Re: [Talk-se] Diskussion om badplatser
On Fri, 2024-05-31 at 20:06 +0200, Christoffer Holmstedt wrote: > Jag följer bara epostlistan och inte forumet så jag är tacksam när > det kommer information denna väg också. Samma här ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [Talk-se] rättar badplatstaggning
On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 12:39 +0200, Per Eric Rosén via Talk-se wrote: > FYI: Många badplatser verkar fortfarande vara lite märkligt taggade i > Sverige. Enlig praxis och Wiki[1] är det framför allt > amenity=public_bath > (för stora) och leisure=bathing_place som gäller för badplatsen i > sig. > > Jag har hittat många framför allt natural=beach och > leisure=swimming_area > använda för badplats i sig (de kan användas för features inom en > badplats). > > Även en del ren sport=swimming. Har också hittat några > (lokalpatriotiskt > optimistiska?) leisure=beach_resort för små badplatser. > > Har rättat det jag hittat i Uppland genom sökning på Overpass Turbo > och > manuella justeringar. Tummen upp ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [OSM-talk] When two bots go to war
On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 11:42 +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: > There seems to have been an automated edit to add > opening_hours:covid19=same. > > I'm a bit curious how this can be an automated edit. Or does the bot > take external data of objects where the covid19 opening hours are the > same? > > And are covid19 restrictions still in place in Sweden? My speculation is that Distriktstandvården (a chain of dental clinics) has taken "ownership" of "their" nodes and once a day check that the values in osm database correspond to that of their internal database. Whatever covid restrictions Sweden had are long gone, just lingering on in some databases. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] When two bots go to war
Well, this one came to light only because it happened in a big city where a local mapper happened to notice it. Who knows if there are other bot wars going on in Siberia or elsewhere where there are very few local mappers. And I don't mean that a bot never should be allowed to edit an object a second time, just that the bot owner should have to review it if that bot tries to change an object twice. On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 09:16 +0200, Casper Kersten wrote: > I think we can rely on reason and logic here instead of extra > guidelines. This was obviously not intentional and we don't need to > write guidelines against it. > > (Re-sent because I accidentally replied privately instead of to the > mailing list) > > Op di 12 sep 2023 om 08:30 schreef Snusmumriken via talk > : > > I recently happen to witness an edit war between two bots, that > > changed > > a tag on an object back and forth once a day. It stopped once I > > pointed > > it out. > > > > These are the guidelines for bots > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct > > > > Shouldn't they be amended with something like; "A bot should not > > edit > > the same object twice" > > > > ___ > > 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
[OSM-talk] When two bots go to war
I recently happen to witness an edit war between two bots, that changed a tag on an object back and forth once a day. It stopped once I pointed it out. These are the guidelines for bots https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct Shouldn't they be amended with something like; "A bot should not edit the same object twice" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] public transport edit war in the Nice area
On Mon, 2023-06-05 at 11:42 +0200, Marc_marc wrote: > Bonjour Frederik, > > Le 05.06.23 à 01:21, Frederik Ramm a écrit : > > Patchi insists to be "highway=platform" and Snusmumriken wants > > "highway=bus_stop": > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/277447606/history > > sur le fond, l'habitude en France est de mettre highway=bus_stop > avec public_transport=platform (comme c'était le cas à la version > #14) Excusez-moi de ne pas écrire en français. It has now been a couple of days since the last messages and I wonder if a conclusion can be reached? Could it be as simple as: - Edits that follow these guidelines [1][2] should not be reverted Cordialement Snusmumriken [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR%3ATag%3Ahighway%3Dbus_stop#Cartographier [2] https://nlehuby.5apps.com/bien-cartographier-les-bus.html ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [Talk-se] New MapRoulette Challenge: Sweden - Add Highways
