Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:


The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
has business there.)


...this seems to be the definition of access=destination?


I'd say yes, that access=destination is closest to how I interpret most
driveways: you can walk/drive along the driveway if you have a good
reason, eg to make a delivery or an inquiry.

If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to be on
that way, then access=private would be correct. (And IMO someone
delivering to an address shouldn't automatically assume permission to
access a restricted way -- the ship-to address is not necessarily the
property of the person who requested the delivery.)


Is that the recommended way to tag residential driveways?

And I would say no, that tagging all driveways access=destination would
violate the traditional OSM best practice of "Don't map your local
legislation unless it's actually signed" (or however it's phrased.)
Unless there's a sign or some other indication (mapper's head on a
pike?) that this particular driveway has different access rules than
you'd expect, best to omit the access tag.




I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
then does so happily.


My car does this, and doesn't even ask. It just warns me that "this
route uses private roads". I generally assume that's talking about the
final leg and ignore it.


I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of
'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for
everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.


Yup.


Fair cop, I should have said "breaking routing for others" not "breaking
routing for everyone." I'm quite glad to hear that OSMAnd deals
gracefully with this problem, because no matter how much I retag and
finger-wag it will always be with us.


That said, it does seem like access=destination is more correct for
ways that aren't explicitly access-restricted?

Agreed, but I feel that in most cases, especially for driveways, the
access tag is better omitted. And regardless, the armchair tagging of
driveways as access=private strikes me as an error.

Jason

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

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Jmapb  wrote:
> (Trying once again to change this thread subject!)
> 
> I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.
> 
> To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the routing 
> to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 
>  by drawing in the driveway 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 
>  and then snatching defeat from 
> the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway private. Yes, a large company 
> like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to be mapped, so we might presume 
> it's mapped to their specifications) can implement their own router and treat 
> the access=private tags more loosely, but that's no reason for them to be 
> breaking routing for everyone else.
> 
> In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be 
> tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And if 
> the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add a 
> access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is outdated 
> or erroneous.
> 
> And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service roads 
> that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these roads are 
> public access up to a certain point, and having that information correctly 
> mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are imported from TIGER with 
> access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as much of these as possible is 
> certainly on my to-do list.
> 
> As far as what sign wording actually warrants access=private... "No 
> Trespassing", "Keep Out", that sort of thing. I agree that simply seeing the 
> word "private" does not equate to access=private, though in some situations 
> it would incline me towards access=destination. I wasn't aware of 
> ownership=private but I'll put it to use in the future.

Out of curiosity, I looked at the tagging of a neighborhood I know of which has 
privately owned roads (maintained by the homeowner’s association) but no gate 
blocking entry. There are signs indicating that the roads are “private” but 
that state road regulations are enforced. The access on those roads is 
currently tagged as access=permissive.

Thinking about it, that seems correct: The roads are privately owned. But you 
are free to access them unless or until the owner withdraws permission.

There are “gated communities” where you can’t get in unless you have a card key 
or speak with a gate keeper. Those should, I think, have access=private as you 
need explicit permission on each entry.

But for the case where the road is privately owned but the owner allows access 
without prior consent, access=permissive seems to be a good fit.

—Tod




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Richard Fairhurst]

[apologies for broken threading, Nabble appears to have fallen over]

Chris Fleming wrote:
> We also have copyright of the route itself, Cycling UK do seem
> to assert copyright and therefore we probably do need them to
> ask them.

I did ask that very question at a recent Facebook webchat with CUK about the 
Great North Trail and King Alfred's Way (more with a cycle.travel hat on than 
an OSM one). They chose not to answer. ;)

It's certainly worth pressing them on it, but I suspect the situation is the 
same as with the (also unsigned) Adventure Cycling routes in the US - they 
don't want to give explicit blanket permission because that could potentially 
remove one of their USPs as an organisation, particularly with regard to 
selling maps/guidebooks, but in practice they'll tolerate it.


Andy Allan wrote:
> Signed, or it should not be in our database.

So much this. People often think in terms of "oh, I'll tag it as 
NCN/RCN/whatever so that it shows up nicely on OCM/WaymarkedTrails/whatever" 
and forget that there are routers out there, not just renderers. Routers use 
relations like this as a crucial component in their turn-by-turn directions. 
They tell people to "turn right onto route 5", which is no use if there are no 
signs here or anywhere for route 5.

In extremis, if you were to follow the same algorithm that Google Maps uses for 
its turn-by-turn directions (follow route numbers above all else), then the 
directions would start at Wirksworth and say "Follow Great North Trail for 825 
miles". That isn't helpful.

> So please don't read too much into the "ncn" tag. The same
> tag is used throughout the world for national cycling
> routes in OSM. It's not entirely a coincidence that the tag
> and the concept of Sustrans' National Cycling Network are
> very similar

…but don't break common expectations for the standard of a route.

In other words, network=ncn routes in Britain are largely homogenous. They will 
be 95% low-traffic and 95% rideable on an average hybrid bike.

If you tag the Great North Trail (or, at the other end of the scale, the Dave 
Brailsford routes in Snowdonia) as network=ncn, that breaks those common 
expectations. Someone will see the route and expect an "NCN" experience. That 
"someone" might be a human planning their route manually, or it might be a 
router that is using the presence of a route relation as a flag that the route 
is low-traffic and rideable.

There will no doubt be someone at this point who says "but it's still a 
NATIONAL CYCLE route", to which I say (a) you are very boring, (b) fine, go tag 
all the Sustrans NCN routes with a distinct Sustrans tag and your preferred 
route with a non-Sustrans tag and report back what you've done, (c) 
personally... I don't actually mind, because I watch these things sufficiently 
closely that cycle.travel will only ever be one profile update behind whatever 
change in tagging there is. But bear in mind that no-one apart from me and 
CycleStreets takes this much interest in tagging subtleties, so you've just 
broken routing for Strava and Komoot and Mapbox and whatever. Actually, wait, 
you should totally do that.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Jul 13, 2020, 20:29 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:

> On 13/07/2020 14.22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> If you are staying from manually reviewing
>> and editing based on this new data,
>> aerials and current data it should be
>> perfectly fine as long as you actually review
>> what you add.
>>
>
> For now, yes. For buildings (later, and I'll probably ping y'all again), I 
> expect that to be more automated, but probably still manually reviewed.
>
> It is still required to use a separate account for manually audited changes?
>
Is it going to be "by comparing dataset X and OSM I found places to map roads 
that I added
using aerial images"? Or more of "manually copied and verified geometries from 
external dataset"?

I would say that for second case I would create an import page on wiki and so 
on,
including a separate user while for first just post on relevant mailing lists.

For "more automated" buildings you definitely need separate account, Wiki page 
documentation
etc.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Adam Snape]

 On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 11:04, Chris Fleming  wrote:

> The third issue is of copyright, which is the one Adam brought up.
> Personally I don't really know about this one. On one hand the route is
> made of of ways already existing on OpenStreetMap; does that move us a step
> outside of copying from whatever data source was used to derive the route?
>
Provided none of those OSM features were added, imported, aligned, or
otherwise with reference to the data source, then those pre-existing
features themselves are not problematic.

>
> We also have copyright of the route itself, Cycling UK do seem to assert
> copyright and therefore we probably do need them to ask them. (It's nice to
> see that the cycling UK website does display the route over a OSM map) but
> they link externally to OS maps.
>

...and they may indeed have drawn up their data using OS mapping making it
OS derived data.

Kind regards,

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

[Talk-us] Someone from Craigslist here?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

a recent complaint to DWG led me to investigate the area around
Greenville (Plumas County, Northern California), and I found that a
couple TIGER streets that had been deleted on OSM in January 2019 were
still visible on Craigslist
(https://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/craigslist.png shows current OSM
left, and craigslist right;
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66467286 is the deletion
changeset).

