>> Kielder Water - an impossibility, further investigation showed the
>> railway ways as abandoned or razed and part of a relation
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8213509/history , the Riccarton
>> and Hexham railway. I suspect it was being rendered due to the
>> route=train tag being set in the relation even though state=abandoned is
>> present.
>>
>> There is a similar rendering for the similarly abandoned Solway Junction
>> Railway -
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9220571#map=11/54.9165/-3.2530=O
>>
>>
>> As these two railways have long being extinct is it correct for them to
>> be route=train which I regards as current use,  or should they be a new
>> thing such as route=historic?
>>
>
> My gut reaction is to say this doesn't belong in OSM at all, but rather
> OpenHistoricalMap or a similar project.
>
 If there are no traces of such route(route, not rails) I think that 
deletionwould be a good idea.

Though I would try to contact authors ofa relation via changeset comments.

Sadly, some people incorrectly map railstuff that is completely, utterly and 
fullygone in OpenStreetMap instead of 
OpenHistoricalMap___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [talk-au] Strange friend request?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

If user is not existing then its spam profile was likely deleted.

Is this possibility mentioned at page of deleted user?

If not - can  you link it? Maybe it can be improved and 
mention that deleting user is common reason for spam accounts.

In general, in such case I would go to an user profile (if still existing),
press report user and as reason put "unexplained friend request, likely
spam/scam".

It may be a repeat of this private message spam, that was advertising porn 
sites.


Aug 29, 2021, 03:12 by nwas...@gmail.com:

>
> I have also been added as a friend by user ‘Debra_Devries’ but on going to 
> the link which seems legitimate, the user does not exist.
> Maybe my new friend has to do some edits before coming in to existence for 
> the link?
> Thanks,
> nevw
>
> On 29 Aug 2021, at 9:51 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick <> graemefi...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> Bit of a weird thing to ask about ...
>>
>> Open up the e-mail this morning & there's an OSM message (which certainly 
>> appears legit?) to say that "this person" has added me as a friend.
>>
>> That's nice, but it appears to be a real name that I don't know, & when I go 
>> to look at their user page, it says that that user doesn't exist?
>>
>> Anybody seen this before?
>>
>> & if it possibly is a scam of some sort (?) who should I report it to? 
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
>> 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-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 23, 2021, 06:24 by talk-au@openstreetmap.org:

> On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 5:39 PM, Little Maps wrote:
>
>> I have a different take, but I think you'd be happy with my ideal router. It 
>> would give me 2 options: (1) use all available tracks (public + unknown) vs 
>> (2) only use known public tracks. Given how few tracks have an access tag, 
>> most users would default to "show me all of them", but they'd have a choice. 
>> Globally, only 3.8% of tracks have an access tag: 20.7 million of 21.5 
>> million tracks don't. Any app that only used known public tracks would be 
>> viewed as crippled by users and would go broke. The market would force 
>> developers to show all tracks, regardless of their personal intentions.
>>
>
> I don't think there is any perfect solution until all tracks have an access 
> tag, only compromises. You could decide to route on tracks including without 
> an access tag set, with a warning or just accept there will be some bad 
> routes and encourage users to report or fix those in OSM. 
>
Other options (theoretical)
1) apply some penalty to tracks with unknown access so a bit longer route will 
be 
preferred if known to be accessible
2) find route in both modes - "assume yes" and "assume no" and present both to 
the user

>> By analogy, until recently the Aus community took the view that there was no 
>> need to add paved surface tags on roads and only unpaved tags needed to be 
>> added. Paved was taken as the default value. As lots of roads had no tags it 
>> was impossible to know which were actually paved and which just hadn't been 
>> tagged. Same problem to here. Fortunately, heaps of mappers added paved tags 
>> anyway, which enabled us to get to the stage this year where virtually every 
>> road down to tertiary level across the whole country now has a surface tag 
>> (except in Melb and Perth). Soon every unclassified road in Vic will have 
>> one as well. Keep chipping away at the job is my suggestion.
>>
>
> Exactly, and overall I think OSM data is in a much better place because of 
> this.
>
See also maxweight:signed, opening_hours:signed, cycleway:both=no 
and explicit access tagging on playgrounds (this ones promoted by SC)

> I've tried to get StreetComplete to ask about access but it was rejected > 
> https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2930
>
note that it was rejected because
1) access is at least sometimes unsigned and not clear - is it different in 
Australia?
Is it possible to have a simple question where someone with zero experience 
would reliably answer?

Are there also tracks open to public entry on foot/bicycle and not in other 
vehicle?
It also would need to be handled - or request user to leave notes for tracks 
not fully
open and not fully closed if that is rare

(In Poland it would be unlikely due to tricky situation with 
vehicle/foot/bicycle access
that is very hard to survey and interpret)

2) Problem of spammy quest is real (in some areas many, many, many will be 
public)
but there are some spammy quests already and given high usefulness it seems 
survivable

3) no community was known to want explicit access tagging on all highway=track
(from this discussion I see that it can change)
In such case posting comment in that issue to outcome of discussion (probably 
documentation on OSM Wiki) that explicit access tagging is desired on every
single highway=track in entire country would defuse that argument

(Or maybe it could be asked on access=unknown tracks?)

No promises that it would be implemented but "Australian community clearly
agrees that explicit access tagging on all tracks is desired" would defuse
one of blockers.

Especially if there are good reasons to do it this way it would encourage doing 
this.

---

(as one of contributors to StreetComplete I strongly prefer avoiding  going 
"hereby I declare tagging decision, rest of OSM community now should
change their mapping, change other presets and update wiki, the king of tagging
has spoken"

it is tricky to distinguish sometimes "this is my pet tagging style that noone 
likes" vs
"this is an accepted tagging style, with tiny loud minority complaining" or
"this is new accepted mapping style" vs "this is a bad idea not supported by 
community"

and in case of highway=track I was unaware about any real support for access 
tagging on 
every single one - and none was linked in the discussion)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 17, 2021, 00:24 by bjceravo...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 21:19, Andrew Harvey <> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>>> And this one definitely should be inverted:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.85421/151.06761
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Surprise no one fixed this already, I've done so now.
>>  
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <>> 
>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?
>>>
>>
>> Well in NSW you can't cycle on the sidewalk...
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> Is it OK to use them for u-turn?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> But you don't need the routing engine to tell you that. So being private is 
> fine.
>
For initial/final segment? no so important, though I have seen cases where
router took nearest public way (footway) instead of highway=residential
and driveway mapping helped it to produce reasonable routing.

But sometimes entering footway, pushing small section
and leaving footway via driveway is useful in the middle

Or leaving cycleway via driveway.
See 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-31.99292=115.91624#map=19/-31.99292/115.91624

Without mapping public driveways routing would direct cyclists all the way
to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-31.99326=115.92041#map=18/-31.99326/115.92041
- possibly ignoring this route and proposing an inferior alternative.


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

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 16, 2021, 13:14 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <> 
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?
>>
>
> Well in NSW you can't cycle on the sidewalk...
>  
>
I was also thinking about treating it as a good places for transition from
pushing bicycle on sidewalk to cycling on road (actually used this way
by for example brouter)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 15, 2021, 02:06 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 08:55, Tom Brennan <> webs...@ozultimate.com> > wrote:
>
>
>> I agree with your comment about only the section inside the property 
>> actually being 
>>  private, but that distinction really only becomes important once 
>>  footpaths are more frequently mapped as highway=footway + footway=sidewalk
>>
>
> Personally, I don't bother splitting them. Strictly speaking, nobody is 
> allowed to turn into your household driveway & park there, so I consider that 
> the whole thing would be private?
>
Are you allowed as a cyclist to leave sidewalk using them?

Is it OK to use them for u-turn?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Audible fences

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Aug 1, 2021, 09:48 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:

>>
>> What physically is this 'screeching fence'?
>>
>>
>> Is it in the middle of the road like a cattle grid, or along the edge
>> of the road?
>>
>> A single pole with the device on it?
>>
>> Or is it 2 poles on opposite sides of the road with devices mounted one them?
>>
>> Or is it a series of poles along both sides of the road with devices on them?
>>
>
> Hi Warin
> There is more than one way to implement virtual fencing
> The one near me https://www.wildlifesafetysolutions.com.au/
> Is a series of poles along both sides of the road with devices on them, 
> though it could be one side
>
> Tony
>

Then barrier=fence is really unsuitable - as it is not a barrier at all for 
human and
is unlike other barrier=fence despite using similar name

I would advise against using barrier=fence for them
Even barrier=audible_fence would be better.

Maybe  something completely different
barrier=audible or barrier=sensoric (???)
(AFAIK also light is sometimes used)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jul 28, 2021, 07:29 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>> You can check your throttle status on the standard server here >> 
>> https://overpass-api.de/api/status
>>
>
> Which came back with
> Rate limit: 22 slots available now.
> which I assume means it should be OK?
>
Yes, this reported that 2 out of 2 slots are available.

If you run query recently there could be listing of how long you need
to wait for query to become available again (for small queries 
done rarely it could be seconds, for large repeated ones you can
get hours before you are allowed to query again)

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

Re: [talk-au] Roads in Industrial Estates: Residential, Unclassified or Service?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Jul 28, 2021, 07:23 by aho...@gmail.com:

>
> Industrial on one side, residential on the other? 
> Personally I don't mind leaving this as residential as you suggest, so just 
> mark it as not an issue.
>
Often residential will be valid there, so I would skip it.

> If you get blocked on the standard one then you can change the overpass api 
> server that you're working with. In overpass-turbo setting you can switch to 
> > https://overpass.kumi.systems/api>  which is a different instance hosted by 
> some people who don't have a limit > https://overpass.kumi.systems/
> In my tests the data is recent.
>
Note that it has repeated problems with corrupted data (both queries simply 
failing 
- especially for attic data) and with queries returning outdated/corrupted data 
silently.

> Speaking as a programmer, I'm not sure that I've ever encountered a language 
> as poorly explained and documented as overpass QL. 
>
I just always start from existing examples.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_API_by_Example
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Advanced_examples

I almost never write such code, I rather find the closest example and modify it.
In my experience that almost always works well.

I started also writing introduction at
https://mapsaregreat.com/geographic-data-mining-and-visualisation-for-beginners/overpass-turbo-tutorial.html
(right now and for long time it is just starter, but maybe may be useful and 
maybe one
day I will continue writing it)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter should have an 
explanation
(if something is unclear, confusing or insufficient then it should be fixed)


Jun 14, 2021, 09:47 by dazzilitc...@gmail.com:

> I'm not sure how to revert but here are the changesets. I'd really appreciate 
> it if someone could explain how to revert changesets or do it for me.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106183760
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106183680
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106183490
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106180821
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106140541
>
> I'll try to get around to sending the waiver request at some point in the 
> week.
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 12:23, Phil Wyatt <> p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Hopefully someone on the list will be able to give a bit more background on 
>> the waiver request from Jan 2019, if not, it might pay to send another 
>> request using the waiver template.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> I would halt your work until the waiver has been signed off
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> From:>>  Andrew Munday <>> dazzilitc...@gmail.com>> > 
>> Sent:>>  Monday, 14 June 2021 10:17 AM
>> To:>>  Sebastian S. <>> mapp...@consebt.de>> >
>> Cc:>>  OSM Australian Talk List <>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> >
>> Subject:>>  Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> At the moment I'm a little concerned about how at >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue#Australian_Capital_Territory>>
>>   it says that the government hasn't given permission for anyone to use the 
>> dataset just yet. Would it be better to just revert my edits for now until 
>> we have a waiver. I don't want to be doing anything illegal. 
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 at 12:10, Sebastian S. <>> mapp...@consebt.de>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> Great that you reach out to the community.
>>>
>>> For osm imports planning and community buy in are important steps prior to 
>>> the actual import.
>>>
>>> This is to ensure high quality imports, avoiding reverts and can also get 
>>> you additional hands doing the work.
>>>
>>> There are different ways of doing this. >>> 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines>>>  will give you 
>>> some guidance.
>>>
>>> Essentially you should be writing down what you want to do and how you want 
>>> to do it.
>>>
>>> The how should cover preparation of the data, tags you want to use, how to 
>>> deal with existing osm nodes and objects.
>>> For large imports it's also suggested to use a separate account. 
>>>
>>> As I see it there are two ways of going about it. One is to sketch the idea 
>>> and work through the details with the community, then write the import page 
>>> on the wiki as a summary.
>>> The other approach would be to start the import page first then seek 
>>> feedback from the community.
>>>
>>> In either case please don't feel discouraged by any of this. 
>>>
>>> Thanks for your contributions.
>>> Seb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 June 2021 11:02:31 am AEST, Andrew Munday <>>> 
>>> dazzilitc...@gmail.com>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>

 I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "how I'm mapping into the OSM tag 
 schema" but for street lamps I was placing nodes and using the tag 
 "highway"="street_lamp" which is how the wiki says to tag them.


 As for dealing with conflicts, I used overpass turbo to query all the 
 existing street lamps and made sure to do my test uploads in suburbs that 
 didn't already have any street lamps in them. I'm not really sure how I'd 
 merge with any existing street lamps at the moment.


 Hopefully this goes to the mailing list. I don't really know what I'm 
 doing.


  


 On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 20:42, Andrew Harvey < 
 andrew.harv...@gmail.com > wrote:


>
> See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
>
>
>  
>
>
> For starters I'd like to see how you're mapping into the OSM tag schema, 
> how you plan to deal with conflicts (if any are already mapped in the 
> ACT).
>
>
>  
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2021, 10:03 am Andrew Munday, <> 
> dazzilitc...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Hello everyone. I'm not sure what I'm doing with this mailing list thing 
>> so bear with me. I'm building an augmented reality game ala Pokemon Go 
>> and one of the objects in the game are street lamps. I've been adding a 
>> lot of changes around my house in Canberra for around a year and the 
>> other day I found out about automated edits and figured I could use the 
>> street lamps dataset at >> 
>> 

Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

If there is no permission then edits sould be reverted.

Can you link affected ones?


Jun 14, 2021, 02:16 by dazzilitc...@gmail.com:

> At the moment I'm a little concerned about how at > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue#Australian_Capital_Territory>
>   it says that the government hasn't given permission for anyone to use the 
> dataset just yet. Would it be better to just revert my edits for now until we 
> have a waiver. I don't want to be doing anything illegal.
>
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 at 12:10, Sebastian S. <> mapp...@consebt.de> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>> Great that you reach out to the community.
>>
>> For osm imports planning and community buy in are important steps prior to 
>> the actual import.
>>
>> This is to ensure high quality imports, avoiding reverts and can also get 
>> you additional hands doing the work.
>>
>> There are different ways of doing this. >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines>>  will give you some 
>> guidance.
>>
>> Essentially you should be writing down what you want to do and how you want 
>> to do it.
>>
>> The how should cover preparation of the data, tags you want to use, how to 
>> deal with existing osm nodes and objects.
>> For large imports it's also suggested to use a separate account. 
>>
>> As I see it there are two ways of going about it. One is to sketch the idea 
>> and work through the details with the community, then write the import page 
>> on the wiki as a summary.
>> The other approach would be to start the import page first then seek 
>> feedback from the community.
>>
>> In either case please don't feel discouraged by any of this. 
>>
>> Thanks for your contributions.
>> Seb
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 June 2021 11:02:31 am AEST, Andrew Munday <>> dazzilitc...@gmail.com>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "how I'm mapping into the OSM tag 
>>> schema" but for street lamps I was placing nodes and using the tag 
>>> "highway"="street_lamp" which is how the wiki says to tag them.
>>> As for dealing with conflicts, I used overpass turbo to query all the 
>>> existing street lamps and made sure to do my test uploads in suburbs that 
>>> didn't already have any street lamps in them. I'm not really sure how I'd 
>>> merge with any existing street lamps at the moment.
>>> Hopefully this goes to the mailing list. I don't really know what I'm doing.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 20:42, Andrew Harvey <>>> 
>>> andrew.harv...@gmail.com>>> > wrote:
>>>
 See  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines

 For starters I'd like to see how you're mapping into the OSM tag schema, 
 how you plan to deal with conflicts (if any are already mapped in the ACT).