Jag ställer mig lite frågande till denhär utmaningen. För finns det faktiskt motorvägar i Sverige som inte finns medtagna i OSM? On Fri, 2023-04-21 at 13:13 +, Salim Baidoun wrote: > Hej Svenska OSM samfundet! > Det här är Salim från TomTom igen. Idag vill jag dela med er en > MapRoulette-utmaning, relevant för Sverige - Lägg till Motortrafikvej > :MapRoulette , och här hittar du användbara uppdaterade leads för att > förbättra och ansluta vägar. > Målet är att identifiera och lägga till en eller flera saknade vägar > vid behov. Vi har gjort en analys genom att jämföra TomToms egna data > med OSM-vägnätet. Du kan hitta mer information på vår SwedenGitHub- > sida och vår MapRoulette-utmaningsbeskrivning, som kan hjälpa dig att > lösa uppgifterna. > Om du har några frågor eller kommentarer, vänligen kontakta mig > och/eller lämna dina kommentarer om MapRoulette-uppgifterna om det > behövs. Jag önskar dig en underbar helg och trevlig redigering! > Hälsningar > Salim A. Baidoun /Community & Partnerships - Global / Community > Engagement > > > ___ > Talk-se mailing list > Talk-se@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [Talk-se] Multipolygon och JOSM varningar
On Sun, 2023-04-02 at 11:22 +0200, Christoffer Holmstedt wrote: > Hej > Inne och mappar igen efter några års uppehåll, nu i ett bostadsområde > uppe i Luleå. Jag får antingen error på en multipolygon saknar tagg > eller så får jag varningar på att det är "dubbeltaggat" med > "landuse=residential" på både relation och way. > > Jag skickade in changeset > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134405664 med två varningar > då jag inte riktigt förstår hur jag ska lösa detta. Vad är bästa sätt > att tagga bostadsområden på som ligger inne i en skog (multipolygon)? > > Warnings (2) > Area style on outer way (1) > TestError > [tester=org.openstreetmap.josm.data.validation.tests.MultipolygonTest > @dbe9e36, unique code=220836375, code=1613, message=Area style on > outer way] > > Multipolygon outer way repeats major tag of relation - Same > tag:'landuse'='residential' (1) > TestError > [tester=org.openstreetmap.josm.data.validation.tests.TagChecker@7a2bd > 966, unique code=-679277121, code=1221, message=Multipolygon outer > way repeats major tag of relation] När jag öppnade upp området i JOSM så fick jag endast varningen om att det var dubbeltaggat, så jag tog bort landuse=residential från outer membern ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [Talk-se] Import av laddstationer
On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 11:51 +0100, Johan wrote: > Det är ganska osakligt att kräva perfektion på exakt allt som kommer > in i OSM. Det är ganska osakligt att försöka tillskriva mig åsikter som jag uppenbart inte framfört. Nu har vi enbart diskuterat importer och inte redigeringar i stort. Vi har speciella regler för importer och de är där av en anledning. > Noterar även att du skriver "placeringen av stationerna inte stämde > överens överhuvudtaget med verkligheten". Hur långt fel låg dom, och > hur många av dom hade stora problem? Jag kollade på ett område som jag känner väl och där fann jag felplaceringar på circa 100m, laddstationer som låg i en trafikkorsning eller inne i ett bostadshus. Efter att ha kolla fem stycken där alla var felplacerade kom jag fram till att det inte var acceptabel kvalitet. ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [Talk-se] Import av laddstationer
On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 08:43 +0100, riiga wrote: > 2023-03-19 08:03 skrev Snusmumriken: > > Jag reverterade precis en stor import av laddstationer i Stockholm > > som > > gjordes igår. Främst p.g.a. att placeringen av stationerna inte > > stämde > > överens överhuvudtaget med verkligheten. Vidare bör en import > > diskuteras i förväg. > > Importen har redan diskuteras, finns i listan över importer, o.s.v. > Helt > enligt konstens alla regler. Man får räkna med att en import kan > innehålla mindre fel, jag har gjort mitt bästa för att matcha > befintliga > noder. Om nu placeringen inte stämmer överens och du vet det, varför > rättar du inte till det istället för att i det tysta bara rulla > tillbaka > hela ändringsuppsättningen (inklusve alla som var fullständigt > korrekta)? Detta är inte första gången som du omotiverat rullar > tillbaka > ändringar bara för att du inte gillar en delmängd av dem. Jag får intrycket att du anser att du gjort det hela enligt konstens alla regler. Att importören kan göra sin import av data han vill se i OSM även om han är medveten om bristande datakvalité och det är sen upp till dem med lokalkännedom att städa upp efter importören. Är det din uppfattning om hur det ska gå till? Och hur blir det med regioner där det inte finns karterare som kan städa upp? Ska de felplacerade laddstationerna bara ligga där? ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