It would certainly be beneficial to both us and Craigslist if they could
update. Maybe there's someone here who has contacts and could prod them.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-at] OpenStreetMap in Österreichs Bildung und Lehre, Frage id 70000

[Manuela Schmidt]

Hallo,

Vielleicht kannst Du mir aber helfen. Gibt es Arbeiten welche sich mit 
dem Potential im Einsatz von OpenSource Software wie Fossgis, und 
OpenStreetMap auseinandersetzen.
Es gibt eine Vielzahl akademischer Arbeiten in diesem Bereich. Einfach 
z.B. hier https://scholar.google.com/ nach entsprechenden Schlagworten 
suchen. Dabei muss berücksichtigt werden, dass die meisten 
wissenschaftlichen Studien sehr kleine Teilbereiche untersuchen, die 
nicht notwendigerweise generalisiert werden können.


Gerade im Kommunalen Bereich in dem ich arbeite, sehe ich aktuell 
überhaupt keinen Einsatz von Open Source, da dies dort zugleich mit 
Null! Unterstützung gleichgesetzt wird. Dabei kann man ja Open Source 
Software, und Support vertraglich wunderbar voneinander trennen.


Tatsächlich gibt es in Österreich aber auch nicht viele Anbieter für 
professionellen OpenGIS-Support. Viele Firmen in diesem Bereich sind 
EPUs, was für große Institutionen dann teilweise zu heikel ist. 
Deutschland scheint mir in diesem Bereich besser aufgestellt zu sein.


Generell ist das Archiv der FOSSIS-Konferenzen 
[https://www.fossgis-konferenz.de] eine gute Fundgrube für 
Anwendungsbeispiele von OpenGIS auch bei Ämtern und Kommunen.


Wäre es möglich eine Expertise über OpenSource als wissenschaftliche 
Arbeit anzuregen.


Ich weiß nicht, was du damit meinst.

LG Manu




Am Mo., 13. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Manuela Schmidt 
mailto:manuela.schm...@tuwien.ac.at>>:


Zumindest an der TU Wien (wo 2011 ja auch die SotM-Europe
veranstaltet wurde) sind Open Source Tools und offene Daten im
Geobereich ein wichtiger Bestandteil der Lehre.

Auf https://catalogplus.tuwien.at/ kann nach Diplom- und
Masterarbeiten gefiltert werden, die an der TU zu dem Thema
veröffentlicht wurden.

Und ja, auf talk-at lesen und schreiben auch Lehrende diverser
Hochschulen.

LG Manu


Am 13.07.2020 um 07:05 schrieb Johann Haag:


In Österreich gibt es 6 Hochschulen mit dem Studienfach
Geographie und Kartographie.
Diese Bildungseinrichtungen werden mit öffentlichem Auftrag
betrieben, also auch vom Österreichischen Steuerzahler finanziert.

Im Studienplan sollte sich auch daher, nicht nur kommerzielles
sondern mehr oder weniger auch OpenSource und daher im weitesten
Sinne auch OpenStreetMap finden.

Gibt es irgendwo einen Spiegel an veröffentlichten Arbeiten, mit
OpenStreetMap Bezug.
Ich erwarte mir von Studenten keine Mapping Aktivität, es fällt
mir aber schon auf, dass ich hiervon so rein gar nichts entdecke.

Wie ist die Stimmung zu Open Source, in Österreichs
Universitäten. Einen Lehrauftrag würde ich über die Steuergeld
Finanzierung dieser Unis schon sehen. Hier im Mail Verteiler
müssten sich jedenfalls an Geographie interessierte Lehrende finden.

Siehe auch https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=7

Grüße Johann


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

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




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

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:

I'll confess to having perpetrated a fair number - at a time when I
didn't know better.


Likewise. That said...


A few things, though:

The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
has business there.)


...this seems to be the definition of access=destination? Is that the 
recommended way to tag residential driveways?



I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
then does so happily.


My car does this, and doesn't even ask. It just warns me that "this 
route uses private roads". I generally assume that's talking about the 
final leg and ignore it.


I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of 
'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for 
everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.


Yup. That said, it does seem like access=destination is more correct for 
ways that aren't explicitly access-restricted?


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Holiday camp tagging

[Cj Malone]

On Mon, 2020-07-13 at 20:47 +0100, David Woolley wrote:
> If separate areas have been mapped for tents and caravans, you should
> not coalesce them.

Is this not the same as amenity=university on each building though?
Where the correct method is one closed way or relation
with amenity=university around the site.

There is one holiday camp, but in OSM there are 3.

Cj



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

[Talk-GB] Mapping of Dover Harbour Board

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

the DWG has received the following message:

> Hi,
>  
> A bit of feedback.
> The openstreet map of Dover Harbour-UK has now become quite out of date.
> Just wondering when it will receive an update after all the works done over 
> the past 2 years with the Western Docks revival project and the new marina, 
> quayside changes etc.
>  
> Thanks,
> (Name removed by F.R.) 

I'll reply that OSM is what its mappers make of it, and an invitation to
contribute - but if anyone is familiar with the topic, perhaps this is
an incentive to work on it.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Holiday camp tagging

[David Woolley]

On 13/07/2020 18:19, Cj Malone wrote:

2 - The site is split into areas with names, I've started adding
address details to aid in routing, mapping them as addr:housename=area
and addr:unit=#. I was originally planning to use addr:place instead of
addr:housename, but this specific camp site uses real local places


I would consider that a misuse of addr:place.  Addresses are basically 
things to which you could send mail.


If separate areas have been mapped for tents and caravans, you should 
not coalesce them.


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

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:52 PM Jmapb  wrote:
> I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.
>
> To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the routing 
> to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 by drawing in the 
> driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 and then snatching 
> defeat from the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway private. Yes, a large 
> company like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to be mapped, so we might 
> presume it's mapped to their specifications) can implement their own router 
> and treat the access=private tags more loosely, but that's no reason for them 
> to be breaking routing for everyone else.
>
> In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be 
> tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And if 
> the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add a 
> access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is outdated 
> or erroneous.
>
> And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service roads 
> that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these roads are 
> public access up to a certain point, and having that information correctly 
> mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are imported from TIGER with 
> access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as much of these as possible is 
> certainly on my to-do list.

I'll confess to having perpetrated a fair number - at a time when I
didn't know better.

A few things, though:

The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house
without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously,
has business there.)

I ordinarily will NOT hike on a service way or track across
privately-owned land unless I see some indication that it is open, or
I know what the situation is in advance. Of course, there are
exceptions: for instance, I know of some woods roads that are public
rights-of-way, dating to a time before the automobile, where
landowners have attempted to close them.  The local hiking club
advises to hike them, openly and notoriously, disregarding the
posters.  (In at least one case that I'm aware of, the landowner
eventually changed the posters to read, "PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON
PRIVATE LAND. STAY ON TRAIL")
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291410854 is a public highway,
whatever the posters say! But most of the roads that have signs like
'Johnson Lane // PRIVATE'  are just farm driveways that I ordinarily
wouldn't hike.

I surely don't mark as `acccess=private` the service roads going to
inholdings on public land, whoever maintains them.  The last one I can
recall mapping was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20631036 - and I
marked it as `motor_vechicle=private` (it's signed 'no motor
vehicles'), `foot=designated bicycle=no wheelchair=no atv=no ski=yes
snowmobile=yes` and I left out `horse` because I have Absolutely No
Idea, except for the fact that the trail was free of horse
by-products. (Whether to use 'track', 'service' or 'residential' for
that way is controversial and in the end is also meaningless.  It's
there mostly for forestry. Someone happens to have a cabin on it. In
the field, it's a pair of ruts winding off into the woods.)