 On Sat, 12 Jun 2021, 10:03 am Andrew Munday, < 
 dazzilitc...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Hello everyone. I'm not sure what I'm doing with this mailing list thing 
> so bear with me. I'm building an augmented reality game ala Pokemon Go 
> and one of the objects in the game are street lamps. I've been adding a 
> lot of changes around my house in Canberra for around a year and the 
> other day I found out about automated edits and figured I could use the 
> street lamps dataset at > 
> https://www.data.act.gov.au/Infrastructure-and-Utilities/ACT-Streetlights/cfpr-4tpw>
>   to speed up the process. I did look at the automatic edits code of 
> conduct page and I couldn't figure out who I should contact about my 
> plans to do it so I submitted a few changesets and ticked the box saying 
> I wanted someone to review my edits which got someone to tell me to 
> message here. I'm happy to undo the changesets if needed but I'd like 
> some guidance on how to do this sort of thing.
> ___
>  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] Electric forecourt

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I would map it as amenity=charging_station area.

Dec 20, 2020, 12:05 by rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> I saw on Fully Charged (YouTube channel) that there is now a electric vehicle 
> charging forecourt. Unlike others, this is not a couple of charging points 
> added to an existing petrol station or slapped down in a carpark. This is a 
> full on electric version of a petrol station (without petrol as an option).
>
> https://www.gridserve.com/braintree-overview/
>
> Feels like a good time to review how we map them. Do we have the right tags 
> available?
>
> The wiki has a lot but it seems a bit jumbled. For example, I believe this 
> site has CCS socket chargers at various kW sizes. Our current tagging scheme 
> doesn't look like it allows for that. Is this an issue?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station
>
> Best regards
> Rob
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM and Google

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 18, 2020, 18:55 by jiri.huba...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 07:16:14PM +, Tom Hughes via talk wrote:
>
>> No it couldn't - the google problem he refers to was with
>> their authentication service not their DNS service.
>>
>
> So maybe he use Google as third party to login to OpenStreetMap?
>
OpenStreetMap had outage that was more widespread than not
working sign-in using Google account.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Please SWITCH to Mailman 3 & hyperkitty

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 14, 2020, 20:23 by j...@liotier.org:

> On 12/14/20 8:13 PM, > ipswichmap...@tutanota.com>  wrote:
>
>> > A bigger problem is that the UI for list owners ishorrid.
>>
>> Ok. What alternative solutions do you propose?
>>
>
> From Tom's answer, you might gather that there are higher  priorities 
> that absorb administrative resources - so unless you  can offer a hand, 
> I'm afraid that things will remain as they are  for now.
>
>
See
https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/377
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=68929
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Top_Ten_Tasks=20100=2072003=1971678

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 13, 2020, 20:52 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Dec 13, 2020, 19:50 by ch...@c-hodges.co.uk:
>
>> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does go 
>> down the steps?
>>
> Add them to bike route relation.
>

Obviously it applies only if there is some signed bicycle route there.

If it is just part of cycleway system, without signed bicycle route then
relation should not be created and there is actually a gap in cycleway
system.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 13, 2020, 19:50 by ch...@c-hodges.co.uk:

> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does go 
> down the steps?
>
Add them to bike route relation.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Note that someone who wants to show their map style at OSM website can
be included, though they must sponsor hosting

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers

As far as I know, the main blocker seems to be 
"Capable of meeting traffic demands. The proposed tile layer server/server farm
must be capable of accepting the traffic volume from the OpenStreetMap website."

ÖPNVKarte is map style that joined recently.

Dec 13, 2020, 12:08 by n...@foresters.org:

>
> Seems to me that apart from the tagging, the issue highlighted  here is 
> with how the general public cab easily use OSM? Going to  the OSM map, 
> the layers on offer are Standard, Cycle Map (which  does show the 
> driveway connected) etc. but if a user wants a more  specific use this is 
> not easy to find. To my mind this is where  more options from the 
> worldwide map fail to deliver and is a  bigger issue that can be resolved 
> by understanding the 'customer'  journey better? 
>
> On 13/12/2020 10:28, Nick Allen wrote:
>  
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tend to think of tagging more in terms of 'who will usethis?' I 
>> know my local area extremely well, so I map it as bestI can using 
>> tags that will make sense to anyone visiting thearea. When I'm away 
>> from home I use OSM extensively to findthings, and hope that the 
>> local mappers are using a universalscheme so that it will work for 
>> me.
>>
>> I've travelled on roads in Portugal, Spain an parts of Africawhich 
>> dont have a surface such as tarmac (tarmacadam / asphalt)or 
>> concrete, but instead have been built with a top coatingsimilar to 
>> clay, which is compressed and then smoothed using agrader. 
>> Particularly in Portugal, at the time I drove on them,these 
>> 'unsurfaced' roads were so good that they were better thanthe (at 
>> that time) M25 which was full of pot-holes and difficultto drive 
>> safely on.
>>
>> Although >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways>>  is the obvious 
>> choice to look at, I actually find that >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa>>  explains it better.
>>
>> Regards & Happy Mapping / Surveying
>>
>> Nick
>> (Tallguy)
>>
>> On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 10:08 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>>> >  >>> https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>>>  >
>>>  >>> > It seems daft to methat the mud gets rendered but not 
>>> the hardcore. If
>>>  >>> > I change the "driveway"to "track" that would be the 
>>> dreaded tagging for
>>>  >>> > the renderer would itnot? Generally in this part of the 
>>> world "track"
>>>  >>> > means mud, rather thana roadway suitable for all 
>>> vehicles.
>>>  
>>>
>>> I don't know what part  of the world you're in, but by my 
>>> Fenland lights, I'd  probably call that a track, not a driveway 
>>> - certainly  once it passes the farm buildings (since I see a 
>>> driveway  as implying car-worthy access to a building). 
>>>
>>> Would that solve it?  Driveway as far as the farm and then 
>>> track?
>>>
>>> I'm going to risk  blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the 
>>> renderer is  what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem 
>>> imo is  "fudging it for the renderer", or "outright lying for 
>>> the  renderer". In this case, I'd say track is a valid choice - 
>>>  I think even for the whole length, if by "driveway" we 
>>>  infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.
>>>
>>> But I'm still a spring  chicken round here, relatively 
>>> speaking, and I await  correction by my olders.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <>>> 
>>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>> >wrote:
>>>
 >Getting  back to this case, this is the farm drive. 
 >Beyond the
   >cattle-grid  the public bridleway continues left 
 through the farm
   >buildings,  and the surface deteriorates to the 
 usual farm mud:
  
      > https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg


 Apologies  for going off topic, but I knew that name 
 (Noverton  Farm) sounded familiar.

 A  quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998   
I did a  long distance walk from Sussex to the Peak 
  District, following ordinary footpaths (planned using 
  OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. 
  It was very nice  but  the footpaths were in an appaling state of 
  disrepair, I remember on several occasions that day   
having to 

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I run into from time to time and was unsure how to tag this.

On the other hand highway=track is supposed to be used on
roads used to access fields/forests (often unpaved and of low
quality, but there are also high quality asphalt
tracktype=grade1 surface=asphalt ones).

So with road that is both access road to single house and
forest neither highway=track nor highway=service service=driveway
really matches.

Dec 13, 2020, 11:44 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
> could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.
>
> The Wiki says that a driveway is (with my bold for emphasis), 
>
> " ... a minor service road leading to a residential or business property. It 
> typically branches from a bigger road and leads toward an entrance to a 
> specific destination (building, etc.). It may end at or pass the entrance, 
> but either way, it gets close to its destination. > It is rare for a driveway 
> to be the way to access another roadway (but see Pipestems below)."
>
> (pipestems allow a driveway to be shared between several properties)
>
> So if, in this case, it leads on to another way (e.g. a bridleway, or a 
> track), it is not a driveway.  Does this solve the problem?
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> Peter Neale
> t: 01908 309666 
> m: 07968 341930 
> skype: nealepb
>
>
> On Sunday, 13 December 2020, 10:25:46 GMT, Edward Bainton 
>  wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to 
> ensure tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track 
> doesn't solve the problem.
>
> That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The different 
> surfaces can be caught in the attributes.
>
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton <> bainton@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> >  >> https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>> >
>> > It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
>> > I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
>> > the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
>> > means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.
>>
>> I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights, I'd 
>> probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes the 
>> farm buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to a 
>> building). 
>>
>> Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?
>>
>> I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is 
>> what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for 
>> the renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say 
>> track is a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by 
>> "driveway" we infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.
>>
>> But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I await 
>> correction by my olders.
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <>> 
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>>> >Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>>>  >>> >cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>>>  >>> >buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:
>>>  
>>>  >>>  >>>   https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
>>> familiar.
>>>
>>> A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long 
>>> distance walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary 
>>> footpaths (planned using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme 
>>> Valley. It was very nice >>> but>>> ​ the footpaths were in an appaling 
>>> state of disrepair, I remember on several occasions that day having to 
>>> scramble through dense shrub cover and attempt to negotiate barbed-wire 
>>> fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as being the site of some 
>>> particularly badly-maintained footpaths.
>>>
>>> As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
>>> illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, 
>>> which is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I 
>>> still haven't illustrated this walk incidentally, but...
>>>
>>> Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:>>>  Martin Wynne <>>> mar...@templot.com>>> >
>>>  >>> Sent:>>>  12 December 2020 14:30
>>>  >>> To:>>>  >>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>>  <>>> 
>>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>> >
>>>  >>> Subject:>>>  Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track>>>  >>>  
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:
>>>  
>>>  > 
>>>  > Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it. 
>>>  > Perhaps that someone is you?
>>>  
>>>  Hi Andy,
>>>  
>>>  Yes that someone could be me. I have a server 

[Talk-GB] Is "GB revert request log" wiki page something that should be recommended?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

It is about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log that 
appears
to be abandoned.

I was looking through 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abuse and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
to improve them, and encountered

"It may be appropriate to set up a log of reversions. Within 
England/Wales/Scotland
please put requests on the GB revert request log 
."

Is it still true, or is it something that should be deleted?

Last edit is in 2012 so it seems clearly abandoned
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=GB_revert_request_log=history
and I removed this from Vandalism page
in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism=2071209=2071207
edit.

Please let me know if it was a mistake and this recommendation should be 
restored.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 10, 2020, 21:51 by sk53@gmail.com:

> However, I would regard > the Dutch 
> >  & Polish 
> communities approach of adding individual
> nodes for each address in the building irrespective of the actual address 
> position outline
> as incorrect mapping in the UK. In both cases, and probably > also in Denmark 
> > , this is 
> most
> likely because addresses have been imported from a national database and this 
> allows
> incremental updates from the same source. The problem with this is that it 
> prevents classic
> OSM iterative refinement, such as accurate mapping for indoor usage, for 
> instance to enable
> guidance for blind people. 
>
At least in Poland separate nodes for addresses are preferred as this:

- more accurate and allows to specify where given address actually is
- for example after mapping entrances, you can be guided to a correct one
- I am confused why it prevents 
"OSM iterative refinement, such as accurate mapping for indoor usage"
(maybe in UK addresses are assigned differently than in Poland)
- maybe it is related to fact that I am unaware of "address position outline"
existing in Poland - address is de facto assigned to building/plot/entrance
and in rare cases to complex objects such as a hospital or group of entrances
- it is common to have on street corner address from two streets in one building
(see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.07413=19.93361#map=19/50.07413/19.93361
and three nearby buildings), mapping this as an interpolation would not work
(and least I think so)
- and yes, is easier to map and import

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Fwd: Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 10, 2020, 22:46 by matkoni...@tutanota.com:

> (3)
> If girls are from young age discouraged from being interested in
> maps/geography/volunteering/etc then it is going to help
> in lower participation in projects for people interested in maps.
>
"If girls are from young age discouraged from being interested in
maps/geography/volunteering/etc then it is going to result
in lower participation of women in projects for people interested in maps."

would be better phrasing, I noticed too late that "help" has positive
connotations.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Fwd: Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 10, 2020, 20:58 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Underrepresentation of women and gender minorities, racial
> underrepresentation, geographic underrepresentation, these are all
> symptoms. If OSM did not systematically exclude these groups, these
> groups would not be underrepresented.
>
It is not so simple.

Problem may be outside OSM.

(1)
Significant part of geographic underrepresentation
is caused by simple fact that in many places people
have simply no time for such hobby and certainly no 
time and resources for mailing list discussions

https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/water/
"2.2 billion people lack access to safely managed drinking water"
- in such situations you are pretty unlikely to become 
involved in OSM

Malaria alone kills 400 000 people every year,
basically all of that is preventable or treatable
(hopefully it is OK to plug here
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Malaria_Foundation )

(2)
OSM editing is illegal in China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China

If someone is going to start going against Chinese 
government it is unlikely that they select mapping in OSM
as the top priority or even as a symbolic protest.

(3)
If girls are from young age discouraged from being interested in
maps/geography/volunteering/etc then it is going to help
in lower participation in projects for people interested in maps.

And for example "women are likely to be confused by maps"
stereotype is one that I encountered and it is of a kind that
is self-perpetuating.

(4)
Mappers from North Korea are underrepresented,
and in very large part it is not fault of OSM community.

---

We can try to limit damage and encourage participation,
but there are external factors that we will not overcome
(though hopefully we can take part in reducing them).

But even with OSM being 100% ideal many of mentioned
groups would be still underrepresented.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How do I join the meeting tonight?

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Dec 10, 2020, 18:32 by bainton@gmail.com:

> though can't see how to set up Push to Talk
>
big blue cog => audio input tab (selected by default) -> Transmission panel

Change dropdown from "voice activity" to "Push to talk"

Seems that it should work

> The > wiki >  has a HOT server 
> listed, but LWG isn't part of HOT? (See below sig)
>
It is a bit confusing, but yes - HOT server, OSMF group,
License Working Group (LWG) channel

Disclaimer: I am not experienced and it is possibly that something may be wrong
in my text.

If you join we can test whatever it works.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

(1)
I am strongly opposed to quota system

"Board Seat allocation for OSMF members who are women and non-cis males,
and who are citizens of Low and Middle Income Countries"

(also, note that it is "citizens of", not actually poor people, also looking at 
Wikipedia
"this definition is not universally agreed upon. There is also no clear 
agreement on
which countries fit this category."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Low_and_Middle_Income_Countries )

(2)
Also, while I am one of people who protested about comparing plagiarism to rape,
claiming that it was "dehumanizing message" is going too far in my opinion.

(3)
"Make Working Groups and OSM activities more equitable" is it also
code for "introduce quota system"?


Dec 9, 2020, 20:06 by cel...@gmail.com:

> Hello everybody
> I hope you are all well
>
> We, several groups, chapters, organizations and individuals, have reacted to 
> the conversation in the osm-talk-list (> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085692.html> ) 
> considering that it is an incident symptomatic of the problem we have faced 
> for many years in the community, which is one of the greatest obstacles to 
> diversity at all levels of OSM. Time to make a real change.
> That is why we have developed a beginning of statement on the desirable 
> mechanisms to work solidly on the rules of coexistence and improve diversity.
>
> We bring it to your attention and invite anyone who feels represented to sign 
> it. Translations are in preparation (any help is welcome): 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> On behalf of the signatories
> Best regards
>
> Céline Jacquin
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 8, 2020, 18:41 by r...@technomancy.org:

> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 09:43, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>> Can you give an example of something that would follow
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
>> and still would not fulfill ODBL?
>>
>
> What is and isn't allowed by the ODbL can (I think) only be answered by a 
> court case.
>
While details can be argued and litigated some things are clear.

For example big prominent attribution is certainly fine, while completely
missing attribution and displaying worldwide map is certainly not.