[Talk-se] Import av laddstationer
Jag reverterade precis en stor import av laddstationer i Stockholm som gjordes igår. Främst p.g.a. att placeringen av stationerna inte stämde överens överhuvudtaget med verkligheten. Vidare bör en import diskuteras i förväg. ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 08:39 +0100, Yves wrote: > > > Le 10 janvier 2023 08:12:43 GMT+01:00, Snusmumriken > a écrit : > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 23:06 +, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > On 09/01/2023 20:17, Snusmumriken wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer > > > > > to > > > > > ids > > > > > will cause social pressure not to change ids, > > > > Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim? > > > > > > There have definitely been complaints to the DWG when people > > > "resurrect" > > > old long-deleted nodes, or exhibit "unusual mapping behaviour" > > > such > > > as > > > never deleting any nodes, and always re-using them in some other > > > feature. There have also been complaints about changes to > > > objects > > > that > > > people consider "special" such as > > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/1 > > > and, er, > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/69#map=17/48.06733/12.86258 . > > > > Right, I guess one could say that when it comes to retaining > > existing > > osm ids there is bad practice and good practice, and a grey area. > > Any > > proof or indications that creating a URI scheme would increase the > > bad > > practice? > > > No, adding such a URI scheme wouldn't change at all the way > contributors contribute. > > However it would further degrade the impact of the "bad practice". Could you elaborate? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 23:06 +, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 09/01/2023 20:17, Snusmumriken wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer to > > > ids > > > will cause social pressure not to change ids, > > Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim? > > There have definitely been complaints to the DWG when people > "resurrect" > old long-deleted nodes, or exhibit "unusual mapping behaviour" such > as > never deleting any nodes, and always re-using them in some other > feature. There have also been complaints about changes to objects > that > people consider "special" such as > https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/1 > and, er, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/69#map=17/48.06733/12.86258 . Right, I guess one could say that when it comes to retaining existing osm ids there is bad practice and good practice, and a grey area. Any proof or indications that creating a URI scheme would increase the bad practice? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer to ids > will cause social pressure not to change ids, Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 13:47 +, Ed Loach wrote: > > Good point. Also consider that OSM ids have an advantage over > > coordinates, because if an OSM object gets deleted then a query for > > that id will return "Not found". That in itself is valuable > > information > > to a data consumer. > > But rather than being deleted, they may become a different thing True but it would still be up to the data consumer to handle it ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 11:50 +0100, Sören Reinecke wrote: > To sum up: Coordinates can be used in the same wrong way as OSM id as > they're both not sufficient enough for the use case most people are > using it (indirectly). Coordinates are already part of the 'geo' URI > scheme. There is no visible reason to me why adding another unstable > identifier like the osm id is a bad idea. As long as OSM