I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a
road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination
is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and
then does so happily.  (Much more happily than before I tweaked
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/165370475 to restore network
connectivity. When I was driving on it, it wound up scolding me, "You
have been driving off road for the last 1.5 miles. Please proceed to
the highlighted route!") It's not just whatever custom system Amazon
uses. I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of
'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for
everyone' is a bit hyperbolic.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Talk-it] Chiusura per lavori

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jul 2020, at 18:16, emmexx  wrote:
> 
> Ho aggiunto i tag
> vehicle:conditional = no @ (2020 July 6-2020 September 6)
> foot:conditional = no @ (2020 July 6-2020 September 6)
> 
> Sul ponte passano anche taxi e tram in corsia riservata. Ha senso
> modificare i tag anche per le relative way, visto il periodo di chiusura
> relativamente breve?
> Per le corsie riservate a veicoli e pedoni può essere utile per il
> routing, ma per quelle riservate ai tram?


per me hai fatto bene, con la condizione non dovrebbe dare alcun fastidio a chi 
usa dati non aggiornati.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Chiusura per lavori

[emmexx]

On 7/13/20 8:05 PM, Edoardo Yossef Marascalchi wrote:
> è cmq utile per calcolare i percorsi del trasporto pubblico che li viene
> interrotto

Ho aggiornato anche per le way relative ai mezzi pubblici.

grazie
maxx

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

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 13/07/2020 14.22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

If you are staying from manually reviewing
and editing based on this new data,
aerials and current data it should be
perfectly fine as long as you actually review
what you add.


For now, yes. For buildings (later, and I'll probably ping y'all again), 
I expect that to be more automated, but probably still manually reviewed.


It is still required to use a separate account for manually audited changes?

--
Matthew

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

[Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Gareth L]

Hello,

The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle infrastructure. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure

Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have 
avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter roads.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Ok, then it should be ok.

If you are staying from manually reviewing
and editing based on this new data,
aerials and current data it should be
perfectly fine as long as you actually review 
what you add.

13 Jul 2020, 20:15 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:

> On 13/07/2020 13.44, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
>
>> Are you sure that it is in public domain?
>>
>
> It is according to the government POC.
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2020-July/000954.html
>
> -- 
> Matthew
>___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 13/07/2020 13.44, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:

Are you sure that it is in public domain?


It is according to the government POC.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2020-July/000954.html

--
Matthew

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

Re: [Talk-it] Chiusura per lavori

[Edoardo Yossef Marascalchi]

è cmq utile per calcolare i percorsi del trasporto pubblico che li viene
interrotto

Il lun 13 lug 2020, 7:16 PM emmexx  ha scritto:

> A Milano è chiuso per lavori per 2 mesi il Cavalcavia Farini [1].
>
> Ho aggiunto i tag
> vehicle:conditional = no @ (2020 July 6-2020 September 6)
> foot:conditional = no @ (2020 July 6-2020 September 6)
>
> Sul ponte passano anche taxi e tram in corsia riservata. Ha senso
> modificare i tag anche per le relative way, visto il periodo di chiusura
> relativamente breve?
> Per le corsie riservate a veicoli e pedoni può essere utile per il
> routing, ma per quelle riservate ai tram?
>
> grazie
> maxx
>
> [1]
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=45.48688=9.18221#map=17/45.48688/9.18221
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

[Jmapb]

On 7/13/2020 12:59 PM, Alex Hennings wrote:


The /sole purpose/ of routing is to get the user to their destination
without breaking any laws. These are also /specifically my/ /goals
/when I'm using a router. Frequently (in my rural area) getting to my
destination requires using a privately owned road. You might say
"access=private" isn't a problem because I can tell my router to
ignore "access=private". But I don't want to go down any roads that
say "Stay out" and have a gate, or a person brandishing a rifle.
When every privately owned road is marked as access=private, it is not
possible for me to achieve both of those goals (get there, don't break
laws) at the same time. By encouraging routers to ignore
"access=private" you're neutering real access restrictions.

So, you're either saying /don't worry about/ breaking laws, or /don't
worry about/ getting to your destination

That is my argument /against access=private/ on privately owned roads.
My argument /for ownership=private/ is to set a clear and visible
precedent that private ownership /has a tag/, which /is not the access
tag.
/

-Alex

(Trying once again to change this thread subject!)

I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.

To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the
routing to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 by
drawing in the driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791633657 and
then snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by tagging the driveway
private. Yes, a large company like Amazon (who paid for this driveway to
be mapped, so we might presume it's mapped to their specifications) can
implement their own router and treat the access=private tags more
loosely, but that's no reason for them to be breaking routing for
everyone else.

In short, I think that driveways and other service roads should ONLY be
tagged access=private based on specific knowledge of a restriction. And
if the access restriction is not verifiable by survey, it's good to add
a access:source=* or note=* so mappers like me won't assume the tag is
outdated or erroneous.

And Kevin, relevant for hikers like you & me is the question of service
roads that lead to private enclaves within public lands. Often these
roads are public access up to a certain point, and having that
information correctly mapped is quite helpful. Many of these are
imported from TIGER with access=private the whole way, and reclaiming as
much of these as possible is certainly on my to-do list.

As far as what sign wording actually warrants access=private... "No
Trespassing", "Keep Out", that sort of thing. I agree that simply seeing
the word "private" does not equate to access=private, though in some
situations it would incline me towards access=destination. I wasn't
aware of ownership=private but I'll put it to use in the future.

Jason

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

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Are you sure that it is in public domain?

Is it work of federal government?
Or a state government?

13 Jul 2020, 16:48 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:

> (Repost to talk-us also.)
>
> On 13/07/2020 10.44, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
>> I am working on a project that wishes to tentatively use OSM data from 
>> Quantico and possibly surrounding areas. Unfortunately, OSM is somewhat 
>> lacking in this area, especially within Quantico itself.
>>
>> I would like to import data from information provided by the county¹. To 
>> start with, I would like to use the country-provided roads to improve road 
>> shapes and fill in missing roads (for now, manually, probably using 
>> Merkaartor, and checked against available aerial imagery). Eventually, I 
>> want to add buildings and maybe anything else that seems useful.
>>
>> Being data generated by an agency of the US government, the source data is 
>> Public Domain (verified via the contact information provided on the site).
>>
>> Comments/concerns/objections/suggestions?
>>
>> (¹ https://gisdata-pwcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/)
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew
>
> ___
> 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-GB] Holiday camp tagging

[Cj Malone]

Hello everyone,

I'm mapping a local camp site [0], and have a few questions regarding
tags.

1 - It's mainly static caravans with some cabins, but it also has an
area for tents/caravan pitches. It should tagged as
one tourism=caravan_site with tents=yes, right? It's currently split
into one main tourism=caravan_site [0] with another tourism=camp_site
that lacks many details [1] and even a second tourism=caravan_site [2].

2 - The site is split into areas with names, I've started adding
address details to aid in routing, mapping them as addr:housename=area
and addr:unit=#. I was originally planning to use addr:place instead of
addr:housename, but this specific camp site uses real local places
names. eg 28 Appley [3] and Appley suburb [4]. 6 Freshwater [5]
vs Freshwater village [6]. Was this the wrong choice? Should I just use
addr:place and add a place=locality name=Appley way around the area?
Will this damage routing with the real Appley [4]?

Thanks
Cj

[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339576373
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448717739
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/467598597
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492581478
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5449148626
[5] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492575073
[6] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8092847


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

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Alex Hennings]

Kevin,

Maybe we have different contexts? In my area, we have privately owned roads
 that are more than just
driveways.

Regarding: "*don't worry about it*"

I find this dissatisfying.

The *sole purpose* of routing is to get the user to their destination
without breaking any laws. These are also *specifically my* *goals *when
I'm using a router. Frequently (in my rural area) getting to my destination
requires using a privately owned road. You might say "access=private" isn't
a problem because I can tell my router to ignore "access=private". But I
don't want to go down any roads that say "Stay out" and have a gate, or a
person brandishing a rifle.
When every privately owned road is marked as access=private, it is not
possible for me to achieve both of those goals (get there, don't break
laws) at the same time. By encouraging routers to ignore "access=private"
you're neutering real access restrictions.