So, we may safely recommend using visible attribution what is
- certainly fulfilling ODBL
- not a burden for someone using OSM data in a good faith
- in our interest 

> These guidelines suffer the same mistake as the old OSMF Legal FAQ¹ of using 
> “should”, rather than “must”.
>
I am not a native speaker, personally I wold be fine with strengthening "should"
to "must".
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Can you give an example of something that would follow
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
and still would not fulfill ODBL?

I see no obvious loopholes there.

Dec 7, 2020, 22:57 by r...@technomancy.org:

> It's good to see more discussion on this. I like that this document lays out 
> the moral requirment to attribute. We don't ask for any money, but we do ask 
> you to attribute us. It's a very good bargain.
>
> But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the 
> relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution 
> where someone could argue that they meet this standard.
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, at 21:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
>> I appreciate the wik page "Community attribution advice" which was made 
>> by another community member. It seems to give good advice about how 
>> database users can comply with the attribution guidelines in a way that 
>> everybody* in this community can support.
>>
>> Please review the page and make any comments for improvement if needed: 
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
>>
>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> (*Note that "everybody" does not include the interests of corporations, 
>> which are not persons, but rather the interests of individual mappers 
>> and database users)
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] British Waterways

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 7, 2020, 16:00 by and...@black1.org.uk:

>
>
>
> On 07/12/2020 10:33, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
>>   
>>
>> TBH there's  only 170 operator=British Waterways tags according 
>> to  taginfo, so it could be polished off pretty quickly with 
>>  an Overpass query and a manual edit.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> But (correct me if I am wrong) that is still an automated edit
>
>
Depends on whatever you just replace everything or check individual objects.

Meaning of "check" is important here. Is it necessary to just check tagging
(handling other operator tags, for example wikipedia:operator, 
wikidata:operator)?

Should you check surrounding OSM data? Aerial imagery? Research situation?

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

Re: [Talk-transit] station=tram in Berlin

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

I would delete such objects.

If someone really want to represent entire 
stop, then there is public_transport=stop_area
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5746202 


Though I would rather ask local community
(Berling or Germany in general)

Dec 7, 2020, 17:10 by talk-transit@openstreetmap.org:

> Hello, mappers!
>
> I’ve noticed that some objects with
>
> railway=halt/station + station=tram
>
> tagging were created recently in Berlin. I know it's uncommon to tag tram 
> stops as railway stations. Overpass query
>
> [out:xml];
> nwr[station=tram];
> out geom;
>
> reveals only 109 such objects worldwide, half of which were created recently 
> in Berlin by two users. Typical example is the node > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8178939810/history#map=19/52.50528/13.61336
>
> Please give your judgement about the situation.
>
> —
> Best regards,
> Alexey [ azakh-world ],
> Maps.me team
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Inland Border Facilities

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 6, 2020, 15:05 by sk53@gmail.com:

> I was wondering if there were any equivalents elsewhere. 
>
> Closest I can think of is > this location 
> >  between 
> Feldkirch & Bludenz, which although described as a goods vehicle checkpoint 
> from my personal experience is also operated as in internal custom checkpoint 
> (and therefore amenity=police might be wrong too). As a group travelling from 
> Zurich to Soelden many of us were stopped for a passport/car check. A friend 
> who worked in marketing for BAT was driving a company van, and was hugely 
> amused at the idea that smuggling cigarettes from Switzerland to Austria 
> might be a way of making money.
>
> Close to the Poland/Belarus borders there are > Border Guard 
> >  stations, such as > 
> this one > . I think these are 
> mainly concerned with immigration rather customs. Certainly if travelling in 
> a car with non-local numberplates one can be expected to stopped & documents 
> checked (first time was stressful as unexpected & about 5:30 in the morning).
>
Looking at description in Polish it seems to be about handling smuggling and 
illegal migration,
not about handling customs of legally traveling cargo (AFAIK it would happen at 
border crossing,
such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.47616/23.35744 ).

BTW, it should be probably tagged as police-type force, not as military-type 
force.

On their website they imply that they enforce ban on presence on part of a 
border
("od znaku granicznego nr 303 do znaku granicznego nr 317 wprowadzono zakaz
przebywania na pasie drogi granicznej").


> Even traditional land borders with heavy duty border controls don't seem to 
> be tagged in an obvious way:
>
For example see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700736522#map=16/52.4744/23.3651 

- just fence mapped and some objects inside, no tag for the entire feature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-us] Washington DC place node cleanup

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

I posted a changeset comment in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76520412


Dec 6, 2020, 08:00 by m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us:

> Vào lúc 03:01 2020-12-04, Frederik Ramm đã viết:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> when reverting an edit this morning I noticed that the node for
>> Washington (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158368533) has myriad
>> name:xx tags, many of which seem to be some variant of "Washington D.C."
>> (with or without commas or dots), whereas the "local" name seems to be
>> just Washington, without the D.C.
>>
>> As a native speaker of German I can assure you that we don't call the US
>> capital "Washington D.C." as the name:de tag claims; I would assume that
>> it is similar for most other languages. The German-language OSM map at
>> https://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html?zoom=10=38.70174=-76.93764
>> has a mechanism where it displays the German name and then, if the local
>> name is different, the local name below; since the German name
>> "Washington D.C." and the local name "Washington" are different, this
>> leads to a somewhat funny display (whereas the logic works ok for other
>> US cities).
>>
>> I could of course fix the German name but I think that it might need a
>> more thorough review and I don't feel competent for that.
>>
>> Two name tags (and this is checking only those that use Roman letters)
>> look like they might be entirely wrong and refer to the District of
>> Columbia only:
>>
>> name:lfn=Distrito de Columbia
>> name:mi=Takiwā o Columbia
>>
>
> Most of these localized names were added in changeset 76520412 [1] based on 
> labels on the associated Wikidata item. [2] So this time it was not a case of 
> promoting a particular minority language. In fact, I don't think much 
> attention was paid to the names being added, or perhaps the Tajik name 
> would've remained to the effect of "Washington District of Columbia" instead 
> of being changed to "Washington (city)".
>
> This same changeset changed the name of the District of Columbia relation to 
> "Washington, D.C." in many languages, including English. [3] This results in 
> Nominatim returning results like "Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C." I think 
> it was inappropriate to rename the district this way. I think it was another 
> oversight on the part of the changeset's author, because Wikidata has a 
> distinct entity for the district. [4]
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76520412
> [2] https://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q61
> [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/162069
> [4] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3551781
>
>> Then again, I've heard people say "I was in D.C." and mean the city, so
>> perhaps that *is* a legitimate name for the city? Maybe someone in the
>> US community wants to have a look and do this right.
>>
>> It is a bit of a conundrum in OSM - we usually say that local knowledge
>> tops everything, but then again for many of the languages there might
>> not even *be* a local Washington mapper in OSM ;)
>>
>
> As others have pointed out, a local would refer to the city as "D.C." even 
> while acknowledging that the city's formal written name is "Washington" or 
> "Washington, D.C." I think common sense would require us to relegate "D.C." 
> to loc_name or short_name, just as a general-purpose, global map would only 
> shorten San Francisco to the local shorthand "S.F." and Salt Lake City to 
> "SLC" when space is at a premium.
>
> Thanks in part to the D.C.-based Voice of America, I'm sure you could find a 
> local to get the translated name of Washington, D.C., for many languages, but 
> I'm not confident they would choose the same names as Wikidata.
>
> For example, both VOA and the local Vietnamese media still generally call the 
> city "Hoa Thịnh Đốn", a relic of the early 20th century when Vietnamese still 
> borrowed Chinese characters for world-class cities. "Hoa Thịnh Đốn" is easy 
> for a Vietnamese speaker to pronounce, but it only kind of sounds like 
> "Washington" in the way that an eggcorn sounds like its original phrase. It's 
> archaic and probably unknown to the younger generation in Vietnam. The 
> Vietnamese government prefers the phonetic respelling "Oa-sinh-tơn", which 
> conversely is unknown to older Vietnamese Americans.
>
> When I originally tagged the D.C. node with Vietnamese names in changeset 
> 5439052, I intended for the fallback to be "Washington", as a compromise 
> between the traditional and more modern names. But I hesitated to explicitly 
> tag name:vi=Washington because it's incompatible with the Vietnamese 
> alphabet. I guess I should've added it as a bulwark against armchair 
> linguistics. Changeset 76520412 set name:vi to "Washington, D.C.", which to a 
> Vietnamese speaker is rather like labeling New Orleans as "New Orleans, LA" 
> on a map.
>
> Long story short, I find changeset 76520412 to be problematic in the 
> languages I know, let alone the many languages I don't. Thanks for bringing 
> it to our attention.
>
> -- 
> 

Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

One thing that is missing to me is explicit mention that it is not
overriding ODBL or related laws and is not adding any legal
requirements.

If someone follows ODBL license or is in situation where following license
is not needed for some reason, they can legally do this.

Maybe also mention that it is may be recommending more attribution than
bare minimum that is required by ODBL, so it is a safe solution that should
be also fine for any typical[1] project that is not hostile to OSM?

[1] "typical" - especially for very small objects things gets trickier,
if you are making some special purpose map (tactile map for blind)
then attribution also needs to be adapted, if map is going to be used
in place where English is not understood in general you will definitely
need to translate attribution etc etc.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline claim
that smartphone has not enough space for attribution is clearly untrue.
But if you show OSM map on screen of size 1cm x 1 cm or similarly tiny
physical object then alternative attribution methods - that still comply with
ODBL - may be preferable.

Dec 4, 2020, 21:41 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> I appreciate the wik page "> Community attribution advice" which was made by 
> another community member. It seems to give good advice about how database 
> users can comply with the attribution guidelines in a way that everybody* in 
> this community can support.
>
> Please review the page and make any comments for improvement if needed:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> (*Note that "everybody" does not include the interests of corporations, which 
> are not persons, but rather the interests of individual mappers and database 
> users)
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 4, 2020, 17:37 by michael.montan...@gmail.com:

> nothing is letting them know that they are actually vandalising the map.
>
If they continue to edit and ignore comments then contacting Data Working Group
would be the next step (they can use 0-time block that makes sure that someone
will read message before further editing).

>  It's difficult also to proceed with full reverts because some tags from time 
> to time seem reasonable, but can be challenging to verify on the ground.
>
If nonsense is mixed with potentially valid edits and user is not responding 
then
full scale reverts are perfectly fine.

> I'm actually wondering about the causes of such bad tags, is Maps.Me using 
> preset 
> names which are difficult to associate to actual tags?
>
maps.me is quite confusing/unclear in describing what is actually edited, how 
OSM
works and users can add only add points from a limited preset.

That is why so many things are added as tourism=attraction (it is also the first
on the list)

>  Should it be mandatory for OSM editors to show OSM notifications?
>
Maybe, at least strongly encouraged.

> It seems also Maps.Me itself is difficult to contact!! > 
> https://github.com/mapsme/omim/issues/13951
>
Their issue tracker is basically write only and they basically ignore bug 
reports,
especially in recent years.

See https://github.com/mapsme/omim/issues/created_by/matkoniecz

See also at https://github.com/mapsme/omim/issues how many issues of all 
reported
are open (2/3 ratio is typical for abandoned or completely dysfunctional 
projects).

In fact, real issue tracker used by developers is private (at least it was some 
time ago
when I still tried to report bugs and expected that there is a real chance of a 
fix).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Washington DC place node cleanup

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Dec 4, 2020, 12:43 by frede...@remote.org:

> I have often argued for just dropping name:X if it is the name as name,
> because I would assume that every language-specific map or other use
> case would revert to the name tag if no language-specific name was present.
>
> The counter-argument was usually that if Washington has a
> name:de=Washington then you positively know that this is the name used
> in Germany, whereas if it doesn't have a name:de tag it might just be
> "not yet mapped".
>
Also, with explicit language tags you can do fallback to other languages
(as described in detail in other posting).

This way you can do "I prefer name:pl, use name:de otherwise, if neither is
present use name:en, if nothing is available, use name tag".
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [talk-au] How to map around blocked roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

What is the legal situation? Can you legally use that bypass and continue on 
the blocked road?


Dec 4, 2020, 03:19 by bob3b...@skymesh.com.au:

> I don't do a lot of mapping, so thought I'd better check.
>
> Where a road has been closed by a barrier, but people have driven around it, 
> making their own road.
>
> Example - Far left of this frame, intersection of Eyre Highway and (unsealed) 
> Cows Head Corner Rd, SA - south side of Eyre.
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/bob3bob3?lat=-33.20304604612525=136.1608876148938=17=44LIDXGpBljYGVWNj26uIw=photo=0.2439527070079778=0.6356433099503748=2.001460004581609
>
> Reflective barrier warning sign in place, two mounds of dirt.
>
> Have looked at the tagging guidelines for regional "not there" roads. I am 
> guessing that I should cut the minor road short of the highway, then add in a 
> short section with a allowed access tag for something?
>
> Advice please.
>
> Cheers Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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-us] Washington DC place node cleanup

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

name:pl tag is fortunately correct


Dec 4, 2020, 12:33 by mikel.ma...@gmail.com:

> Hi
>
> In DC, we just say DC usually. Across the states, it's Washington DC to 
> distinguish from Washington state.
>
> I'm not sure what the "name" tag should be, but I am wondering what the point 
> of the translations are which simply duplicate the default name. Is it like a 
> marker to say "don't try calling this place anything else"? Is that common, 
> seems unneccesary?
>

It may be useful. For example lets say that I want to display names with labels
in Polish, with English labels as fallback.

After all, some location in China or Japan may have specified name:en, but not 
name:pl

So name:pl value would be taken as the first one, name:en if name:pl is missing
and name tag if both are missing.

But what happens when some object has Polish name[1], tagged in name and 
different
name tagged in name:en?

Then name:en would be displayed, what would be avoided if name tag would be 
repeated
in name:pl tag.


[1](maybe because it is city in Poland,
maybe because it is shop in USA selling primarily to Polish-speaking people, 
maybe
it is a school for children of emigrants)



(this is based on actual project, both from my own experience and someone else 
from Poland
run independently in the same issue)

PS: No, region-based rules are not working fully even for languages that are 
nearly completely
dominating in a given region and are nearly not present elsewhere, due to 
"nearly" part.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 3, 2020, 11:07 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Do., 3. Dez. 2020 um 10:49 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk <> 
> talk@openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dec 3, 2020, 00:44 by >> frede...@remote.org>> :
>>
>>> People have thought the same about Donald Trump - yeah, this
>>> whole
>>>
>> I think that form of this is very unfortunate and references
>> to Trump and genitalia could be dropped without losing anything.
>>
>> This really have not added anything useful and this insults
>> were problematic. Especially as the same could be expressed
>> without comparing such actions to rape (implied rape?).
>>
>
>
> Mateusz, have a second read what Stevea wrote, because he put it very well
> why sometimes it may be appropriate to use strong terms: "However, sometimes,
> as when we have abusive, naked aggression inside of (sometimes at the very 
> top of!)
> institutions, we must call out such atrocious behavior.  We call it out to 
> say 
> “we will not stand for this.” 
>
I fully agree. And I am a bit involved in this, see 
https://github.com/matkoniecz/illegal-use-of-OpenStreetMap

I create it slowly, it is intended to be a version of 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution that would be 
clear to someone from outside OSM.

Also, focusing on especially egregious violations.

Primarily by massive corporation where missing attribution is not caused by 
lack of 
resources, but by a deliberate plagiarism.

In Mapbox or FB display of attribution certainly went through review that judged
violating OSM license as safe.

> Sometimes, colorful language is used to draw attention to this.
>
In general I agree, see repository name that I linked above.

This was deliberate, despite some risk that one of corporations listed there
(I plan to add FB there with evidence of violating OSBL) may decide
to attack me using their overwhelming advantage in terms of money,
number of employed lawyers and experience in avoiding legal system
or misusing it for their own advantage.