ids are used > in > a dynamic and not in a hardcoded way and proberly updated by the > tools > people are using to retrieve these data (e.g. Overpass, Sophox or > end-user apps like OrganicMaps) 'geo' uris are always generated by > tools. If some does that manually then this person is in charge to > change that when the physical position of the POI changes too. People > tend to forget about these little urls as long as they don't see a > GUI > (graphical user interface) connected to it like a map on their > website. Good point. Also consider that OSM ids have an advantage over coordinates, because if an OSM object gets deleted then a query for that id will return "Not found". That in itself is valuable information to a data consumer. I really don't understand why anybody would make that into some kind of Pandora's box that must not be opened. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-se] Block av PostNord
On Wed, 2022-12-07 at 22:41 +0100, Erik Johansson wrote: > Hej > > Det verkar som om alla PostNord användare har blivit blockerade det > har diskuterats här: > https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/osm-adopted-in-sweden/6364/40 > https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/postnord-och-osm/6367 > > Jag är tveksam till om blockeringen är nödvändig eller konstruktiv. Min uppfattning har varit att om man summerar PostNords bidrag så har det varit netto positivt. Visst det har förekommit fel, men de gånger jag har kommenterat ett changeset så har responsen varit bra. Att blockera samtliga PostNords användare känns väldigt överilat. ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [Talk-se] Uppdatering av båtbuss-rutt
On Wed, 2021-06-02 at 16:42 +0200, Lennart Romberg wrote: > Båtbuss-rutterna i Karlstad har ändrats, med nya anläggningsplatser > och linjedragningar. Tänkte uppdatera men tvekar om ambitionsnivån. > > De gamla rutterna ger en del josm-varmingar (färjerutt ej kopplad...) > som jag aldrig lyckats få ordning på. Slutade att bry mig, men nu har > alltså rutterna dragits om. > > Nu funderar jag på att helt enkelt radera själva rutterna och bara > behålla hållplatserna (med web-länkar till tidtabeller och > linjedragningar). Det skulle vara rätt meckigt att göra alla linjer > med olika varianter för olika avgångstider, och jag tror inte att > någon egentligen använder OSM för se linjedragningen. Mer jobb än > nytta alltså. Och antagligen annan dragning nästa sommar. Men de > inaktuella rutterna måste åtgärdas på något sätt. > > Synpunkter, invändningar? Allt behöver ju inte göras på en och samma gång. Man kan t.ex. börja med att avlägsna det som inte längre stämmer med verkligheten, sedan lägga till de nya hållplatserna och om man vill lägga till rutterna. Bara för att man tar sig an att göra en del betyder inte att man behöver ta sig an alltihopa. ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [OSM-talk] Status of Who Did It?
On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 00:06 +1000, nwastra wrote: > I have been using Latest OSM Edits per Tile by Pascal Neis for my > local area while whodidit is down > https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-tiles > > On 27 Jul 2020, at 11:28 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via talk < > talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > See > > https://github.com/simon04/whodidit > > linked on top of the page, > > https://github.com/simon04/whodidit/issues/47 > > indicates that problem was reported to the author > > > > 27 Jul 2020, 14:57 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com: > > > Hello > > > > > > I wondering what is the current state of the Who Did It service? > > > I've > > > been using this service > > > https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/ > > > for some time and it's been quite helpful. But now I only get "No > > > input file specified." when I try to get an RSS link. Thanks for all the responses. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Status of Who Did It?
Hello I wondering what is the current state of the Who Did It service? I've been using this service https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/ for some time and it's been quite helpful. But now I only get "No input file specified." when I try to get an RSS link. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-se] ombud för apotek, systembolaget och post ...