So, you're either saying *don't worry about* breaking laws, or *don't worry
about* getting to your destination

That is my argument *against access=private* on privately owned roads. My
argument *for ownership=private* is to set a clear and visible precedent
that private ownership *has a tag*, which
*is not the access tag.*

-Alex



On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:49 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:05 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
> > >  - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
> access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag
> until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite
> common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend
> to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private,
> since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the
> driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road
> that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's
> connected to.)
> > I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads
> (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private.  Often these
> private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private
> road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only."
>
> One thing to watch out for in the countryside is that there are often
> streets signed 'Xxx Drive // PRIVATE'  meaning that the road is
> privately maintained, rather than meaning 'no trespassing.'
>
> But here I think that the importance of the distinction is overblown.
> I strongly suspect:
>
> (1) People don't ordinarily want to be routed down these
> privately-maintained roads (which are usually, in effect, driveways
> that happen to serve more than one establishment) unless they have
> business with some establishment on the road.
> (2) Delivery drivers use routers that allow for access to private
> drives to deliver to the associated residence.  (In effect, the person
> who ordered the goods for delivery has issued an invitation to the
> carrier.)
>
> and hence, the public/private distinction for service ways falls in my
> mental model under, 'don't worry about it.'
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> ___
> 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-fr] ‪airbnb - Philip‬ à supprimer ?

[Yves P.]

> Le POI n'est pas le seul à cette adresse, il y a aussi un cinéma, le nœud 
> addr sur l'immeuble était suffisant pour géolocaliser.
> 
Je n'ai pas assez précisé : supprimer les tags du airbnb et surtout garder le 
point adresse :)

> Je crée le POI quand je connais : mais là une maison d'hôtes airnb d'il y a 3 
> ans ??? et sans autres infos que le nom ??? je ne suis pas sûr que je la 
> recréerais.
> 
Je ne connais pas trop AirBnB, mais j'imagine que les locations ça va ça vient.
Donc ça n'a pas vraiment sa place dans OSM ?

Il faut surtout le point adresse :)

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] ‪airbnb - Philip‬ à supprimer ?

[leni]

Le 13/07/2020 à 17:29, Yves P. a écrit :

Bonjour,

Un POI sur un nœud adresse : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1549564356
C'est une la seule et unique contribution de son auteur.

Est-ce que je la supprime ou je créé un POI à coté ?

Le POI n'est pas le seul à cette adresse, il y a aussi un cinéma, le 
nœud addr sur l'immeuble était suffisant pour géolocaliser.


Je n'aime pas supprimer, donc en général j'écris au contributeur (mais 
là, une contribution il y 3 ans ??? je ne serais pas sûr d'avoir une 
réponse)


Puis, s'il ne fait rien, je débarrasse le point adresse des infos 
inutiles (addr:city et addr:country) et des infos concernant le POI


Je crée le POI quand je connais : mais là une maison d'hôtes airnb d'il 
y a 3 ans ??? et sans autres infos que le nom ??? je ne suis pas sûr que 
je la recréerais.


cordialement

leni

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

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 13.07.20 15:07, Wolfgang Schreiter wrote:

On 13.07.20 11:34, Wolfgang Schreiter wrote:

Der Versatz von geoimage zur basemap beträgt ca. 0.13; -0.44 (JOSM

Versatz-Einstellungen).

Was bedeuten diese Zahlen, und wo kommen sie her?


https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/ImageryAdjust

"east and north offset in Mercator coordinates"
Zugänglich in JOSM unter Hintergrund -> Neuer Versatz.


0.44 Grad erscheint mir ein bisschen viel, wahrscheinlich sind damit Meter 
gemeint? Dass das weder im JOSM-Dialogfenster noch in der Doku erklärt ist, 
ist ein grobes Versäumnis!


Außerdem ist nicht gerade offensichtlich, wie die Vorzeichen einzugeben 
sind: Heißt -0.44, dass der Hintergrund 0.44 m Versatz aufweist oder dass 
JOSM ihn um -0.44 m zurechtrückt?



Bzgl. Lagegenauigkeit: ich habe jetzt mal schnell mit Google Maps und NÖ Atlas 
verglichen.  Geoimage stimmt etwas besser überein, ist auch noch geringfügig 
daneben.


Bei der letzen amtlichen Orthofotogeneration (2016-2018) zumindest in NÖ ist 
irgendwas schiefgegangen, die Lagegenauigkeit hat gegenüber den vorigen zwei 
Versionen abgenommen.


--
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

[Talk-it] Chiusura per lavori

[emmexx]

A Milano è chiuso per lavori per 2 mesi il Cavalcavia Farini [1].

Ho aggiunto i tag
vehicle:conditional = no @ (2020 July 6-2020 September 6)
foot:conditional = no @ (2020 July 6-2020 September 6)

Sul ponte passano anche taxi e tram in corsia riservata. Ha senso
modificare i tag anche per le relative way, visto il periodo di chiusura
relativamente breve?
Per le corsie riservate a veicoli e pedoni può essere utile per il
routing, ma per quelle riservate ai tram?

grazie
maxx

[1]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=45.48688=9.18221#map=17/45.48688/9.18221

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

[OSM-talk-fr] ‪airbnb - Philip‬ à supprimer ?

[Yves P.]

Bonjour,

Un POI sur un nœud adresse : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1549564356 

C'est une la seule et unique contribution de son auteur.

Est-ce que je la supprime ou je créé un POI à coté ?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

[Matthew Woehlke]

(Repost to talk-us also.)

On 13/07/2020 10.44, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I am working on a project that wishes to tentatively use OSM data from 
Quantico and possibly surrounding areas. Unfortunately, OSM is somewhat 
lacking in this area, especially within Quantico itself.


I would like to import data from information provided by the county¹. To 
start with, I would like to use the country-provided roads to improve 
road shapes and fill in missing roads (for now, manually, probably using 
Merkaartor, and checked against available aerial imagery). Eventually, I 
want to add buildings and maybe anything else that seems useful.


Being data generated by an agency of the US government, the source data 
is Public Domain (verified via the contact information provided on the 
site).


Comments/concerns/objections/suggestions?

(¹ https://gisdata-pwcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/)




--
Matthew

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

Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] Hatfield, Pretoria - Add Shp File

[Dave Coventry]

I'm not sure who would be required to authorise this, but I doubt that
anyone would have any objection.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:58 PM Calayde Davey  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on African Digital Twin cities with University of Pretoria & 
> Chalmers, Sweden.
>
> May I have permission and guidance to upload building footprint shp file for 
> Hatfield precinct - Pretoria.
>
> Myself and my students will calibrate the file as we update and add more 
> information.
>
> --
>
> Kind regards,
> Calayde
>
> --
>
> Dr Calayde Davey
>
> MArch (UP-ZAR) PhD (KSTATE-USA)
>
> Post-Doctoral Research Associate - African Digital Twins
>
> STINT Program
>
> Department of Architecture, University of Pretoria
>
>
>
> Tel +06 065 22962
>
> Email u25106...@up.ac.za
>
>
> Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology
>
> Room 2-18, Boukunde Building, Hatfield Campus, University of Pretoria
>
> Private Bag X20, Hatfield 0028, South Africa
>
>
> This message and attachments are subject to a disclaimer.
> Please refer to 
> http://upnet.up.ac.za/services/it/documentation/docs/004167.pdf for full 
> details.
> ___
> Talk-ZA mailing list
> Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za

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

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Does OSM have a similar concept as the "Organisation" from Mappilary?

[Bianca Pereira]

Hello,

   Thank you Rory and Donal for the pointers.

  I will definitely create a page about the project and update you here at
the list. I had a look at the OSMcha, resultmaps and missing maps, but I
will explore them a bit more.