I strongly prefer claims and language such as 
"FB commits large scale-copyright violation",
"FB is llegally using OpenStreetMap data to show maps",
"FB is plagiarising maps shown on their website and in apps",
"Mapbox misrepresents actual source of data",
"FB representative claims that attribution is not needed to be clearly 
displayed, what is untrue"
 "OSMF can at any moment file accurate DMCA notice to take down FB apps"
"Recent attribution guideline looks like written by FB and Mapbox lawyers,
misrepresents ODBL requirements and is deeply harmful"

All of them are accurate.

While "missing attribution is like sexual assault" seems to be inaccurate,
unlikely to be useful and unlikely to be seriously treated by people, especially
outside OSM community.

>   Sometimes, because people either are not fully aware of this in their 
> experience, wish to turn away from looking at evil, or because they are part 
> of those who "say nothing about bad men” (in the sense of John Stuart Mill’s 
> quote, while "good men...look on and do nothing") the very nature of nasty, 
> disingenuous people who mislead, lie, deceive, do not recuse, demand 
> unwarranted loyalty, refuse to play by the rules, “stack the (court, Board)," 
> slander… must be so vividly brought to light that strong and colorful 
> language IS required."
>
I fully support strong language - just one without pulling into problematic 
comparison,
USA politics, genitalia and so on. It seems to be both counteproductive and 
problematic.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 3, 2020, 00:44 by frede...@remote.org:

> People have thought the same about Donald Trump - yeah, this
> whole
>
I think that form of this is very unfortunate and references
to Trump and genitalia could be dropped without losing anything.

This really have not added anything useful and this insults
were problematic. Especially as the same could be expressed
without comparing such actions to rape (implied rape?).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 3, 2020, 00:44 by frede...@remote.org:

> Hi,
>
> On 12/2/20 23:09, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>> FB’s attribution to OSM is available to any viewer in a place that
>>  is commonly associated with attribution.
>>
>> Barely visible icon that must be clicked is not a standard place for
>> attribution.
>>
>
> Agree with Mateusz, and I'm just flabbergasted how someone can kick our
> license in the groin and have the audacity to ask for the community to
> thank them for it with a board seat, where they will be tasked with
> upholding values they apparently don't share.
>
Small note: something went wrong with quotes here, 
I am not author of the first paragraph and I consider it as dubious at
best.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Dec 2, 2020, 22:50 by m...@teczno.com:

> The ODbL does not require that “every” person see the attribution. It 
> requires that “any” person can.
>
Untrue.

"notice associated withthe Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any 
Person that 
uses,views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the 
ProducedWork aware
that Content was obtained from"

It is not , it is
.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. But reading of this seems quite clear to me.


>  FB’s attribution to OSM is available to any viewer in a place that is 
> commonly associated with attribution.
>
Barely visible icon that must be clicked is not a standard place for 
attribution.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Dec 2, 2020, 05:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 2/12/20 3:54 am, Mateusz Konieczny  via Talk-au wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by >>>> 61sundow...@gmail.com>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This subject has a long-running chequered past that  
>>>>>> hasn't reached a conclusion >>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the  
>>>>>> water course (i.e. river/stream/creek) as  
>>>>>> tunnel=culvert. It's great as it models where water  
>>>>>> traverses man made structures and I can see it helping  
>>>>>> many scenarios. However, it doesn't help with road  
>>>>>> usage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the  road 
>>>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would a node that connects both road and water way be  
>>>>> sufficient? 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That would break current tagging methods that do notmerge in 
>>>> one node vertically separated
>>>> objects like culvert pipe under road or river underbridge or 
>>>> road under road on a viaduct.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to  footways at 
>>> a singular shared node. 
>>>
>>>
>> In this case you can transition/move between this features.
>>
>>>
>>> Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert  
>>> indication separate from the waterway culvert indication?
>>>
>>>
>> No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anythingon a 
>> road.
>>
>> And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they canprocess 
>> OSM data,
>> there is no need at all to tag it manually for over onemillion of 
>> culverts.
>>
>
>
>
>
> And the OP wants to tag weight and width limits for the road as  it 
> crosses a culvert...
>
>
maxweight maxwidth tags on road are well known solution for that

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Dec 2, 2020, 09:49 by nickw4...@gmail.com:

> I have contacted the company asking them if it was OK to delete their 
> panoramas (as the content is arguably 'inappropritate' for a walking-oriented 
> site) nd they replied to me, in a friendly and cooperative way, saying they 
> would setup their own 'local' OpenTrailView server by November 13th. I since 
> contacted them to confirm whether they had done this (twice) but have not 
> heard back.
>
> With this in mind, given it's my own server (well technically I rent the 
> space from a hosting provider, but you know what i mean) and given I've sent 
> several emails to them, will it be OK legally for me to remove their 
> panoramas?
>
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

As far as I know, you can delete offtopic content from your service.

I routinely delete offtopic content from OSM Telegram channel[1].

Any place on internet allowing submissions must moderate content
or will turn into a garbage dump.

It may be also a good idea to have terms of service reminding that
you can delete anything for any reason whatsoever.

Bonus disclaimer: I can imagine cases where deletions would be 
legally problematic (running into laws about discrimination or
anti-monopoly laws) but I cannot imagine anything applying here.

[1] Typically bitcoin scams spam, but sometimes something
more boderline.

> As I said I am paying for this out of my own money and do not want the 
> storage space to be used for purposes other than panos of walking trails.
>
Delete if you want. Note that giving warning was not necessary,
as far as I know deletion without warning is completely fine.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

(1)
In 2019 you answered

"we’re moving toward a consolidated approach to maps at Facebook. Thus, you 
will soon
see us take a more uniform approach to the way we handle attribution across all 
map
surfaces across the company"

to question[1] about illegal OSM data use (without proper attribution) by 
Facebook, MAPS.ME
and Moovit[2].

Do you consider current attribution used by Facebook as sufficient and 
displayed to all users,
as required by ODBL license?



(2)
Would you recuse yourself from cases where there is conflict of interest 
between OSM
and Facebook?

For example on issues such us
- enforcing attribution requirements
- protecting OSMF from takeover by corporations, such as Facebook
- handling paid/organized editing

?


[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM19/Election_to_Board/Answers_and_manifestos
[2] MAPS.ME still has insufficient attribution, with 1.5 sec flash on opening 
and "MAPS.ME"
attribution otherwise, Moovit fixed its attribution in Android app

Nov 30, 2020, 21:04 by m...@teczno.com:

> Absolutely!
>
> 
> michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
> sf/ca            > http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
>
>
>> On Nov 30, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <>> 
>> talk@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>> Is it also OK to ask questions also in public via mailing list?
>>
>>
>> Nov 30, 2020, 20:00 by >> m...@teczno.com>> :
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I’m excited to be running for the OSMF board this year! In 2021, OSM’s 
>>> community has two opportunities to grow stronger together: we should make 
>>> the OSM organization support a wider diversity of participants and we must 
>>> succeed at starting to manage our technical operations professionally.
>>>
>>> I’d like to make myself available for conversations with anyone who has 
>>> questions about my candidacy, manifesto, priorities, or really anything 
>>> else. I did this last year when I ran and ended up having a few really fun 
>>> conversations with community members. I’m blocking these four times over 
>>> the next two weeks prior to the close of voting and AGM on Dec 12; get in 
>>> touch via email if you’d like to chat by text, voice, or video!
>>>
>>> • Dec 1, 16:00 PST – >>> 
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OSMF+Campaign+Office+Hours=20201201T16=388=1
>>> • Dec 3, 8:00 PST – >>> 
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OSMF+Campaign+Office+Hours=20201203T08=388=1
>>> • Dec 4, 16:00 PST – >>> 
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OSMF+Campaign+Office+Hours=20201205T16=388=1
>>> • Dec 9, 8:00 PST – >>> 
>>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OSMF+Campaign+Office+Hours=20201209T08=388=1>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> Read my complete manifesto on the Wiki for more about why I think I’d make 
>>> a good OSMF board member: >>> 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM20/Election_to_Board/Answers_and_manifestos/Michal_Migurski#Manifesto>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> -mike.
>>>
>>> 
>>> michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
>>> sf/ca            >>> http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Dec 1, 2020, 01:17 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 1/12/20 12:18 am, Mateusz Konieczny  via Talk-au wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>> This subject has a long-running chequered past that  hasn't 
>>>> reached a conclusion >>>> 
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>>>>
>>>> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the  water 
>>>> course (i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert.  It's 
>>>> great as it models where water traverses man made  structures 
>>>> and I can see it helping many scenarios.  However, it doesn't 
>>>> help with road usage.
>>>>
>>>> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road  
>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would a node that connects both road and water way be  sufficient? 
>>>
>>>
>> That would break current tagging methods that do not merge inone 
>> node vertically separated
>> objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge orroad 
>> under road on a viaduct.
>>
>
>
>
>
> OSM uses objects of different levels such as stairs to footways  at a 
> singular shared node. 
>
>
In this case you can transition/move between this features.

>
> Would you have the short length of road tagged with a culvert  indication 
> separate from the waterway culvert indication?
>
>
No, I tag waterway=* + tunnel=culvert and do not tag anything on a road.

And if someone cares about culvert/road crossings they can process OSM data,
there is no need at all to tag it manually for over one million of culverts.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Is it also OK to ask questions also in public via mailing list?


Nov 30, 2020, 20:00 by m...@teczno.com:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I’m excited to be running for the OSMF board this year! In 2021, OSM’s 
> community has two opportunities to grow stronger together: we should make the 
> OSM organization support a wider diversity of participants and we must 
> succeed at starting to manage our technical operations professionally.
>
> I’d like to make myself available for conversations with anyone who has 
> questions about my candidacy, manifesto, priorities, or really anything else. 
> I did this last year when I ran and ended up having a few really fun 
> conversations with community members. I’m blocking these four times over the 
> next two weeks prior to the close of voting and AGM on Dec 12; get in touch 
> via email if you’d like to chat by text, voice, or video!
>
> • Dec 1, 16:00 PST – > 
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OSMF+Campaign+Office+Hours=20201201T16=388=1
> • Dec 3, 8:00 PST – > 
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OSMF+Campaign+Office+Hours=20201203T08=388=1
> • Dec 4, 16:00 PST – > 
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OSMF+Campaign+Office+Hours=20201205T16=388=1
> • Dec 9, 8:00 PST – > 
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=OSMF+Campaign+Office+Hours=20201209T08=388=1>
>   
>
> Read my complete manifesto on the Wiki for more about why I think I’d make a 
> good OSMF board member: > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM20/Election_to_Board/Answers_and_manifestos/Michal_Migurski#Manifesto>
>   
>
> -mike.
>
> 
> michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
> sf/ca            > http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 30, 2020, 13:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 27/11/20 11:15 am, Andrew Hughes  wrote:
>
>> This subject has a long-running chequered past that hasn't  reached 
>> a conclusion >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert#.22Tagging_controversy.22_section
>>
>> From my understanding, the convention is to tag the water  course 
>> (i.e. river/stream/creek) as tunnel=culvert. It's great  as it 
>> models where water traverses man made structures and I  can see it 
>> helping many scenarios. However, it doesn't help  with road usage.
>>
>> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road  infrastructure.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Would a node that connects both road and water way be sufficient? 
>
>
That would break current tagging methods that do not merge in one node 
vertically separated
objects like culvert pipe under road or river under bridge or road under road 
on a viaduct.

node shared by waterway and road is for fords
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 30, 2020, 04:21 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>> Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and 
>> that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.
>>
>
> Currently, at least, tunnel=culvert doesn't render on the road, it only shows 
> as a faint dotted line for the stream / drain passing under the road, so 
> won't be very visible (at least that's how they show in OSMand+ - other nav 
> programs may be different?)
>
And OSM is open data, so if someone is interested in culverts they can make 
their own rendering!


>> Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal 
>> structure/identification numbers. We would like to see OpenStreetMap cater 
>> for both spatial and a-spatial relationships to external systems - typically 
>> those in local and state government. Many of these 'external' systems do not 
>> have a spatial component and would compliment each other nicely.
>>
>
> That's likely to be the biggest problem. Where are you getting the weight 
> restriction limits? I've driven over quite a few bridges & culverts, in both 
> built-up & country areas, & very few of them have weight limits posted. If 
> you're accessing external (Govt?) data-bases that have these details listed, 
> do we have permission to use their data in OSM?
>
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines for more info


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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 30, 2020, 03:24 by ahhug...@gmail.com:

> Hi All,
>
> Thanks everyone for your feedback.
>
> We would like the culvert to be an  'isolated' segment of road for a number 
> of reasons. General (light vehicle) limits are typically signed however 
> anything that is 'really heavy' such as a mobile crane, concrete pump or 
> heavy freight are assessed individually. So for us, it's important that the 
> culvert is identifiable
>
It is already identifiable as location where line representing culvert and line 
representing road crosses (skipping cases of road tagged as bridge or tunnel 
would
be needed to avoid rare false positive).

This requires some processing, but it is far less work overall than mapping 
this manually.

In general mapping manually something that may be handled automatically in data 
processing
is a very bad idea.

> Additionally, culverts can be quite wide (depending on the water body) so a 
> point/node is not an accurate representation - they should be ways.
>
I once or twice split natural=water area of river (or waterway=riverbank area) 
and tagged it with
covered=yes. Something similar for culverts may be also done.

>  This will also allow spatial relationships to be used with far greater 
> accuracy & application.
>
Can you give examples of well mapped road and waterway geometry where tagging
tunnel=culvert on waterway is not sufficient and tagging culvert on road is 
needed to
achieve this "far greater accuracy & application"?
> Please consider how important the location is for the driver/operator, and 
> that the culvert is not just somewhere along a (long) length of road.
>
This should be handled well by existing tagging.

> Another reason is most bridges and culverts have formal 
> structure/identification numbers.
>
Adding reference numbers to a culvert is possible already.

>  Placing this data into OpenStreetMap would be a great way to show what is 
> possible.
>
What kind of data would require tagging culvert also on road?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

28 Nov 2020, 10:48 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:

> I guess the problem is that recycling_type=container is being used
> both for individual containers and for mini sites with a group of
> containers.
>
Is it really a problem?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[OSM-talk] From import to use of data by firefighters

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

OpenStreetMap Poland managed to get railway crossing reference codes from
one of organizations managing railways in Poland.

It succeeded partially thanks to being Serious and Official, Legally
Existing Organisation.

It was then imported - it is signposted, it could be mapped manually but
import of open data (on a matching license) was thousands times easier.

Support for searching for this codes was used to software used by many
firefighters in Poland.

And all firefighting departments in one of regions of Poland recently got
official info that this location method is now supported in that software
(copy of that official document was send also to OpenStreetMap Polska).

BTW, the mentioned system for firefighters is running primarily on
OpenStreetMap data, attribution is shown in bottom right corner.

Screen from paper send to firefighting departments, includes
screenshot of the data in use (a bit mangled due to
screenshot -> printing -> scanning -> screenshot cycle):
https://i.imgur.com/sB9sUyW.png
import discussion:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=69113

And import was possible and useful in the first place thanks
to all data already present - primarily manually mapped, so
I think it is a good usecase how imports may be helpful
in avoiding drudgery and adding useful data
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Nov 27, 2020, 01:15 by ahhug...@gmail.com:

> We need to model/tag the culvert as part of the road infrastructure.
>
Why?


> Questions : What are the correct tagging for the ways below?
> Way > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28010677>  :
> Q: Tagged as a bridge, but should it be? What else is missing? 
> 
> Way > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783119480
> Way needs to be split
> Currently it is not tagged, only the water course is tagged with tunnel > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27885431
> Q: What should the (split) segment be tagged with?
>
Hard to say without photo of a location.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I always mapped group of containers as one object.

amenity=recycling
recycling:type=container
recycling:paper=yes
recycling:metal=yes
recycling:batteries=yes

for location with three containers, one for paper,
one for metal, one for batteries

Easier to map, process, resurvey...