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 19:56 +0200, Per Eric Rosén wrote: > Hej! > > Vad är bästa praxis för att tagga paketombud (gärna med vilket > paketbolag > det rör sig om), apoteksombud och ombud för Systembolaget? > > Tänker särskilt på små butiker på landet där allt sköts från samma > disk; > då blir det svårt att sätta taggar bredvid varandra (till skillnad > från > större butiker som kan ha ett särskilt "posthörn"). Har inget direkt svar, men tänker mig att det inte är ett Sverigespecifikt problem, så man kunde ställa frågan på Tagging- mailinglistan. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [Talk-se] Street names overlay (Trafikverket)
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 21:43 +0200, Ture Pålsson wrote: > Nu är jag ingen mästare på JOSM-internals, men tittar man på URL:erna > i inställningarna, så ser det ut som om ”Street Names”-lagret kommer > från openstreetmap.se (som väl fortfarande är nere?), medan de andra > Trafikverket-lagren kommer direkt från trafikverket. Bra observation. Då blir väl följdfrågan, behöver Street Names gå via openstreetmap.se eller skulle man kunna byta ut det mot något som går direkt mot trafikverket.se? Antar eftersom openstreetmap.se varit nere ett bra tag så lär det dröja förän den är uppe igen. ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
[Talk-se] Street names overlay (Trafikverket)
I Josm under Imagery finns det att välja "Trafikverket Street Names (overlay)" och då får man ett informationslager med vägnamnen för den aktuella platsen. Men sedan en tid tillbaka så fungerar det inte längre. Men om man istället väljer "Trafikverket Road Network (overlay)" så presenteras den informationen. Någon som vet vad felet är med vägnamnen? ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion
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
Re: [Talk-se] Svenska riktlinjer för taggning för vandring & löpning
On Fri, 2020-05-15 at 14:59 +0200, Tomas Marklund wrote: > highway=footway är nog tämligen meningslös ute i skogen och för de > typer av "stigar i skogen" du pratar om, där passar highway=path > bättre. Däremot så finns det ju preparerade gångbanor inne i stan där > highway=footway passar alldeles ypperligt. Instämmer. Nu karterar jag nästan bara i tätort och väldigt lite ute i skog och mark. highway=path använder jag för en icke-anlagd stig som uppstått spontant p.g.a. människor går där. ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 22:53 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 12. Jan 2020, at 08:47, Snusmumriken < > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com> wrote: > > > > Not saying that OSM should do it, just that it doesn't differ that > > much > > from postcode areas, where a certain authority has designated a > > certain > > number to a certain area, although there is no ground-truth that > > could > > be independently verified > > of course there is ground truth that can be verified: ask people or > businesses in the area about their postcode / address I don't believe any postcode _area_ in OSM has ever been created that way. But I would love to learn of one. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 21:00 +, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > So you suggest that we help routers to blacklist these areas, Wow, you're putting words in my mouth that is the exact opposite of what I wrote a couple of e-mails back. That is really dishonest. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 18:46 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I understand that it would politically sensitive, but from a data- > > model > > point of view it doesn't really differ from postcode areas (under > > the > > assumption that there's an authority that designates some areas as > > high-risk areas) > > There is a single authority assigning > postal codes. > > With high-risk areas you may have different > organizations with competing opinions. > > Also, in general people are not disputing postal codes. > > In case of officially designed dangerous zones > situation is going to be different. Well, wasn't that the assumption I put forward in my previous e-mail? In Sweden, Swedish police lists 60 areas as what they call Vulnerable areas, subdivided into three groups based upon severity. Here's a wikipage about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area And here's an official report by the Swedish police (in Swedish) https://polisen.se/siteassets/dokument/ovriga_rapporter/kriminell-paverkan-i-lokalsamhallet.pdf In everyday speech these are often called no-go zones ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 08:35 -0600, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 1:47 AM Snusmumriken < > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 21:22 +0100, Martin Trautmann via talk wrote: > > > On 20-01-02 12:23, pangoSE wrote: > > > > > > > A map cannot solve a lack of general awareness when visiting a > > > > new/unknown place. Going to the mountains to hike can also be > > > > dangerous > > > > if you are not well prepared. This is of course not marked on > > the > > > > map! > > > > > > I agree that I don't know any non-subjective way how to identify > > such > > > an > > > area. > > > > Well, one could rely on authority, e.g. if a national police > > authority > > designated certain areas as high risk. > > Yeah, that's not really going to work, either. Just look at > Portland. Most arrests happen in poor, black neighborhoods, but > you're most likely to get hurt or killed in a suburban white area. > Besides, if you really want to go that route, just composite their > data as a layer over OpenStreetMap in Leaflet. There's no reason > whatsoever to include it in OpenStreetMap's database. I understand that it would politically sensitive, but from a data-model point of view it doesn't really differ from postcode areas (under the assumption that there's an authority that designates some areas as high-risk areas) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 21:22 +0100, Martin Trautmann via talk wrote: > On 20-01-02 12:23, pangoSE wrote: > > > A map cannot solve a lack of general awareness when visiting a > > new/unknown place. Going to the mountains to hike can also be > > dangerous > > if you are not well prepared. This is of course not marked on the > > map! > > I agree that I don't know any non-subjective way how to identify such > an > area. Well, one could rely on authority, e.g. if a national police authority designated certain areas as high risk. Not saying that OSM should do it, just that it doesn't differ that much from postcode areas, where a certain authority has designated a certain number to a certain area, although there is no ground-truth that could be independently verified. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-se] Ska adresser ha land, stad, postnummer och allt?