  Thanks a lot,
  Bianca Pereira

  Research Associate
  Applied Innovations Unit
  Data Science Institute
  National University of Ireland, Galway
  https://www.insight-centre.org/users/bianca-pereira


-- Forwarded message -
From: Donal Hunt 
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 15:56
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Does OSM have a similar concept as the
"Organisation" from Mappilary?
To: Discussion of OpenStreetMap in Ireland 
Cc: Bianca Pereira 


https://osmcha.org has a teams function which allows you to see changes
over time. See https://osmcha.org/teams
Pascal Neis also has some tools. e.g. you can visualise by hashtag here:
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-changesets?comment=osmirl#8/53.475/-8.015

I quite like the missing maps leaderboard which can be found here:
https://www.missingmaps.org/leaderboards/#/osmirl (Kudos tshedy!!)

d.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 15:41, Rory McCann  wrote:

> Hi Bianca.
>
> Welcome to OSM! From an OSM level, no. There are no “organisations”.
> Many people would really want to do it, and some people are working on
> adding that functionality to the OSM website code (“Microcosms”) but
> that hasn't been finished.
>
> It's great that you want to help do a project. Please keep us informed.
> The OSM community has written some guidelines for how to successfully
> run an organisated editing project:
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
>
> On 07/07/2020 14:37, Bianca Pereira wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >New member here :) Apologies in advance if my questions are too naive.
> >
> > I am organising an initiative to map footpaths around three cities in
> > Ireland using OSM and Mapillary. In Mapilary we can create an
> Organisation
> > as a way to aggregate and visualise all contributions made as part of an
> > initiative. Is there any way to do the same within OSM?
> >
> >I know there is the option to create a task (as in
> > https://tasks.openstreetmap.ie/) or to include a hashtag within a
> commit.
> > But is there any way to retrieve and visualise only the information
> (nodes,
> > ways and areas) submitted as part of mapping the task or using the
> hashtag?
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >Bianca Pereira
> > ___
> > 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: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Wolfgang Schreiter]

> Von: Friedrich Volkmann 
> Gesendet: Montag, 13. Juli 2020 14:00


> On 13.07.20 11:34, Wolfgang Schreiter wrote:
> > Der Versatz von geoimage zur basemap beträgt ca. 0.13; -0.44 (JOSM
> Versatz-Einstellungen).
> 
> Was bedeuten diese Zahlen, und wo kommen sie her?

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/ImageryAdjust

"east and north offset in Mercator coordinates"
Zugänglich in JOSM unter Hintergrund -> Neuer Versatz.

Bzgl. Lagegenauigkeit: ich habe jetzt mal schnell mit Google Maps und NÖ Atlas 
verglichen.  Geoimage stimmt etwas besser überein, ist auch noch geringfügig 
daneben. Aber bei 30 cm und der gegebenen Auflösung ist das schon 
Kaffeesudlesen.



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

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Norbert Wenzel]

On 13.07.20 14:34, Wolfgang Schreiter wrote:
>> Von: Norbert Wenzel 
>> Gesendet: Montag, 13. Juli 2020 12:56
> 
>> Leider schaff ich's nicht die Liste zu finden im Wiki, könntest du mir bitte 
>> den
>> Link posten?
> 
> Gerne:  https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Maps

Vielen Dank.

Ich war im falschen Wiki auf der Suche und hab's bei
wiki.openstreetmap.org gesucht.

lg,
Norbert

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

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Wolfgang Schreiter]

> Von: Norbert Wenzel 
> Gesendet: Montag, 13. Juli 2020 12:56

> Leider schaff ich's nicht die Liste zu finden im Wiki, könntest du mir bitte 
> den
> Link posten?

Gerne:  https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Maps

LG
Wolfgang


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

Re: [Talk-at] OpenStreetMap in Österreichs Bildung und Lehre, Frage id 70000

[Johann Haag]

Hallo Manuela,
ich selbst bin Nichtakademiker, und kenne mich daher im universitären
Umfeld nicht so genau aus.
Vielleicht kannst Du mir aber helfen. Gibt es Arbeiten welche sich mit dem
Potential im Einsatz von OpenSource Software wie Fossgis, und OpenStreetMap
auseinandersetzen. Gerade im Kommunalen Bereich in dem ich arbeite, sehe
ich aktuell überhaupt keinen Einsatz von Open Source, da dies dort zugleich
mit Null! Unterstützung gleichgesetzt wird. Dabei kann man ja Open Source
Software, und Support vertraglich wunderbar voneinander trennen.

Irgendwie habe ich den Eindruck, Dienstleister von Kommunen empfehlen
selbst lieber kommerzielle Produkte, da diese so die eigene
Mitarbeiterkompetenz flach halten können. Das ist natürlich für
qualifizierte Studienabgänger sehr schlecht.

Wäre es möglich eine Expertise über OpenSource als wissenschaftliche Arbeit
anzuregen.

Lg Johann  Haag

Am Mo., 13. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Manuela Schmidt <
manuela.schm...@tuwien.ac.at>:

> Zumindest an der TU Wien (wo 2011 ja auch die SotM-Europe veranstaltet
> wurde) sind Open Source Tools und offene Daten im Geobereich ein wichtiger
> Bestandteil der Lehre.
>
> Auf https://catalogplus.tuwien.at/ kann nach Diplom- und Masterarbeiten
> gefiltert werden, die an der TU zu dem Thema veröffentlicht wurden.
>
> Und ja, auf talk-at lesen und schreiben auch Lehrende diverser Hochschulen.
>
> LG Manu
>
>
> Am 13.07.2020 um 07:05 schrieb Johann Haag:
>
> In Österreich gibt es 6 Hochschulen mit dem Studienfach Geographie und
> Kartographie.
> Diese Bildungseinrichtungen werden mit öffentlichem Auftrag betrieben,
> also auch vom Österreichischen Steuerzahler finanziert.
>
> Im Studienplan sollte sich auch daher, nicht nur kommerzielles sondern
> mehr oder weniger auch OpenSource und daher im weitesten Sinne auch
> OpenStreetMap finden.
>
> Gibt es irgendwo einen Spiegel an veröffentlichten Arbeiten, mit
> OpenStreetMap Bezug.
> Ich erwarte mir von Studenten keine Mapping Aktivität, es fällt mir aber
> schon auf, dass ich hiervon so rein gar nichts entdecke.
>
> Wie ist die Stimmung zu Open Source, in Österreichs Universitäten. Einen
> Lehrauftrag würde ich über die Steuergeld Finanzierung dieser Unis schon
> sehen. Hier im Mail Verteiler müssten sich jedenfalls an Geographie
> interessierte Lehrende finden.
>
> Siehe auch https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=7
>
> Grüße Johann
>
> ___
> Talk-at mailing 
> listTalk-at@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
>
> ___
> Talk-at mailing list
> Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
>
___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 13.07.20 11:34, Wolfgang Schreiter wrote:

Der Versatz von geoimage zur basemap beträgt ca. 0.13; -0.44 (JOSM 
Versatz-Einstellungen).


Was bedeuten diese Zahlen, und wo kommen sie her?


Wenn du in JOSM einen Versatz siehst, wär interessant, was in JOSM
lagerichtig ist: geoimage oder basemap?


Wie kann ich das überprüfen? DGPS?


Seit wir vom Problem mit der Kontinentalverschiebung wissen (siehe anderen 
Thread), ist das alles viel komplizierter geworden. Aber ich lasse das jetzt 
mal beiseite.


Eine einzelne Messung wär auch mit DGPS nicht genau genug. Aber es reicht 
normales GPS, wenn du einen längeren GPS-Track von einer Wanderung mit dem 
zu überprüfenden Hintergrund vergleichst, am besten in offenem, ebenen 
Gelände (unbewaldetes Plateau) um Reflexionen zu vermeiden. Im Schnitt 
sollte der GPS-Track gleich oft östlich und westlich von N-S verlaufenden 
Wegen liegen, usw.


Eine andere Möglichkeit besteht darin, die Bilder mit atlas.noe.gv.at zu 
vergleichen (wo wir von hoher Lagerichtigkeit ausgehen können). Die 
Koordinaten eines markanten Punktes kann man ja sowohl dort als auch im 
OSM-Editor auslesen.