Nov 26, 2020, 14:50 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com:

> "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling:type"="centre" == Council Tip
> "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling:type"="container" == a single recycling 
> box, so multiple would appear at a Recycling Point
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 1:22 PM Dan S <> danstowell+...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> Hi Jez
>>
>> Is this not it?
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling
>>
>> Op do 26 nov. 2020 om 13:08 schreef Jez Nicholson <>> 
>> jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> >:
>>
>>> I'm planning some work with Household Waste Recycling Centres and Recycling 
>>> Points during the Code The City OSM hack weekend this Sat/Sun (which you 
>>> are very welcome to join >>> 
>>> https://codethecity.org/what-we-do/hack-weekends/code-the-city-21-put-your-city-on-the-map/>>>
>>>   in any capacity you like)
>>>
>>> A Recycling Centre being the local 'tip', see >>> 
>>> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/find-your-nearest-recycling-centre
>>>
>>> A Recycling Point being a cluster of recycling containers in, say, at the 
>>> end of your local supermarket car park. Often given a name by the Council, 
>>> see >>> 
>>> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/recycling-points
>>>
>>> Am I missing something, or is there no concept of a Recycling Point in OSM? 
>>> Have you seen/used anything else?
>>>
>>> - Jez
>>> ___
>>>  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-us] Please unsubscribe me.

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

I triggered unsubscription for natf...@gmail.com

You still need to confirm this action, as explained in email
that should be send to you


Nov 23, 2020, 22:06 by ian.d...@gmail.com:

> Hi Nathan,
>
> You need to unsubscribe yourself. Please follow the instructions here: > 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 3:05 PM Natfoot <> natf...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> Please unsubscribe me I am done with OSM for a while. 
>>
>> Nathan P
>> email: >> natf...@gmail.com
>> ___
>>  Talk-us mailing list
>>  >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] electric fences

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

So it is a footpath where somewhere along it there is an electric fence, but 
location changes?

Maybe wheelchair=no + note tag with an explanation placed on path
would be a good solution?


Nov 23, 2020, 06:25 by mar...@templot.com:

> There are several instances locally where a footpath across a field is 
> crossed by an electric fence.
>
> The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire so that 
> walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the aid of a couple of 
> concrete blocks.
>
> How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the problem is 
> that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are moved about according to 
> which area of the field the livestock are currently grazing. In a large field 
> the position could change significantly.
>
> But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is one 
> somewhere in the field. The position might be important if there is an 
> alternative gate or other access which could be used.
>
> 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-us] [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Nov 22, 2020, 17:08 by tagg...@openstreetmap.org:

> Likewise we need to stop software developers from expectingcontributors 
> to add data purely because they can't be bothered/notcompetent enough to 
> write a few lines of code. (OSM-carto demandingboundaries on ways)
>
[citation needed] for OSM-carto demandingboundaries on ways

Also [citation needed] for OSM-Carto support for boundary relations being 
extremely easy to implement

>  & numerous routers expecting multiplefoodways to criss-cross pedestrian 
> areas, are just two examples) 
>
Also [citation needed] for that reason is
"can't be bothered/notcompetent enough to write a few lines of code" 

>  If developers are offended at receiving suggestions on how toimprove 
> their software, or even have it criticized, then they shouldrescind it. 
>
If you insult others, claim that something is trivial to implement (it is not),
while something you demand is implemented already and suggest that
anyone offended by your comments should stop releasing software

I would say that it is quite poor way to encourage volunteer
contributors to implement what you want.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
"permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"

In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is problematic
for access/parking tagging in OSM.

Nov 21, 2020, 16:36 by tonyo...@gmail.com:

>
> Wiki says
>
> bicycle 
> yes 
> Where bicycles are permitted, overriding default access(such as 
> to motorways that permit bicycles as commonly foundin western 
> parts of North America)
> bicycle 
> designated 
> Where a way has been specially > designated  
> > (typically 
>by a government) for bicycle use
>
> So in the example 'designated' is not an option as there are no  signs 
> indicating that bicycles are allowed on this footway. 
>
>
> 'yes'  is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in  
> England and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall  wilfully 
> ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any  road made or set 
> apart for the use or accommodation of foot  passengers;' . . .a penalty. 
> So in the absence of any evidence -  no bicycles. 
>
>
> In practice it is customary to ride a bicycle and no one is  bothered 
> unless inconvenience or damage is caused. But how to mark  this in OSM? 
> Change the meaning of 'yes' to include customary use?
>
>
> Tony
>
> On 21/11/2020 14:04, Stephen Colebourne  wrote:
>
>> I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it shouldbe 
>> tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then 
>> addbicycle=designated.If the question is here:>> 
>> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656>>
>>  then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone hasdecided 
>> to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway,tag like a 
>> footwayStephenOn Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB>> 
>>  >>  wrote:
>>
>>> There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic 
>>> authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of 
>>> the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, 
>>> highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & 
>>> pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.If it's 
>>> definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) then 
>>> I'd tag it 
>>> ashighway=cyclewaybicycle=designatedfoot=designatedsegregated=nosurface=asphalt
>>>   (in this case)width=*If you know it's a public footpath 
>>> add:designation=public_footpathIf you know the footpath's reference 
>>> add:prow_ref=*Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?The only place a 
>>> rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.CheersDaveFOn 
>>> 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:Is there established tagging for a 
>>> tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?Eg: 
>>> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974>>> There's highway=cycleway 
>>> | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you 
>>> can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag 
>>> nonetheless?Thanks.___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] Bad coastline edits in Sweden

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Nov 21, 2020, 11:42 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94097597
>

Note that you made comment "And WHY did you delete the island relation for Idö?"
in changeset that made no edits (especially deletions) to any relations.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bad coastline edits in Sweden

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Nov 21, 2020, 10:54 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Now he was editing again without any benefit but doing a lot mistakes.
> It seems that he is not willing to learn and just do some useless
> things. And since he is using the (bad) ID editor it is also nearly
> impossible to revert the changesets which created the mess.
>
You can use also other editors like JOSM to revert (with reverted plugin).

And if edits are actually not including anything useful 
reverts should be easy (revert latest edit, later latest not reverted one
and so on).

Edits made with iD are not revert-proof.

(node, I made 0 attempt to investigate this specific case and have
not checked whatever full revert of everything is optimal)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

segregated=no

I added it to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle as an example S7

surface=asphalt (if I am interpreting word "tarmac" well)
width=1.5 / est_width=1.5 if you want

Access tags are bit weird, but I will leave commenting to people who know GB 
rules
well.


Nov 21, 2020, 11:28 by bainton@gmail.com:

> Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but 
> designated foot and cycles shared?
>
> Eg: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974
>
> There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't 
> feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag 
> nonetheless?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-in] Mapping Water ATM's

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-in]

amenity=vending_machine
vending=water

is a potential alternative tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dvending_machine


amenity=water_point seems for larger scale
"Water ATM located at Jayanagar dispenses around 6000 litres daily"
and article has people with just some large bottles while
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwater_point
describes it as
"you can get larger amounts of "drinking water" for filling a fresh water
holding tank, such as found on caravans, RVs and boats."


Nov 16, 2020, 15:04 by chetanh...@gmail.com:

> Hello all,
>
> In Bengaluru we have public Water ATM's (Water vending machines) across the 
> city since 2015. These are not mapped in OSM and are widely used by people 
> for drinking purposes. I have tagged one such in > RPC layout 
> > , Vijayanagar.  For more 
> information please read this > article 
> >
>  .
>
> OSM tag used: 
> amenity=water_point 
> There are few > amenity=drinking_water >  
> in OSM but it would be good if we map all water_points across the city. 
>
> Let me know any suggestions on mapping these in the city. Also, I am not sure 
> of Water ATM's in the other cities as well. 
>
> Regards,
> Chetan
> OSM:Chetan_Gowda
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Service road with private locked gate and routing apps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype that is useful tor 
highway=track
and unpaved ones, but mostly duplicate of surface tag

Nov 16, 2020, 12:40 by mattatt...@gmail.com:

> Good point. I will also update the surface and quality of the service road as 
> it is visible through the gate and last I checked it was covered with debris, 
> are there any appropriate tags for that?
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 11:31, David Woolley <> for...@david-woolley.me.uk> > 
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2020 11:18, Mat Attlee wrote:
>>  > Upon surveying this service road it is very much closed to the public 
>>  > with locked gates which I marked as thus 
>>  > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93935943
>>  > 
>>  > However these routing apps still use this service road. Have I missed 
>>  > something or does it take a while for the changes to propagate?
>>  
>>  It takes time for routing engines to update.  However, I would also have 
>>  put access tags on the service road.
>>  
>>  ___
>>  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-au] Abbreviations in bus stop names (Was Re: Mapping Transport for NSW transit stop numbers)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Note that we have short_name alt_name and other name tags.


Nov 14, 2020, 01:24 by s...@samwilson.id.au:

>
> I'm not sure it applies everywhere, but one reason to keep the  original 
> abbreviations is that some transit apps aren't smart  enough to search 
> for the unabbreviated names. For example, on the  Transperth app (but 
> not, it seems, their > website > )  
> searching for "hampton road" gives one result of "Hampton Road,  Perth" 
> whereas searching for "hampton rd" gives lots of results  that are actual 
> bus stop names.
>
>
> That said, I actually don't often map these names because they're  not 
> written on the signs in Perth. The stop ref numbers are more  verifiable 
> and can be typed into the app without too much trouble  (I usually look 
> up a bus stop on OsmAnd and then copy its ref to  the transit app).
>
> On 14/11/20 6:12 am, cleary wrote:
>
>> When I have added bus stop names in the past, using signposts or local 
>> knowledge, I have avoided abbreviations as I have understood that to be 
>> usual OSM practice. I am familiar with abbreviations so I am comfortable 
>> with them, especially "St" instead of "Street" and "Dr" instead of "Drive".  
>>  Both methods convey the necessary information to users so I have no strong 
>> view.   My particular request is to avoid capitalising words other than 
>> street or place names so that "Opp" would be "opposite" or "opp" and "After" 
>> would be "after" without capital letter. I don't think these intermediary 
>> words are usually capitalised and it was this unfamiliar capitalisation that 
>> jarred with me as I read the names of the bus stops.  Whichever way it is 
>> done, this data will be a welcome addition to OSM. Thanks.On Fri, 13 Nov 
>> 2020, at 4:17 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2020 9:08 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>>
 There was some work going on at  
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfNSW_Data_Imports  which I don't 
 think made it to the list. So this is the perfect opportunity to raise it 
 on the list and if there are any concerns or discussions for that import, 
 let's work that out here.

>>> What are people's views on abbreviations in bus stop names?When I was 
>>> working on bus stops in Canberra I converted names such as:River St Opp 
>>> Morpeth StYamba Dr 2nd After Wisdom SttoRiver Street Opposite Morpeth 
>>> StreetYamba Drive Second After Wisdom StreetIs it worthwhile doing this for 
>>> the TfNSW data or are people happy if the abbreviated versions get 
>>> imported?___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] Weight restrictions

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Beware of such mass tagging, I also thought this about my area but during 
surveying with
StreetComplete I found some surface=sett and surface=paving_stones and 
surface=concrete roads.

(though it would be true for largest roads)

Nov 13, 2020, 20:24 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Yes. Just added "surface=asphalt" to all the motor-vehicle roads in my area 
> using JOSM, because every single road here (except service roads)  are paved 
> with asphalt...
>
> -- 
>
>
> 13 Nov 2020, 19:19 by bainton@gmail.com:
>
>>  hmm thank you 
>>
>> This is probably one more occasion where I should graduate to JOSM rather 
>> than sticking with iD - just guessing a bulk edit of all roads in a given 
>> area would be possible?
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020, 09:05 Philip Barnes, <>> p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:32 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>>
 Hi all

 I've been reading the wiki  here 
   on 
 conditional restrictions.

 Should these be along the whole length of the relevant road, or can they 
 be on a fragment of way near the restriction sign? 

 Eg, the whole of  Stanwick 
 
  , Northants, is off-limits to 7-tonners. Presumably I don't have to tag 
 every street; but maybe the access/through routes should be tagged all 
 along their length?


>>> Hi Edward
>>> These restrictions are quite common in Leicestershire and are intended to 
>>> prevent lorries using residential areas as a through route.
>>>
>>> They are generally 7.5t and only apply to goods vehicles, not buses or 
>>> coaches.
>>>
>>> They allow access for deliveries, loading.
>>>
>>> We usually use hgv=destination.
>>>
>>> You do need to tag every road within the boundary, not just the main roads 
>>> otherwise you will end up with some very strange routing.
>>>
>>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Lorries can't limbo

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Nov 13, 2020, 10:16 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk:

> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:36 +, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>> I am pretty sure that I remember checking bridges in my area some time ago, 
>> using a tool that someone kindly provided, which flagged up all bridges, 
>> where the clearance height was not specified in OSM.
>>
>> I regret that I cannot now find the link.   
>>
>>
>>
>
> The isssue with a tool which finds roads under bridges with no maxheight tag 
> is that many are above a legal minimum so have no sign.
>
> Motorway bridges for example.
>
> Maybe we need an unsigned tag so that these can be elimiated?
>
> A hay lorry managed to hit this (unsigned) one a few years ago.
>
StreetComplete is using maxheight=default maxheight=below_default for unsigned
maxheight in places where there is some height limit (for example within 
tunnels).

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxheight#Non-numerical_values
for some alternative tagging styles

And extending this quest to roads under bridges was recently implemented,
though this is not released yet.

See https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/pull/2234 for code.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Nov 12, 2020, 14:50 by ajt1...@gmail.com:

> On 12/11/2020 13:20, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
>
>>
>> - the e-mail notifications about changeset comments do not have either a 
>> definitive "call to action" nor any explanation what to do (or a link to 
>> Wiki page with such)
>>
> They don't, unless the person writing the changeset comment puts that 
> information in there.
>
> With a DWG hat on I see quite a few complaints about people not replying to 
> changeset comments where the comment was just something like "this is wrong" 
> or "it is wrong to do X", rather than a message that looks like it was 
> intended to start a conversation.  
>
Thanks for pointing this out, I will try to remember in case of leaving of 
changeset comments.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Nov 12, 2020, 10:55 by j...@liotier.org:

> Is it just me or are Maps.me Openstreetmap contributors unaware of 
> Openstreetmap messages ? Does anyone here have seen Maps.me Openstreetmap 
> contributors answer to Openstreetmap messages ?
>
Yes, but answer rate is ridiculously low, less than 1 in 100 contacted users 
answers.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-in] Need guidance in launching a HOT project in Bangalore for mapping the lakes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-in]

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing and
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
for some guidance.