Ein nicht notwendiges, aber hinreichendes Kriterium zum Erkennen eines nicht 
lagerichtigen Hintergrundes ist es, wenn sich die Lage von OSM-Nodes relativ 
zum Hintergrund beim Verschieben des Kartenausschnitts ändert.


--
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Talk-es] Ediciones usuario JosefoLGV (o jlcc78)

[Miguel Sevilla-Callejo]

Hola,

En su mensaje a esta misma lista de correo la persona que está detrás del
usuario jlcc78 (José Sánchez) afirma [1]: "He sido bloqueado pero sigo
trabajando en OSM."

Es una verdadera pena que tengamos que estar con estas cuestiones,
bloqueando usuarios y que haya personas que realicen ediciones de manera
unilateral y sin consenso con la comunidad.

Por cierto, José, si lees este correo verás que hemos reactivado el tema de
Ceuta y Melilla y hay interés por parte de la comunidad que la situación
sea resuelta.

Saludos

Miguel

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-es/2020-July/017351.html



On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 12:13, xyg...@gmail.com  wrote:

> Buenos días. Aquí un pequeño repaso de las ediciones “cáoticas" del
> usuario JosefoLGV en la línea de las realizadas por el ahora bloqueado
> jlcc78.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891740
> Aparte de cambiar el nombre de la N6, el título de su conjunto de cambios
> lo dice todo: Ggle. name. Go and see
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890812
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890831
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890845
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890874
> En esta serie, se carga todo el nombre de la A52, lo cambia por la ref y
> elimina las etiquetas en gallego, uno de los conjuntos de cambios se llama:
> Castilian Highway
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891768
> Esta es divertida, como nombre a una industria en Villardefrades le pone
> Car cementery, se ve que prefiere el inglés para unas cosas y el castellano
> para otras
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891602
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891030
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87871343
> Aquí vuelve con la carretera de “La Coruña”, y en algunos más también lo
> cambia
>
> Hay más, pero creo que como muestra valen
> Un saludo
> Jesús
> ___
> Talk-es mailing list
> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

[talk-cz] WeeklyOSM CZ 519

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj, je dostupné vydání 519 týdeníku WeeklyOSM:

https://weeklyosm.eu/cz/archives/13352

* Rybářské revíry.
* Stínování a vrstevnice.
* Maďarské cukrárny.
* Hranice přírodních parků.
* Dočasné cyklopruhy.
* Mapillary a neonacisté?
* Parkování dle OSM.
* Zkušenosti z importu adres.
* Zaměstnanci OSMF.
* Život člena rady OSMF.
* Licence dlaždic.
* Psi používají OSM.
* Aktualizace osm2pgsql.
* Volební okrsky.
* Americké skankce a RapiD.
* Cena OSM dat.
* Hustota veřejných WC.
* Kartografie a politika.

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

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Norbert Wenzel]

Hi Wolfgang,

On 13.07.20 09:45, Wolfgang wrote:
> Mit JOSM funktioniert die neue URL, schärfer wird das Bild aber dadurch 
> (jedenfalls im getesteten Ausschnitt) nicht. Sieht bei mir gleich aus wie 
> basemap Orthofoto, bloß mit ein paar cm Versatz.
> 
> Hab's im Wiki aktualisiert, wann das aktiv wird kann ich aber nicht sagen.

vielen Dank für die Aktualisierung im Wiki und den Test.

Leider schaff ich's nicht die Liste zu finden im Wiki, könntest du mir
bitte den Link posten?

danke,
Norbert


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Andy Allan]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 13:20, Tony OSM  wrote:

> So please do not tag as ncn; but please keep as a route.

Sustrans are not the only group in the UK that can make signed cycling
routes of national-importance, although they are certainly the biggest
and most well-known. But if another organisation makes a signed
national route, it will also get a ncn designation in OSM.

So please don't read too much into the "ncn" tag. The same tag is used
throughout the world for national cycling routes in OSM. It's not
entirely a coincidence that the tag and the concept of Sustrans'
National Cycling Network are very similar, and I say that as one of
the people who was involved in the history of this tag, but in
retrospect the overlap in meanings isn't hugely helpful. Think instead
of the ncn of network=ncn being a rather unusual contraction of the
work "national" (maybe we dropped all the vowels and the l and changed
the t to a c, or something), rather than referring to a specific
network from a specific organisation.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Andy Allan]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 11:04, Chris Fleming  wrote:

> Secondly unsigned routes, these aren't necessarily great as they can't be 
> verified on the ground, and often tend to be informal however they are 
> useful, I cycled a day of the Capital trail last year and it was great being 
> able to pull the route out of OSM. My feeling is OK on these. It would be 
> intesting to know what the consensus is on noting unsigned - most routes I've 
> seen just use unsigned = yes rather and name:signed=no

There are a staggering number of unsigned, unofficial mountain biking,
cycling and walking routes in the UK, from all kinds of groups,
writers, local clubs, councils etc. There are barely any paths
anywhere in the country that are not part of at least one route that
someone somewhere made up once apon a time.

We should not add any of them to OpenStreetMap, unless they are
signed. That's the only reliable way to ensure that we don't end up
with a worthless collection of scribbles all over our maps. Using the
"is it signed?" yardstick also fits in with the on-the-ground and
other verifiability principles that are key to our success. And
helpfully, it fits in with a clear way to filter out routes that are
made up from whole cloth, without having to measure up whether it's
from a somehow reliable source or just someone down the pub with a
spare website or short-run guidebook. Signed, or it should not be in
our database.

Please please please don't think that there are only a few, somehow
worthwhile to have in OSM, unsigned routes out there. That's not the
case. There are thousands. Some people have their own opinions which
are like "no but this unsigned route is more special than the others
so it deserves to be in OSM" and unsurprisingly there can be no
consensus on these subjective points of view.

And please don't think that some 'pantomine' tagging (oh no it isn't
tagging) will save us. It won't. So please don't leave these unsigned
routes in the database as if they are normal routes with just another
couple of tags added. Please either remove the relation (best), or
remove any tags that suggest that it is a route akin to our properly
signed routes.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Black Country Geopark

[Brian Prangle]

Hi Andy

Great news that this has been achieved after the failure several years ago.
Once we have the boundaries from a licence-compatible source I'm happy to
complete this.

Regards

Brian

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 21:04, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> Do we have plans to map the new "Black Country Geopark":
>
>http://blackcountrygeopark.org.uk
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Country_Geopark
>
> or to tag the various components as belonging to it? Is this suitable
> for a "relation"?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

[Talk-es] Ediciones usuario JosefoLGV (o jlcc78)

[xyg...@gmail.com]

Buenos días. Aquí un pequeño repaso de las ediciones “cáoticas" del usuario 
JosefoLGV en la línea de las realizadas por el ahora bloqueado jlcc78.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891740
Aparte de cambiar el nombre de la N6, el título de su conjunto de cambios lo 
dice todo: Ggle. name. Go and see

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890812
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890831
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890845
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890874
En esta serie, se carga todo el nombre de la A52, lo cambia por la ref y 
elimina las etiquetas en gallego, uno de los conjuntos de cambios se llama: 
Castilian Highway

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891768
Esta es divertida, como nombre a una industria en Villardefrades le pone Car 
cementery, se ve que prefiere el inglés para unas cosas y el castellano para 
otras

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891602
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891030
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87871343
Aquí vuelve con la carretera de “La Coruña”, y en algunos más también lo cambia

Hay más, pero creo que como muestra valen
Un saludo
Jesús
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Wolfgang Schreiter]

> Von: Friedrich Volkmann 
> Gesendet: Montag, 13. Juli 2020 10:26

> On 13.07.20 09:45, Wolfgang wrote:
> > Mit JOSM funktioniert die neue URL, schärfer wird das Bild aber
> > dadurch (jedenfalls im getesteten Ausschnitt) nicht. Sieht bei mir
> > gleich aus wie basemap Orthofoto,
> 
> Dann sind die vordefinierten Einstellungen in JOSM offenbar ungenügend.
> 
> > bloß mit ein paar cm Versatz.
> 
> Ein paar cm? Das liegt doch unter der Wahrnehmungsgrenze.