Nov 12, 2020, 11:07 by nagesh.sa@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> Several activist groups in Bangalore have come together with the aim of 
> mapping the water system in the city, which includes the lakes, and drainage 
> system. The aim is to digitize thold maps to know what was the original shape 
> and size of the lakes, and then do the local surveys to find out how much of 
> the lake territory is encroached.
>
> We would like to set up the online HOT map for this purpose.
>
> Can anyone guide us about the steps required for this project?
>
> Also, if there are any permissions to be taken, who should I contact?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Nagesh
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Nov 11, 2020, 16:04 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> >After a quick look at his edits locally he has also been removing ref
> >tags from roundabouts which seems an odd thing to do.
>
> This seems perfectly reasonable to me - the roundabout is a junction of 
> various roads and I do not consider it to be part of a referenced highway.
>
> I note that the wiki indicates that the ref should be added to roundabouts to 
> allow fluid routing, but this has relatively recently been added (April 2019) 
> and I do not agree. It smacks of tagging for the renderer (in this case a 
> routing engine). It seems bizarre to specify that for naming it should not 
> use the name of a road it connects, but it should use the ref of a road that 
> connects!
>
I reworded this recommendation in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:junction%3Droundabout=2059754=1972469
to 
"{{Tag|ref}} and {{Tag|int_ref}} tags from those ways should be added to that 
roundabout if roundabout is also part of that routes."
(in Poland roundabout would be part of route with assigned ref, in UK situation 
may be different,
I removed part that based in on tagging for router)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Data Portal License CC0 1.0 and OpenStreetMap

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

It is likely, but it should be evaluated. I mentioned it because
sometimes people assume "CC0=can be imported" while it is definitely untrue:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#CC0

Nov 6, 2020, 17:47 by pierz...@yahoo.fr:

> 2020-10-06 , Mateusz Konieczny wrote via legal-talk :
>
> > For example Wikidata is CC0 but mostly copyright incompatible with OSM
> > and unusable for imports in general.
>
> If I understand correctly, there is quite a difference in solididy of license 
>  from groups like Wikidata who import data from various sources vs a 
> government agencies that produce their own data.
>
>  
> Pierre 
>
> Le vendredi 6 novembre 2020 11 h 08 min 52 s UTC−5, Mateusz Konieczny via 
> legal-talk  a écrit :
>
>
> See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
>
> "License terms are compatible, but the licenser does not guarantee for it. 
> 4c of the license explicitly states: > "Affirmer disclaims responsibility for 
> clearing rights of other persons that may apply to the Work or any use 
> thereof, 
> including without limitation any person's Copyright and Related Rights in the 
> Work. 
> Further, Affirmer disclaims responsibility for obtaining any necessary 
> consents, 
> permissions or other rights required for any use of the Work."> "
>
> For example Wikidata is CC0 but mostly copyright incompatible with OSM
> and unusable for imports in general.
>
> Nov 6, 2020, 16:48 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:
>
>> Government of Quebec has added the licence CC0 1.0 to his >> 
>> https://www.donneesquebec.ca>>  Data portal >>  for import of datasets and 
>> never returned requests to add specific authorisation for OSM>> . 
>>
>> Looking at the history of discussions, it is not clear for me if the CC0 
>> Public license is compatible with OSM. 
>>
>> Then my question : Does >>  CC0 1.0>>  license make the data compatible with 
>> OpenStreeMap Odbl llicense ?  
>>
>> If so, we will have access to datasets of high quality such as route, 
>> hydrography, address.
>>
>> License in french
>> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/licence/
>>
>> Deepl translation 
>> ---
>> In order to promote collaboration, exchange and sharing, as well as the use 
>> of open data by all, the Government of Quebec and several municipalities 
>> have adopted a common licence, Creative Commons 4.0 (CC), which comes in six 
>> variants.
>>
>> This licence is recognized as one of the least restrictive in terms of the 
>> rights to use open data, while protecting copyright.
>>
>> The universal Creative Commons 1.0 licence (CC0 1.0) can also be used, in 
>> particular to encourage the integration of data into a larger set of open 
>> and linked data, in which the origin of each piece of data can sometimes be 
>> more complex to recognise. 
>> ---
>>
>>  
>> Pierre
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Data Portal License CC0 1.0 and OpenStreetMap

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

"License terms are compatible, but the licenser does not guarantee for it. 
4c of the license explicitly states: "Affirmer disclaims responsibility for 
clearing rights of other persons that may apply to the Work or any use thereof, 
including without limitation any person's Copyright and Related Rights in the 
Work. 
Further, Affirmer disclaims responsibility for obtaining any necessary 
consents, 
permissions or other rights required for any use of the Work.""

For example Wikidata is CC0 but mostly copyright incompatible with OSM
and unusable for imports in general.

Nov 6, 2020, 16:48 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Government of Quebec has added the licence CC0 1.0 to his > 
> https://www.donneesquebec.ca>  Data portal >  for import of datasets and 
> never returned requests to add specific authorisation for OSM> . 
>
> Looking at the history of discussions, it is not clear for me if the CC0 
> Public license is compatible with OSM. 
>
> Then my question : Does >  CC0 1.0>  license make the data compatible with 
> OpenStreeMap Odbl llicense ?  
>
> If so, we will have access to datasets of high quality such as route, 
> hydrography, address.
>
> License in french
> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/licence/
>
> Deepl translation 
> ---
> In order to promote collaboration, exchange and sharing, as well as the use 
> of open data by all, the Government of Quebec and several municipalities have 
> adopted a common licence, Creative Commons 4.0 (CC), which comes in six 
> variants.
>
> This licence is recognized as one of the least restrictive in terms of the 
> rights to use open data, while protecting copyright.
>
> The universal Creative Commons 1.0 licence (CC0 1.0) can also be used, in 
> particular to encourage the integration of data into a larger set of open and 
> linked data, in which the origin of each piece of data can sometimes be more 
> complex to recognise. 
> ---
>
>  
> Pierre 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New native/web OSM renderer based on A/B Street

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

I just want to say that I really recommend playing and experiment with
A/B Street.

Even as just visualization of roads/lanes/crossings it is really nice,
gameplay/experimentation is also really interesting.

And author is great at responding to reported bugs, submitted pull requests
and even feature requests ( https://github.com/dabreegster/abstreet ).

So if someone liked OpenTTD but wanted more realism/complexity for cars,
or if someone wants to check whatever roads are mapped in detail in their city
or is interested in experimenting with road design
or planned to play with Rust language 
I really recommend this project :)


Nov 2, 2020, 00:55 by dabreegs...@gmail.com:

> Hi,
>
> Demo: > http://abstreet.s3-website.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/osm_demo/
> Connect 2020 talk: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUN5GWfb4Qo
>
> I've been working on > https://abstreet.org> , a traffic simulation game 
> built from OSM data, designed for cycling and public transit advocacy. A/B 
> Street renders individual lanes, infers geometry for intersections, models 
> turn lanes and restrictions, and infers lots of detail for traffic signal 
> timing and parking lot capacity. Recently I split out an OSM viewer just to 
> show off these details, letting you do quick visual Q/A on things like lane 
> tagging. The viewer runs on web (via WebAssembly and WebGL) and natively 
> (Mac, Windows, and Linux via OpenGL). As a disclaimer, changing maps is much 
> clunkier on the web than native, but I'm working on it.
>
> One key difference from most slippy maps is that this viewer downloads a 
> single file per region (scoped right now to the core of a city, but the 
> boundary is configurable). You can't pan over to anywhere in the world, but 
> once you've loaded a map, everything should be extremely fast -- moving 
> around, zooming, querying tags on objects. I've imported a few places from 
> bbike, and I can add or adjust the boundary of anywhere you like. See > 
> https://dabreegster.github.io/abstreet/howto/new_city.html>  or reply here 
> with a link to a > geojson.io >  file.
>
> I have a few asks of y'all:
>
> 1) What should this viewer do to add value to the community? I'm not looking 
> into making a general purpose renderer, more like an array of small renderers 
> specialized for purposes like Q/A on lanes, exploring POIs, etc.
> 2) Do you have any other use cases or ideas how to use things like the road 
> geometry?
> 3) Are you interested in developing anything from this? If so, I'd like to 
> work with you to design an appropriate API for consuming the internal map 
> format.
> 4) If you're interested in the core mission of A/B Street, I'd love 
> collaborators for things like > 
> https://github.com/dabreegster/abstreet/issues/372>  (modeling public transit 
> better).
>
> Thanks!
> -Dustin
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Yes, I am replying to an old message (I finally processed it).

It is about editing 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
to bring it closer to community consensus.


Sep 16, 2020, 15:43 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com:

> Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main
> namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?
>
>> Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a 
>> business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and 
>> available in public records.
>>
>
> What if the name of the operator is printed on each receipt when you
> shop there or a certificate is placed on the wall that shows it? We
> usually add that to operator=*.
>
I changed this sentence to
"Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a
business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name 
or otherwise publicly available. For example tagging operator=*
based on data printed on receipts is normal."

> Indeed I think that the article confuses mapped things that are
> worthless and mapped things that are dangerous (according to GDPR).
>
I would not say confuses, it is just that for private data
"it is not ethical to map", "it is pointless to map this" and
"it is illegal to map this" often applies together.


> For example, the reason why we don't map private washing machines is
> that its location and capacity is not information that is in public
> interest (hence why it is not a POI). Another reason that it fails the
> verifiability criterion: if I want to check that the position and type
> information of the washing machine is still accurate, I need to ring
> the doorbell and be invited in to see for myself, but it is not
> realistic that an owner would invite dozens of potentially malicious
> random people into their house just for this.
>
> Even if the object would be visible from the outside, it is of no use
> to 99.% of individuals if the owner does not let me do my laundry
> there. If a TV is fully and clearly visible from the outside through
> the window, it _may_ serve a public utility of entertainment if you
> can lip read, but you need to ring the doorbell each time you want to
> switch channels...
>


> Private parking and driveways are acceptable because it hints at which
> way the entrance is - helping delivery personal and guests alike. I've
> mapped some very interesting hilly terrain where this can be
> especially useful, as roads were pretty dense and the road towards
> where the entrance is was not trivial and a failed guess could cost
> you a few more minutes of walking or driving for each house.
>
I think that there is an universal agreement that private driveways and
parkings are mappable.

> Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to
> enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a
> nearby water source by the fire brigade?
>
Yes, swimming pools can be and are used by firefighters.
For example in USA during wildfires helicopters lifting water
from private swimming pools is something that happens.

> From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that
> you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name?
>
Yes, I would expect it to be acceptable and I mapped some graves
together with inscription on them (typically ones of my family
so that it would be possible for me to locate this graves on my own).

For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/591130

Though if there is consensus that it is not OK then I would stop
doing this.

> I think a lot of considerations are missing in this article other than
> those stemming from the GDPR, like military and national
> considerations. You also do not mention that there exist regions where
> mapping activities are forbidden by the law and punishable by prison
> sentence.
>
Note article title "Limitations on mapping private information".

I am aware that some of my OSM activity that I did was breaking laws
in China, Russia, India and probably also North Korea and Pakistan.

(not sure whatever this countries consider it as breaking their law if 
I did it in an other country)

Describing how OSM is not respecting this laws and how OSM mappers
may be impacted may be useful (maybe was done already) but it is 
not related to private information.

> And anyway other than describing "what is worthless to map",
> I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics"
>
Partially yes.

>  and maybe
> this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only
> concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider.
>
This would be out of scope of WIkipedia and I am interested in consensus 

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 in NLS is 
> available freely.
>
What are its licensing terms?

"available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Oct 30, 2020, 16:33 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> A split polygon with only an outer MP is not an "area".
>
It is a valid multipolygon representing an area.

A bit pointless multipolygon and maybe something that
should be converted to version not
using relation, but it is a valid tagging. 

> There's a clue in the name 'MultiPolygon' there has to be more than one.
>
Strictly speaking it means that it CAN have more than one part.

> Splitting into two serves no purpose, adds no quality.
>
It does not make it invalid

> Incomplete MP relations are not beneficial to OSM quality.
>
MP with single outer  and 0 inners is not invalid.


(this does not make it desired and preferable, but in this
case accusing iD of producing invalid relations is
baseless and invalid)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] FLOSS alt? | Re: reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Oct 30, 2020, 14:31 by ba...@ursamundi.org:

> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:03 AM Rory McCann <> r...@technomancy.org> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 10:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>  > Rory, I am absolutely sure there was no bad intent in the choice of 
>>  > format and platform, but given where this discussion went so fast, I 
>>  > believe the setting should be reconsidered, evaluating the possibility 
>>  > of choosing an open platform.
>>  
>>  Hmm, I do want to support open channels. Do you have an idea of an 
>> alternative?
>>
>
> I may be biased, but how about the fediverse? 
>
In this case I would support doing both. I am supporting open channels (and 
mirroring
such discussion in some open non-proprietary place) but reaching out to people 
using
Redding/Fb/whatever makes sense and is a good idea.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie]

Oct 30, 2020, 14:51 by colmmoor...@hotmail.com:

> Hi,
>
> Apologies to the list and Mateusz for the confusion. :) Also apologies if I 
> step on religious toes.
>
>> From: Mateusz Konieczny 
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*
>>
>> Disclaimer: I never visited Ireland
>>
>> 27 paź 2020, 14:41 od colmmoor...@hotmail.com:
>>
>> > 3. Holy wells, mass rocks and the like. These are predominantly Roman 
>> > Catholic, but possibly with pagan origins.
>>
>> Are they still used by pagans/new age people? For OSM purposes current usage 
>> matters, not origins.
>>
>
> I concur that current usage matters. I suppose I'm wondering what the other 
> tags should be. The below seem inadequate, not least that 
> amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian is interpreted as a church, not 
> an open-air location like a Mass Rock (a location where Roman Catholic mass 
> was said when Roman Catholicism was suppressed).
>
amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian would be perfectly fine tagging 
if that is a place
where masses are still conducted.

If it is not such a place - how it is used? Very rare (yearly?) masses? 
Occasional worship
(acting as a historic=wayside_shrine)?
Some memorial plaque/tourism information board/tourism attraction?

> name=Holy Well
> natural=spring
> religion=christian
> denomination=roman_catholic
>
Is it a prayer location? Former prayer location? Tourism attraction? Pilgrimage 
target?

> name=Mass Rock
> amenity=place_of_worship
> religion=christian
> denomination=roman_catholic
>
Maybe disused:amenity=place_of_worship?

If it is an actual rock then tagging rock itself also would be a good idea
(see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rock  )

>> > 8. There are religion=no, religion=none and denomination=none tags. Should 
>> > these tags be rationalised or otherwise tidied up?
>>
>> How this tags are used?
>>
>
> Mostly for schools and cemeteries. In some cases, I suspect their use hasn't 
> considered all nuances, e.g. some state-owned schools also have religious 
> patrons or representation on the school board.
>
I would say that just religious patron would not make school religious, in the 
same way as
it would not make sense to add religion=* to Saint Barbara street, where only 
name is
of religious origin.
(though as it turns out many schools in Ireland are actually religious).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Oct 29, 2020, 21:00 by o...@imagico.de:

>> Rory McCann  hat am 29.10.2020 20:33 geschrieben:
>>
>> Some of us on the OSM Foundation Board have agreed to do an AMA
>> (Ask Me Anything) on the reddit forum for OpenStreetMap 
>> [...]
>> See you there. 
>>
>
> Considering i would need to agree to the terms of some amoral corporation 
> most certainly not.
>
> I am looking forward to the practical demonstration on how the board will 
> implement their recently made commitment to open channels with that:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-August/007095.html
>
Looking at that document

"Essential communications willalways be accessible through an open, preferably 
self-hosted platform."

"For the purpose of this commitment, essential communications include: (...)
Publications or consultations by the board"

(1) 
Not sure whatever it includes communications by board members (not "by the 
board")
but acting as board representative.

(2)
I guess that quoting questions + answers on mailing list or diary entry would 
work well?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie]

I am really sorry for offtopic and quoting offlist message. Not sure what 
happened,
I just used standard reply.

Oct 28, 2020, 19:54 by talk-ie@openstreetmap.org:
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie]

Huh, I though that secularization/atheisation of Ireland was quite 
far reaching and nearly complete.

(good thing that I included that diclaimer)

"crucifixes in most classrooms" applies also to Poland, but
"school boards pray at the start of board meetings" would be likely
to be considered as ridiculous.

AFAIK "teachers need to be certified to teach religion" applies
only to teachers teaching religion here and
"Religious organisations own the vast majority of schools" does
not apply (mostly result of WW II damage and communist occupation).

Oct 28, 2020, 15:13 by colmmoor...@hotmail.com:

> Hi,
>
> This email is off-list. Thank you for the feedback - I'll wait for more 
> people to comment before I answer your questions..
>
> In the Republic of Ireland, religion is fairly all-pervasive in schools. 
> Religious organisations own the vast majority of schools, school boards pray 
> at the start of board meetings, there are crucifixes in most classrooms, 
> teachers need to be certified to teach religion or it is difficult to get a 
> job, there are no Sunday schools. Inter-Denominational and 
> Multi-Denominational schools only account for 5% of schools and 7% of 
> students. Non-Denominational schools are essentially non-existent. The 
> religious organisations subvert the Department of Education.
>
> Northern Ireland isn't much different.
>
> The below data is for primary schools in the Republic of Ireland.
>
> Colm
>
>  Mainstream Schools  %   Special Schools %   Total   %
> Catholic  2,760 88.9%   105 78.4%  
> 2,86588.4%
> Church Of Ireland1725.5%0.0%  
> 172   5.3%
> Inter Denominational17  0.5% 1  0.7%  
>18 0.6%
> Jewish1 0.0%0.0%   1  
>   0.0%
> Methodist 1 0.0%0.0%  
>  10.0%
> Multi Denominational 1364.4%  1914.2% 
> 155   4.8%
> Muslim2 0.1%0.0%   2  
>   0.1%
> Presbyterian16  0.5%0.0% 16   
>   0.5%
> Quaker1 0.0%0.0%   1  
>   0.0%
> Other/Unknown9  6.7%   90.3%
> Total 3,106 100.0%      134 100.0% 3,240  
>   100.0%
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:04:55 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mateusz Konieczny 
> Cc: "talk-ie@openstreetmap.org" 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> Disclaimer: I never visited Ireland
>
> 27 paź 2020, 14:41 od colmmoor...@hotmail.com:
>
>> 3.  Holy wells, mass rocks and the like. These are predominantly Roman 
>> Catholic, but possibly with pagan origins.
>>
> Are they still used by pagans/new age people? For OSM purposes current usage 
> matters, not origins.
>
>> 4.  Some objects have dual tagging, e.g. religion=christian;pagan or 
>> denomination=protestant;roman_catholic Are people happy to have such tagging?
>>
> If say church is shared by Roman Catholic parish and Protestant congregation 
> and not
> used by other denominations then denomination=protestant;roman_catholic is 
> 100% fine.
>
>> 5.  Many religious-run schools do not have the religion or denomination 
>> tagged.
>>
> It is a bit tricky as at least some religious-run schools have absolutely no 
> trace of religion
> in running of school, there is simply a religious owner/operator.
>
> In such cases operator:type=religious would fit better than religion tag
>
>> 8.  There are religion=no, religion=none and denomination=none tags. Should 
>> these tags be rationalised or otherwise tidied up?
>>
> How this tags are used?
>
> denomination=none seems fine for say ecumenical chapel used by all kinds of 
> denomination
> of a given religion...
>
>> multifaith 47 <
>>
> This may be actually valid.
>
> --
>
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Port Phillip Steer Clear Areas Proposed Import

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Thanks for posting 
https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/12e5753086585279d398f48035368876
allowing easy review of data.

Just to confirm: it is not tagged already, right?


Oct 28, 2020, 06:27 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> The Victorian Ports Corporation (Melbourne) contacted me about adding their 
> Steer Clear Areas into OpenStreetMap/OpenSeaMap.
>
> I worked through with them to get this dataset as open data > 
> https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/steer-clear-areas-in-port-phillip>  
> and to get the waiver in place > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:VPCM_OpenStreetMap_Approval.pdf> .
>
> I've prepared this data for import at > 
> https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/12e5753086585279d398f48035368876> .
>
> These are areas where it is illegal to anchor and identified by VicPorts as 
> Steer Clear areas > 
> https://www.vicports.vic.gov.au/community-and-bay-users/recreational-boating/Pages/boating-on-the-bay.aspx>
>  .
>
> I'm proposing we apply the 
> seamark:precautionary_area:restriction=no_anchoring tag per > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Seamark_Objects> . This is also 
> what VicPorts have requested to use for tags.
>
> Are there any objections, questions, concerns, suggestions about importing 
> this into OpenStreetMap?
>
> If I don't hear back I'll go ahead in a week.
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] SPAM notes in Brazil again

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

To me https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1230095#map=19/-22.97415/-43.33452
looks like a request to add unmapped restaurant (not spam) - why you closed it?

"2401429 is a mere copy of note 1230095"

In such notes note should and can be closed, I did this.

"Please block this IP" - note that IP blocks are not effective, it works only 
against dumb
spammers and affects also innocent people :(

Oct 28, 2020, 00:50 by erickdeoliveiral...@gmail.com:

> Some time ago I reported that several anonymous SPAM notes were being created 
> in Brazil, through the "Report" option available in the note. Someone told me 
> it was not SPAM, so I showed the amount of notes in sequence, so they blocked 
> the IP of this account. But now they started creating several SPAM notes 
> again, I reported again and the user @mavl told me that I should close the 
> notes and not report them anymore, but the "report SPAM" tool exists for 
> that, if not to report SPAM cases , then it should be removed from the 
> selectable options. For example, note 2401429 is a mere copy of note 1230095, 
> another example: note 2401510 merely copies the name of an existing element 
> under it. All notes are sent in sequence, anonymously, copying from 
> non-anonymous notes or existing elements. Please block this IP, it is getting 
> in the way.
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie]

Disclaimer: I never visited Ireland

27 paź 2020, 14:41 od colmmoor...@hotmail.com:

> 3.  Holy wells, mass rocks and the like. These are predominantly Roman 
> Catholic, but possibly with pagan origins. 
>
Are they still used by pagans/new age people? For OSM purposes current usage 
matters, not origins.

> 4.  Some objects have dual tagging, e.g. religion=christian;pagan or 
> denomination=protestant;roman_catholic Are people happy to have such tagging?
>
If say church is shared by Roman Catholic parish and Protestant congregation 
and not
used by other denominations then denomination=protestant;roman_catholic is 100% 
fine.

>  5.  Many religious-run schools do not have the religion or denomination 
> tagged.
>
It is a bit tricky as at least some religious-run schools have absolutely no 
trace of religion
in running of school, there is simply a religious owner/operator.

In such cases operator:type=religious would fit better than religion tag

>  8.  There are religion=no, religion=none and denomination=none tags. Should 
> these tags be rationalised or otherwise tidied up?
>
How this tags are used?

denomination=none seems fine for say ecumenical chapel used by all kinds of 
denomination
of a given religion... 

> multifaith 47 <
>
This may be actually valid.

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Important thing to note is that
while nothing makes you obligated
to map tracks in some area,
recommendations/guidelines like this
are not allowing you to delete existing objects
mapped by someone else.

25 Oct 2020, 07:31 by mapslit...@gmail.com:

> Hi Phil, thanks for drafting this, it’s great to have a concrete statement to 
> discuss. I agree with the broad sentiment but suggest two changes, one minor 
> and the other more substantive, as follows (deletions in strike through 
> and additions in all caps)
>
>
> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
> pads’ in > remote>  CONSERVATION reserves, as they may well be covered by 
> management plans, standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. 
> Such regulations or standards (> AS2156 <>> )  may request that the location 
> of such ‘tracks’ are not publicised on maps. > You should seek clarification 
> from the managing authority prior to adding such tracks. > MAPPERS ARE 
> ENCOURAGED TO PERUSE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS ON THE WEB OR TO DISCUSS EDITS 
> WITH AGENCY STAFF WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING TRACKS IN CONSERVATION RESERVES.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rationale for changes... (1) not all sensitive areas are remote, and many 
> issues arise in reserves close to major cities. (2). Understanding the 
> broader context surrounding a potential mapping change may well be a hallmark 
> of good mapping, but mappers bear no responsibility to await a decision from 
> a management agency *before* they add or edit tracks.
>
>
>
>
>
> A likely response from an under-staffed government agency to an unknown 
> mapper is something like, “Thank you for your message. Your call is important 
> to us. We will endeavour to respond to you at the earliest opportunity.” 
> Repeatedly. I would suggest that a less declarative statement is far more 
> appropriate in this instance.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Thanks once again, I appreciate everyone’s input on the issue. Best wishes 
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 25 Oct 2020, at 10:59 am, Phil Wyatt  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> For the Australian Tagging Guidelines can I suggest the following text as 
>> point 4 under bushwalking and Cycling Tracks Notes….
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> 4. Caution should be exercised if considering mapping of ‘tracks, routes and 
>> pads’ in remote reserves, as they may well be covered by management plans, 
>> standards or regulations which seek to minimise publicity. Such regulations 
>> or standards (AS2156)  may request that the location of such ‘tracks’ are 
>> not publicised on maps. You should seek clarification from the managing 
>> authority prior to adding such tracks.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Cheers - Phil
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

24 Oct 2020, 00:34 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be 
> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and 
> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we 
> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install signage 
> to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park operators, 
> it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might not have 
> intentionally created.
>
If protected area has rule "access is illegal
unless
signed otherwise" or "access allowed only on 
signposted trails" then such way-specific signage
is not necessary to use access tags.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

23 Oct 2020, 11:59 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
> 'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?
>
Technically it is possible but it would require licensechange that would be 
problematic
both from legal viewpoint (making such rule effective
would be tricky at best)and unlikely to be accepted by osm community.

It is not impossible as in "can be established
with math proof to be illogically and therefore impossible"
but impossible as in "I will stop conflict in
Middle East by posting on Twitter'.
>
> 'Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not 
> an acceptable edit'
> I don't think anybody suggested it was.
>
This "solution" regularly appears in such
topics about illegal or unwanted paths.
> 'Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped 
> and rendered in OSM.'
> Nobody said that Russia should should be able to
>
It was just proposed that owners or operator 
of an area would be able to suppress 
rendering of objects there.
>  
> Its a point for discussion. What do you think should happen?
>
Paths existing but illegal to use should
be marked and tagged with access tags.

Path destroyed should be deleted from OSM.

Paths but existing should not be mapped in OSM.

> Why single out Russia?
>
AFAIK they have laws forbidding mapping
locations of military bases.
>
> PS thanks Steve for your second email.
> thanks Phil for your clarification on 'illegal'
>
> Tony
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:
>>
>>> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a  women's 
>>> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the  process. And it 
>>> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard  at the door because I 
>>> have mapped a refuge.
>>>
>> Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not  mapping 
>> private info.
>>
>> See  
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
>> for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.
>>
>>> Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM,  only 
>>> slightly more red.
>>>
>> This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)
>>
>>>
>>> You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as  Osmand 
>>> and Strava.
>>>
>> Any decent router will not route over them.
>>
>>> Graeme
>>> Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought  and 
>>> don't have any really good answers. Please think of a better  scheme.
>>>
>>> I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too  complicated for 
>>> the benefit that results but here goes:
>>>
>>> a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
>>> OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
>>>
>> This is a bad idea.
>>
>>> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public  policy for 
>>> the Don'tRender tag
>>>
>> That is fortunately impossible.
>>
>>>
>>> By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of  
>>> addition and deletion and edit wars.
>>>
>> You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.
>>
>> Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered"  is not 
>> an acceptable edit.
>>
>>> Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land  owner or 
>>> manager is credible, if two organisations have credible  claim to that then 
>>> Don'tRender=disputed
>>>
>> Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be  mapped 
>> and rendered in OSM.
>>
>> I knowingly and deliberately violated
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China
>> by mapping objects in China.
>>
>> _
>> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
>> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
>>___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au]

Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by fors...@ozonline.com.au:

> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a women's 
> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the process. And it 
> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard at the door because I 
> have mapped a refuge.
>
Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not mapping 
private info.

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.

>  Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM, only 
> slightly more red.
>
This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)

>
>  You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand 
> and Strava.
>
Any decent router will not route over them.

> Graeme
> Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought and don't 
> have any really good answers. Please think of a better scheme.
>
> I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too complicated for the 
> benefit that results but here goes:
>
> a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
> OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
>
This is a bad idea.

> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the 
> Don'tRender tag
>
That is fortunately impossible.

>
> By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of addition 
> and deletion and edit wars.
>
You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.

Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not an 
acceptable edit.

> Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land owner or 
> manager is credible, if two organisations have credible claim to that then 
> Don'tRender=disputed
>
Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped and 
rendered in OSM.

I knowingly and deliberately violated 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China 
by mapping objects in China.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[OSM-legal-talk] Is listing at Contributors page qualifying as waiver for CC BY 4.0?

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Is 

"it is good enough for us to be named as the data owner here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Kartverket_.28Norwegian_Mapping_Authority.29
 "
(see http://lists.nuug.no/pipermail/kart/2014-August/004831.html for the 
original text)
sufficient to solve problems of CC BY 4.0?

As I understand CC BY 4.0 requires waiver for DRM related reasons, and that it 
would not
be sufficient.

For context see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Import/Catalogue/Road_import_(Norway)
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

Ad thread) bus=yes is not needed if
highway=bus_stop is present

Also public_transport=platform is not
needed anyway, like entire failed pt2
19 paź 2020, 17:54 od mikl...@gmail.com:

> On Saturday, 11 July 2020 23:30:29 HKT Snusmumriken wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 02:33 -0300, Agustin Rissoli wrote:
>> > What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with
>> > public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop?
>>
>> In the presence of highway=bus_stop I think the bus_yes tag is
>> totally unnecessary.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-transit mailing list
>> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>>
>
> I consider the following scenario:
>
> 1. There is no physical stop but it is a generally accepted place to board 
> and 
> alight buses. I map public_transport=platform and bus=yes but not 
> highway=bus_stop
>
> 2. There is a physical bus stop pole but there are no longer any buses using 
> it. I only map highway=bus_stop but not bus=yes there.
>
> Michael
>
> -- 
> Sent from KMail
>

In my opinion:Ad 1) it is also highway=bus_stopAd 2) that would be 
disused:highway=bus_stop
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Some of the 3300 parks in OSM Ireland are just patches of grass.

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie]

18 paź 2020, 15:25 od br...@hollinshead.net:

> I understood that adding to the amount of land area that was
> classified with a landuse category was a good addition to the map.
>  
>
Yes, and mapping leisure=park area is
enough to classify area as used as a park


> My
> research showed that we have some 3,300 patches of land mapped but excluded
> from the landuse tag.
>
OSM tagging is organically grown and
is not very systematic.

leisure=park also marks land use
> For private citizens or public officials seeking data from OSM for
> structured park areas (with planting /benches.sports/keep fit apparatus
> etc) it makes the parks easier to find if they are tagged as landuse=park
> as well as leisure=park
>
Maybe, but introducing duplicate tag to
small subset of parks is not helpful
and just increases confusion.


> how you tag these areas when mapping in your home country.
>
In Poland urban parks are marked as 
leisure=park
> I note you suggest removing the leisure=park tags. I feel it would be
> presumptive of me to consider that those who used the tag some 3,300 times
> to have been mistaken or ill-judged in what they did. without me knowing
> the local conditions.
>
Yes, it would require verification.
From your email I understood that
you verified some cases and found it to
be a bare grass area without park.
>
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 13:00, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie <
> talk-ie@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oct 18, 2020, 11:59 by br...@hollinshead.net:
>>
>> > As part of my researches into what features we have on OSM that might
>> > interest someone wishing to make use of outdoor facilities, I find on the
>> > Island of Ireland we have close to 3,300 parks to choose from, wow!
>> > (leisure=park). On closer inspection I find that many of these in South
>> > Dublin at least are green areas of grass in housing estates, maybe 4
>> houses
>> > long by 8 houses wide. I tend to tag those as per the presets with
>> > landuse=grass.
>> >
>> I would remove leisure=park from them. Note that some people added
>> fake parks to manipulate outcomes in Pokemon Go that is
>> using OSM data.
>>
>> >  Yesterday I ran overpass landuse=park and got nil response!
>> >
>> Good!
>>
>> > This morning I have added landuse=park to about 24 of the parks already
>> on
>> > OSM and listed as parks by DLR, South Dublin and Fingal.
>> >
>> What is the point of this duplicate of leisure=park?
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ie mailing list
>> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>>
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Some of the 3300 parks in OSM Ireland are just patches of grass.