So gut ich das messen kann, ca. 30 cm. Der Versatz von geoimage zur basemap 
beträgt ca. 0.13; -0.44 (JOSM Versatz-Einstellungen).

> Ein wahrnehmbarer Versatz würde mich wundern. Als die Basemap-
> Schummerungsläyers hinzukamen und mir in Merkaartor der Versatz
> gegenüber geoimage.at auffiel, schaute ich mir das in JOSM an, und dort gab
> es keinen Versatz. Ich ging seither davon aus, dass Merkaartor da
> irgendeinen Bug hat.
> 
> Wenn du in JOSM einen Versatz siehst, wär interessant, was in JOSM
> lagerichtig ist: geoimage oder basemap?

Wie kann ich das überprüfen? DGPS?
 
> > Hab's im Wiki aktualisiert, wann das aktiv wird kann ich aber nicht sagen.
> 
> Änderungen im OSM-Wiki werden sofort aktiv, anders als in der Wikipedia,
> wo jede Änderung von einem privilegierten User freigegeben werden muss
> (und mitunter lässt das Jahre auf sich warten).

Ist schon aktiv. Eventuell muss in den JOSM-Einstellungen Refresh gedrückt 
werden.


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

Re: [Talk-es] Ediciones cuestionables usuario jlcc78

[Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso]

Buenas.

Saco algo de tiempo para añadir algo más de información.

Primero transmitir mi pequeña decepción a la forma de proceder en este caso
desde DWG. Entiendo que es un equipo de voluntarios, como somos la mayoría
de los que editamos en OSM. Entiendo la tardanza, aunque hay que buscar
alguna manera de poder tramitar estas cosas más rápidamente. Es necesario
poder cortar esas cosas rápidamente para que no vayan a más. Entre todos
tenemos que buscar la manera de conseguirlo. Pero ya cargar contra los
usuarios que también están dedicando su tiempo voluntario a mejorar OSM y a
estar pendiente de los que quieres estropearlo, lo siento pero no lo
entiendo.

Y ahora vamos al caso que tenemos con este usuario. Caso que creo que
habría que cortar de raíz o nos va a tener locos dando vueltas a todos.
Tanto a los voluntarios que editamos en OSM, como a los voluntarios del DWG.

Como ya comente en uno de los correos al DWG jlcc78 usa otro usuario para
editar, usuario que creó cuando le bloquearon por primera vez. El usuario
es "JosefoL GV" lo creo el día 19 de Junio, momento en el que estaba
bloqueado con su usuario normal. Cuando se le acabó el bloqueo lo dejo de
usar y volvió a su usuario normal. Cuando se le ha puesto el último bloqueo
volvió a este usuario alternativo. Eso sí esta vez de repente empezó a
comentar en Alemán los conjuntos de cambios pero se puede ver claramente
que las ediciones están hechas en Español. Para aparentar que no es
Español.Ejemplo de edición
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87709638

Modus operandi del usuario. Creo unas cuantas ediciones que parecen
correctas, hago creer que no soy Español. Y de repente en medio impongo una
edición de algo no permitido. Pero analicemos mejor esas ediciones.

-Ediciones rápidas. Dibuja 4 edificios, sin cuadrar las geometrías. Cosa
que tarda 5 minutos y ya el que no mire más dirá mira que bien que añade
cosas.
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87726887
Además lo pone en Aleman el comentario, para que parezca que es del mismo
país que el miembro del DWG que le bloqueo.¿Casualidad?
-Edición rápida y en medio mete las ediciones incorrectas. Semejante a la
anterior pero con un pequeño matiz. En medio de esas ediciones
aparentemente normales llega y cambia el nombre de la carretera que no
quiere que aparezca con su nombre correcto ni en pintura.
En changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87846280 y de repente en
medio ha modificado el nombre de esta vía
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174859495/history
- Edición ya clara de lo que quiere conseguir. Quiere que desaparezca
cualquier nombre que no este en Español. Y ahora de repente habla en inglés
en vez de en Alemán. Añade una fuente que no tiene competencia en las
carreteras para quitar el nombre de la carretera y poner la referencia de
la misma como el nombre de la carretera. Vías que ya ha editado con su
anterior usuario.
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87871343
De estas tenemos unas cuantas ediciones aunque en las siguientes ya no pone
la fuente. Aquí algunas de ellas pero no todas:
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890812
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890831
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87890845
-Sigue con pequeñas ediciones correctas para disimular. Edita pequeños
caminos y los sube
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891094
-Y vuelve a mezclar ediciones correctas con cambios de nombre de las mismas
carreteras a nombres incorrectos:
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891441
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891740
-Y de repente empieza a editar en otros países. A borrar y volver a dibujar
lo mismo, añadir puntos sueltos, Vamos ediciones que no aportan nada o
prácticamente nada.
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891817
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/87891877

¿Cual será el siguiente paso que haga para intentar despistar?

Creo que a estos usuarios que intentan engañar a la comunidad, engañar a
OSM. Que quieren imponer su criterio político y lingüístico y que les da lo
mismo todo hay que cortarlos de raíz. Que el baneo se lo salte y siga
editando con otro usuario no es solución. Que se ría de que puede
saltárselo no es solución. Cuando insultaba indiscriminadamente en cada
edición se le tenía que haber bloqueado sin lugar a duda. No se puede
permitir que una persona intente hacer que todo el que no tenga su idea se
canse de editar en OSM.

Para acabar voy a compartir el primer mensaje que me mandó este usuario por
privado que no tiene desperdicio. Sarta de insultos, de desprecios e
imposiciones de que tenemos que hacer el resto. Bastante representativo del
tipo de usuario que es.

De Salamanca tenías que ser...

A ver, elemento, dale la bienvenida a tu padre o a cualquier otro familiar
tuyo. Por mi te puedes ir a la mierda dado el tiempoi que me estás haciendo
perder y los perjuicios que me estás causando.

Tres observaciones, salmantino… 1. La Coruña en español es La Coruña. Si a
ti te hace mucha ilu que sea en gallego, mala suerte para 

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Chris Fleming]

On 12/07/20 at 02:17pm, Andy Townsend wrote:

  On 12/07/2020 12:32, Adam Snape wrote:

My main concern here is about whether we should be mapping unmarked
routes at all and especially whether it is okay to import them
without discussion or the explicit permission of the copyright
holder.

I'd agree with that.  Generally speaking, even aside from the
copyright issue, I don't believe that unsigned routes belong in
OSM.  Where I've personally come across them I've not removed them
(since someone thought it was valid to add in the first place) but
have added "name:signed=no" to e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6366232 to allow me to filter
"someone wrote a book once" routes from https://map.atownsend.org.uk
.  I'd also agree with Richard's point on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74330916 that this is not a
general bicycle route and shouldn't be tagged as such.

We have three points to consider, first is this not a NCN - there was
agreement from the user that made the original change to roll back this
change.

Secondly unsigned routes, these aren't necessarily great as they can't
be verified on the ground, and often tend to be informal however they
are useful, I cycled a day of the Capital trail last year and it was
great being able to pull the route out of OSM. My feeling is OK on
these. It would be intesting to know what the consensus is on noting
unsigned - most routes I've seen just use unsigned = yes rather and
name:signed=no

The third issue is of copyright, which is the one Adam brought up.
Personally I don't really know about this one. On one hand the route is
made of of ways already existing on OpenStreetMap; does that move us a
step outside of copying from whatever data source was used to derive the
route?

We also have copyright of the route itself, Cycling UK do seem to assert
copyright and therefore we probably do need them to ask them. (It's nice
to see that the cycling UK website does display the route over a OSM
map) but they link externally to OS maps.