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie]

Oct 18, 2020, 11:59 by br...@hollinshead.net:

> As part of my researches into what features we have on OSM that might
> interest someone wishing to make use of outdoor facilities, I find on the
> Island of Ireland we have close to 3,300 parks to choose from, wow!
> (leisure=park). On closer inspection I find that many of these in South
> Dublin at least are green areas of grass in housing estates, maybe 4 houses
> long by 8 houses wide. I tend to tag those as per the presets with
> landuse=grass.
>
I would remove leisure=park from them. Note that some people added
fake parks to manipulate outcomes in Pokemon Go that is
using OSM data. 

>  Yesterday I ran overpass landuse=park and got nil response!
>
Good!

> This morning I have added landuse=park to about 24 of the parks already on
> OSM and listed as parks by DLR, South Dublin and Fingal.
>
What is the point of this duplicate of leisure=park? 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a building that's two connected separate buildings

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

It sounds like three connected buildings,
but one building with three building:part
areas also would be acceptable

12 paź 2020, 18:52 od m...@good-stuff.co.uk:

> I was looking at tidying up a few things around my local area, and came 
> across this:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195
>
> What you can see there is a building labelled "Evesham Hotel" (which is 
> correct), and, just to the south-west of it, another, unlabelled building.
>
> However, look at the aerial view (eg, via the edit feature, although Google 
> Maps will do just as well), and it's clear that there is a link building 
> connecting the two (something which I can confirm from local knowledge):
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195
>
> (There's also an unmapped extension to the bottom left building, but that's 
> another matter).
>
> That's because, many years ago when the manor house was converted to a hotel, 
> the owners expanded the hotel by building the link to the adjacent building 
> so that it's all one building internally (more of the accommodation is in the 
> bottom left building, the original manor house is mostly reception, function 
> and dining rooms and associated non-public areas such as kitchens and 
> offices).
>
> So, how should this be mapped? Should the entire hotel, covering both 
> original buildings and the later link building, be mapped as a single 
> polygon? Or should they be mapped as three adjacent, but separate, polygons? 
> Is there a standard way of approaching situations like this?
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

ad b) yes, but we had edit wars about all
kinds of ridiculousness, and this is possible
already and happened in some places
12 paź 2020, 15:21 od jez.nichol...@gmail.com:

> Just being Devil's Advocatea) how do you decide on-the-ground what the 
> name by which the place is widely known in Wales is? i.e. is it on signage, 
> etc.? b) could it start an edit war if someone with strong views decided to 
> use one particular language for every 'name' attribute? c) are there 
> precedents for other countries in OSM?
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 2:06 PM Ben Proctor <> b...@benproctor.co.uk> > wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> I'd like to open up the currently unresolved question of multilingual 
>> tagging in Wales. 
>>
>> In the Mapio Cymru project we've been exploring Welsh language mapping >> 
>> https://openstreetmap.cymru/>>  and we've done some thinking about how Welsh 
>> and English naming works in parts of Wales. We plan to organise some 
>> (online) workshops in November to encourage people to add Welsh language 
>> tags to the map. Those workshops will initially be delivered through the 
>> medium of Welsh but we hope also to run some in English at a later date.
>>
>> The wiki entry for Wales in Multilingual Names highlights that this has been 
>> an area of discussion. >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Wales
>>
>> The current entry is short and so I'll reproduce it here in full.
>>
>> [starts/---]
>> In Wales, the name tag should be used for whatever the local population uses.
>>
>> name:en and name:cy can be used to give English and Welsh names where such 
>> names exist but are not the name used by the local population. (cy is the 
>> two letter ISO639-1 language code for the Welsh language.)
>>
>> The percentage of Welsh speakers varies very significantly across the 
>> country and visiting mappers should be aware of local usage.>> [---/ends]
>>
>> From a Mapio Cymru perspective we'd like to propose, for discussion, 
>> replacing this text with the following (reasoning follows):
>>
>> [starts/---]
>> In Wales the name tag should be used for the name by which the place is 
>> widely known in Wales. This could be English or Welsh but not both. So name: 
>> Wales or name: Cymru would be acceptable but not name: Wales/Cymru.
>>
>> name:en should be used to give the name by which the place or feature is 
>> known in English.
>> name:cy should be used to give the name by which the place or feature is 
>> known in Welsh
>>
>> Even though this will lead to apparent duplication. For example:
>>
>> name: Swansea
>> name:en Swansea
>> name:cy Abertawe
>>
>> This allows places and features to be named unambiguously and so rather than 
>> duplication is conveying useful new information.>> [---/ends]
>>
>> Our Reasoning
>> Wales is a bilingual country and many places have different names in Welsh 
>> and English. Many other places have the same name in Welsh and English. It 
>> is not possible to infer from the Name tag whether the contents are in Welsh 
>> or English. 
>>
>> We believe that the only unambiguous way to name places and features in 
>> Wales is to use the name:en and name:cy tags. 
>>
>> The "name" tag does not fit the Wales context well but we recognise its 
>> importance within the wider OSM community. Though in some bilingual 
>> countries the name tag contains both versions of a name and notably in the 
>> Basque country this seemingly reflects the official state policy of 
>> designating the official name of a town as its two names delimited by a 
>> hyphen. We believe in the Wales context this would be better achieved by 
>> processing name:en and name:cy tags.
>>
>> We're really happy to get some feedback, questions or comments on this 
>> proposal. Especially highlighting things we might have missed or 
>> misconstrued.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ben
>> --
>> Mapio Cymru 
>> OpenStreetMap.Cymru 
>> ___
>>  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] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

In case of name where there is a language specific tag,
repeating name tag in language specific tag
is useful, welcome and a good idea.

I even run into a case where it was needed to render map as expected(Polish 
labels, with fallback to English ones)
-

I am unable to comment on Wales-specific
part.
-


"So name: Wales or name: Cymru would be acceptable but not name: Wales/Cymru"

It suggests that it is perfectly fine to
make edit changing country name.

Maybe some other example would be better?

For example some specific settlement for
each language?
12 paź 2020, 15:04 od b...@benproctor.co.uk:

> Hi everyone
>
> I'd like to open up the currently unresolved question of multilingual tagging 
> in Wales. 
>
> In the Mapio Cymru project we've been exploring Welsh language mapping > 
> https://openstreetmap.cymru/>  and we've done some thinking about how Welsh 
> and English naming works in parts of Wales. We plan to organise some (online) 
> workshops in November to encourage people to add Welsh language tags to the 
> map. Those workshops will initially be delivered through the medium of Welsh 
> but we hope also to run some in English at a later date.
>
> The wiki entry for Wales in Multilingual Names highlights that this has been 
> an area of discussion. > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Wales
>
> The current entry is short and so I'll reproduce it here in full.
>
> [starts/---]
> In Wales, the name tag should be used for whatever the local population uses.
>
> name:en and name:cy can be used to give English and Welsh names where such 
> names exist but are not the name used by the local population. (cy is the two 
> letter ISO639-1 language code for the Welsh language.)
>
> The percentage of Welsh speakers varies very significantly across the country 
> and visiting mappers should be aware of local usage.> [---/ends]
>
> From a Mapio Cymru perspective we'd like to propose, for discussion, 
> replacing this text with the following (reasoning follows):
>
> [starts/---]
> In Wales the name tag should be used for the name by which the place is 
> widely known in Wales. This could be English or Welsh but not both. So name: 
> Wales or name: Cymru would be acceptable but not name: Wales/Cymru.
>
> name:en should be used to give the name by which the place or feature is 
> known in English.
> name:cy should be used to give the name by which the place or feature is 
> known in Welsh
>
> Even though this will lead to apparent duplication. For example:
>
> name: Swansea
> name:en Swansea
> name:cy Abertawe
>
> This allows places and features to be named unambiguously and so rather than 
> duplication is conveying useful new information.> [---/ends]
>
> Our Reasoning
> Wales is a bilingual country and many places have different names in Welsh 
> and English. Many other places have the same name in Welsh and English. It is 
> not possible to infer from the Name tag whether the contents are in Welsh or 
> English. 
>
> We believe that the only unambiguous way to name places and features in Wales 
> is to use the name:en and name:cy tags. 
>
> The "name" tag does not fit the Wales context well but we recognise its 
> importance within the wider OSM community. Though in some bilingual countries 
> the name tag contains both versions of a name and notably in the Basque 
> country this seemingly reflects the official state policy of designating the 
> official name of a town as its two names delimited by a hyphen. We believe in 
> the Wales context this would be better achieved by processing name:en and 
> name:cy tags.
>
> We're really happy to get some feedback, questions or comments on this 
> proposal. Especially highlighting things we might have missed or misconstrued.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ben
> --
> Mapio Cymru 
> OpenStreetMap.Cymru 
>

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Import licensing waiver

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

But license is still needed, right?

Or is it OK to interpret "Agency has no objections"
as "sounds like CC0" (I would not do this but maybe...)?


Oct 9, 2020, 20:40 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Yes, it's fine. That is simply a disclaimer, not a limitation on use.
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>  
>>  I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
>>  Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing of a
>>  building footprint layer they have. My intention was to import this
>>  layer after further review by the OSM community and myself. After
>>  contacting the agency head about a possible waiver for OSM use ( along
>>  the lines of
>>  >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission#Letter_Template_1
>>  ), I received this response:
>>  
>>  The Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections to
>>  geodata derived in part from the "Onondaga County Building Footprints"
>>  layer being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
>>  database and displayed publicly on the map.  By using the data,
>>  however, the OpenStreetMap project agrees that Onondaga County makes no
>>  claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness of the county's
>>  building footprint file, and the county will not be held responsible
>>  for any omissions or inaccuracies. This data is provided as is and
>>  there is no guarantee that it is suitable for any particular purpose. 
>>  Your use of the data is at your own risk. 
>>  
>>  Is this licensing favorable for use by the OSM community?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  ___
>>  legal-talk mailing list
>>  >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Import licensing waiver

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

It was a correct one - you were aware about it and learned about another
one that may be more useful :)


Oct 9, 2020, 20:05 by lobstereat...@airmail.cc:

> Ok, thank you for the guidance. I will forward to legal-talk, and I
> apologize if this wasn't the correct mailing list.
>
> On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 15:44 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> AFAIK "makes no claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness"
>> is not a problem, whoever is doing imports must do this part anyway.
>>
>> But what is the license of the data?
>> Maybe "Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections"
>> is sufficient (I am not a lawyer) - but only  if that agency holds
>> full rights to the dataset
>>
>> As usual, legal-talk has greater chance to get response with someone
>> with greater
>> legal knowledge.
>>
>> Oct 9, 2020, 14:38 by lobstereat...@airmail.cc:
>> > Hello,
>> > 
>> > I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
>> > Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing
>> > of a
>> > building footprint layer they have. My intention was to import this
>> > layer after further review by the OSM community and myself. After
>> > contacting the agency head about a possible waiver for OSM use (
>> > along
>> > the lines of
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission#Letter_Template_1
>> > ), I received this response:
>> > 
>> > The Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections to
>> > geodata derived in part from the "Onondaga County Building
>> > Footprints"
>> > layer being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
>> > database and displayed publicly on the map. By using the data,
>> > however, the OpenStreetMap project agrees that Onondaga County
>> > makes no
>> > claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness of the
>> > county's
>> > building footprint file, and the county will not be held
>> > responsible
>> > for any omissions or inaccuracies. This data is provided as is and
>> > there is no guarantee that it is suitable for any particular
>> > purpose. 
>> > Your use of the data is at your own risk. 
>> > 
>> > Is this licensing favorable for use by the OSM community?
>> > 
>> > 
>> > ___
>> > Talk-us mailing list
>> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>  
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Import licensing waiver

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

AFAIK "makes no claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness"is not a 
problem, whoever is doing imports must do this part anyway.

But what is the license of the data?
Maybe "Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections"
is sufficient (I am not a lawyer) - but only  if that agency holds full rights 
to the dataset

As usual, legal-talk has greater chance to get response with someone with 
greater
legal knowledge.

Oct 9, 2020, 14:38 by lobstereat...@airmail.cc:

> Hello,
>
> I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
> Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing of a
> building footprint layer they have. My intention was to import this
> layer after further review by the OSM community and myself. After
> contacting the agency head about a possible waiver for OSM use ( along
> the lines of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission#Letter_Template_1
> ), I received this response:
>
> The Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections to
> geodata derived in part from the "Onondaga County Building Footprints"
> layer being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
> database and displayed publicly on the map.  By using the data,
> however, the OpenStreetMap project agrees that Onondaga County makes no
> claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness of the county's
> building footprint file, and the county will not be held responsible
> for any omissions or inaccuracies. This data is provided as is and
> there is no guarantee that it is suitable for any particular purpose. 
> Your use of the data is at your own risk. 
>
> Is this licensing favorable for use by the OSM community?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging health facilities offering COVID testing

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

I would not map them myself or encourage others,
but I would say that it is mappable.

Oct 8, 2020, 18:26 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Where I am, there is wide variety in what days/hours such sites are 
> available, whether they are free or have a cost, whether you need an 
> appointment, and how temporary they are. Some are only around for a few 
> weeks, and I would expect them to last maximum 1 yr. Further, the use is very 
> limited since international travel is way down (and you should not be 
> traveling if you suspect you may have covid!) Thus I do not think they are 
> good candidates for mapping into OSM. A separate layer overlaid on OSM on a 
> dedicated website seems better. 
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 7:52 AM Antonin Delpeuch (lists) <> 
> li...@antonin.delpeuch.eu> > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>  
>>  I am wondering if and how it would be appropriate to map COVID testing
>>  facilities. I have seen various national maps but given that they are
>>  especially useful during international travel, I think it would be very
>>  useful to have them in OSM.
>>  
>>  I have seen the use of "healthcare:speciality=covid-19", for instance on
>>  this node:
>>  
>>  >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7368671692
>>  
>>  But according to TagInfo there are only two uses of that tag value.
>>  Surely other people must have been tagging this by now, but how?
>>  
>>  Note that I am primarily interested in mapping the places where samples
>>  are collected, not the laboratories where the samples are actually
>>  analyzed. I think the former is more interesting for the general public.
>>  
>>  Thanks,
>>  
>>  
>>  ___
>>  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] OSM ↔ Wikidata - new tool encouraging automated / mechanical addition of wikidata tags

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

I used it with manual review of tagged objects and with verification of every 
match.

It is necessary as many matches are spurious/invalid (see bug reports at
https://github.com/EdwardBetts/osm-wikidata/issues ). 

Note that it is not criticism of the tool - some false positives will be always 
present.

Not sure what can be done on tool side. I would encourage reverting any edits 
of people who used this tool without real review of what is added, but not sure 
what more
can be done. Except https://github.com/EdwardBetts/osm-wikidata/issues/555 that
was just partially fixed (there is now "show all tags" tool)

Maybe remind in OSM Wiki page that blind adding without verification is not 
helpful at all?

Oct 8, 2020, 23:27 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_↔_Wikidata 
> 
>
> According to the new wiki entry, OSM ↔ Wikidata is a tool that is supposed to 
> automatically find all wikidata entries for OpenStreetMap features in a 
> certain area, and make it easy to add the tags semi-automatically.
>
> This seems like it will invite violations of the Automated Edits policy (> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits> )
>
> "OSM ↔ Wikidata (osm-wikidata-link) is a web based tool that can be used to 
> semi-automatically add the Wikidata tag to an OpenStreetMap object. It is 
> developed by  Edward Betts (Edward) (and others github contributors) in 
> Python and web technologies (HTML/CSS/JS)." 
>
> "> This tool displays results in tabs:
> Match candidates: display the potential OSM objects matching Wikidata item
> This is the main tab. It allows user to match and add > wikidata 
> > =*>  tags to OSM objects
> Already tagged: display the OSM object and his > wikidata 
> > =*>  key
> No match: display Wikidata item without match in OSM
> This tab allows user to edit OSM and add the > wikidata 
> > =*>  tag manually
> Wikidata query: display the Wikidata SPARQL query."
>
> What should we ask the developers to do so that this tool won't be 
> encouraging every to violate the Automated Edits policy?
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>

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