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

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 13.07.20 09:45, Wolfgang wrote:

Mit JOSM funktioniert die neue URL, schärfer wird das Bild aber dadurch 
(jedenfalls im getesteten Ausschnitt) nicht. Sieht bei mir gleich aus wie 
basemap Orthofoto,


Dann sind die vordefinierten Einstellungen in JOSM offenbar ungenügend.


bloß mit ein paar cm Versatz.


Ein paar cm? Das liegt doch unter der Wahrnehmungsgrenze.

Ein wahrnehmbarer Versatz würde mich wundern. Als die 
Basemap-Schummerungsläyers hinzukamen und mir in Merkaartor der Versatz 
gegenüber geoimage.at auffiel, schaute ich mir das in JOSM an, und dort gab 
es keinen Versatz. Ich ging seither davon aus, dass Merkaartor da 
irgendeinen Bug hat.


Wenn du in JOSM einen Versatz siehst, wär interessant, was in JOSM 
lagerichtig ist: geoimage oder basemap?



Hab's im Wiki aktualisiert, wann das aktiv wird kann ich aber nicht sagen.


Änderungen im OSM-Wiki werden sofort aktiv, anders als in der Wikipedia, wo 
jede Änderung von einem privilegierten User freigegeben werden muss (und 
mitunter lässt das Jahre auf sich warten).


--
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 13.07.20 08:46, Norbert Wenzel wrote:

Friedrich, mittlerweile ist ein Mail eingetroffen, mit der Bitte um eine
Änderung der URL.


Bei mir nicht und bei Robert auch nicht.


Geoimage:

ich würde Sie bitten, falls nicht ohnehin schon so implementiert, den Geoimage 
DOP-WMS in ihrer Anwendung nur mit der Base-URL https://gis.lfrz.gv.at/..

bspw. 
https://gis.lfrz.gv.at/wmsgw/?key=4d80de696cd562a63ce463a58a61488d=1.1.1=GetCapabilities=WMS


Kannst du mal probieren ob das der Grund für deinen Fehler ist?


Das ist nicht mein Fehler, sondern der Fehler des Bundesrechenzentrums. Die 
haben beim WMS die Domain heimlich von gis.bmnt.gv.at auf gis.lfrz.gv.at 
geändert. Wenn man diese Änderung im Editor nachzieht, funktioniert es wieder.


--
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Wolfgang]

Mit JOSM funktioniert die neue URL, schärfer wird das Bild aber dadurch 
(jedenfalls im getesteten Ausschnitt) nicht. Sieht bei mir gleich aus wie 
basemap Orthofoto, bloß mit ein paar cm Versatz.

Hab's im Wiki aktualisiert, wann das aktiv wird kann ich aber nicht sagen.

Übrigens: seit einigen Tagen werden meine Änderungen in Mapnik nicht mehr 
gerendert, außer ich fordere die Kachel mit /dirty an (dann geht's prompt). 

LG
Wolfgang


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

Re: [Talk-at] OpenStreetMap in Österreichs Bildung und Lehre, Frage id 70000

[Manuela Schmidt]

Zumindest an der TU Wien (wo 2011 ja auch die SotM-Europe veranstaltet 
wurde) sind Open Source Tools und offene Daten im Geobereich ein 
wichtiger Bestandteil der Lehre.


Auf https://catalogplus.tuwien.at/ kann nach Diplom- und Masterarbeiten 
gefiltert werden, die an der TU zu dem Thema veröffentlicht wurden.


Und ja, auf talk-at lesen und schreiben auch Lehrende diverser Hochschulen.

LG Manu


Am 13.07.2020 um 07:05 schrieb Johann Haag:


In Österreich gibt es 6 Hochschulen mit dem Studienfach Geographie und 
Kartographie.
Diese Bildungseinrichtungen werden mit öffentlichem Auftrag betrieben, 
also auch vom Österreichischen Steuerzahler finanziert.


Im Studienplan sollte sich auch daher, nicht nur kommerzielles sondern 
mehr oder weniger auch OpenSource und daher im weitesten Sinne auch 
OpenStreetMap finden.


Gibt es irgendwo einen Spiegel an veröffentlichten Arbeiten, mit 
OpenStreetMap Bezug.
Ich erwarte mir von Studenten keine Mapping Aktivität, es fällt mir 
aber schon auf, dass ich hiervon so rein gar nichts entdecke.


Wie ist die Stimmung zu Open Source, in Österreichs Universitäten. 
Einen Lehrauftrag würde ich über die Steuergeld Finanzierung dieser 
Unis schon sehen. Hier im Mail Verteiler müssten sich jedenfalls an 
Geographie interessierte Lehrende finden.


Siehe auch https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=7

Grüße Johann


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

Re: [Talk-de] Tagging historischer, aber nicht amtlicher Straßennamen?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jul 2020, at 07:03, Bernhard Weiskopf  wrote:
> 
> Für amtliche Namen würde
> vielleicht "name:official" passen.)


official_name


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

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Norbert Wenzel]

On 06.07.20 12:09, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> Ist es jetzt wieder soweit? geoimage.at-Hintergrund geht bei mir
> mindestens seit gestern nicht mehr. basemap.at-Hintergründe gehen noch.

Friedrich, mittlerweile ist ein Mail eingetroffen, mit der Bitte um eine
Änderung der URL.

Geoimage:
> ich würde Sie bitten, falls nicht ohnehin schon so implementiert, den 
> Geoimage DOP-WMS in ihrer Anwendung nur mit der Base-URL 
> https://gis.lfrz.gv.at/..
> 
> bspw. 
> https://gis.lfrz.gv.at/wmsgw/?key=4d80de696cd562a63ce463a58a61488d=1.1.1=GetCapabilities=WMS

Kannst du mal probieren ob das der Grund für deinen Fehler ist?

Ich hab mir gerade das Repo von Merkaartor angeschaut und konnte dort
keinen vordefinierten Geoimage WMS finden, daher kann ich es dort nicht
ändern und geh davon aus, dass du den manuell hinzugefügt hattest.

In anderen Editoren konnte ich es noch nicht prüfen ob es da einen
vordefinierten Eintrag gibt.

lg,
Norbert



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

Re: [talk-cz] nečeský name=*

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Ahoj,

já bych tipoval, že ta chorvatština bude spíše němčina, ne?

 

Dalibor

 

From: Jakub Jelen  
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 12:12 PM
To: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-cz] nečeský name=*

 

Ahoj.

Protoze jsem zrovna mapoval 18 polednik v Novem Jicine, vzpomel jsem si na tuto 
diskuzi a prekvapilo me, ze to jeste nikdo neopravil, ani nazev, ani spatnou 
pozici a tak jsem si dovolil toto upravit. Pokud se nekomu chce louskat napisy 
v cizim jazyce a prepisovat je, posluzte si, stejne tak jako pokud ten original 
neni chorvatsky, jak se mi zdalo.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87873026

Jakub

On 7/7/20 8:03 PM, jzvc via talk-cz wrote:

Dne 7.7.2020 v 12:30 v...@seznam.cz   napsal(a):

Ahoj,
jak přistupovat k takto otagovanému prvku?

https://osmap.cz/node/3254360561

name=* má cizojazyčně a k tomu má i name:cs=*

Na osmap.cz se to zobrazuje cizojazyčně - je tedy chyba v renderingu v tom 
smylu, že by měl upřednostnit lokální jazyk? Nebo v tagování...?

Cus, 

rek bych, ze renededer pouzije proste name. A pokud vim tak osm cz nepouziva 
vlastni renedering.

Pokud je to na uzemi CR, a existuje ceskej nazev, mel by v name byt prave ten 
(a aby se poznalo ze to je prave ceskej nazev, tak by v name:cs melo byt totez, 
coz je notace hloupa ale je to tak). Existovala mapa (z osm dat) kde se popisky 
daly prepinat (a vyuzivalo to prave name:), ale mam pocit ze uz nebezi. Skoda 
ze OSM v tomhle ohledu nerespektuje bydefault lng kterej ji posle browser. Ale 
to by popisky nemohly byt soucasti tech dlazdic, musely by byt zvlast.


VOP 



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

 





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

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