On Fri, 2019-11-29 at 20:19 +0100, pangoSE wrote: > > Jag föreslår att vi skapar en importplan och sen tar bort existerande > adresser på byggnader i området och ersätter med noder från kommunen. Att ta bort groud-truth-verifierade adresser och ersätta dem med en import låter som en dålig idé. När jag karterat i städer som gjort en adressimport så har märkt att det finns en hel del spökadresser, dvs. adresser i OSM-kartan som inte har någon motsvarighet i verkligheten. Det kan kanske vara reserverade adresser att ta i bruk om ytterligare hus byggs på ett ställe eller adresser som använts en gång i tiden men inte längre gör det. En annan fördel med groud-truth-verifierade adresser är överlägsen integration med övrig kartdata, t.ex. att de även har en entrance-tagg och att de sitter exakt där ingången till en given adress är. Att ha kommunadresser som ett informationlager, likt en satelitbild, som karterare kan konsultera är i min mening en mycket bättre väg att ta. ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [Talk-se] Naturvårdsverkets nya Nationella MarktäckeData
On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 17:46 +0100, pangoSE wrote: > Hej > > Håller helt med Essin. Se min kommentar här > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70936570 > > Jag förslår att vi sätter stop för import tills att vi sett att nån > tagit åt sig den enorma uppgift att städa upp det som redan > importerats. > > Tills dess får vi leva med en "vit" karta i några områden. > > Nån emot? Utan att ha kollat på detaljerna i det här fallet så vill jag bara instämma med att importer ska hållas till en mycket hög standard. ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?
On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:44 +, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Thursday, 4 July 2019, Snusmumriken wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > I strongly disagree with this idea, > > > and multiple times changed such splits > > > back to one way. > > > > I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground > > truth > > information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in > > the > > database. > > > It is only vandalism if you loose information, if you are improving > the mapping by changing such misleading information to correctly > mapped turn lanes then it is improving the map. Turn lane tagging is great and it certainly has its place osm mapping. But in my experience of mapping it cannot replace the need to sometimes split ways at a legal barrier to get a complete picture of how the traffic can legally flow and thus provide a relevant routing suggestion. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?
On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I strongly disagree with this idea, > and multiple times changed such splits > back to one way. I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground truth information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in the database. > > > Jul 4, 2019, 11:49 AM by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com: > > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via > > talk > > wrote: > > > I've always had the impression we should not create separate > > > traffic > > > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier > > > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between > > > said > > > flows." > > > > A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a > > perfectly fine reason to have a separate way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?
On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote: > I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said > flows." A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a perfectly fine reason to have a separate way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-se] Naturvårdsverkets nya Nationella MarktäckeData
On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 10:50 +0200, Johan Emilsson wrote: > Hallå, > > Kollar på importerat material för Åre.Noterade att relationen > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9623607 inte renderar. Blir > dock inte klok på varför inte. Kan bero på att den korsar sig själv i denna punkt https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6499163329 ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:27 +, Wiklund Johan wrote: > As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the > opinions of Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose > but to please poorly built routing engines. I concur ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 08:47 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 03:50, Snusmumriken > wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 20:55 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote: > > > It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM. > > > Clearest > > > example is private-access ways being tagged as highway=* (plus > > > access=no) which is a misnomer in British English (which we use) > > > > Misnomers should clearly be avoided if at all possible. And here it > > is > > quite possible, by calling a bus stop a bus stop. > > Calling a bus stop a bus stop is fine, but if we want to avoid > misnomers, why is it under the "highway" category, along with > expressways and speed bumps and toll gantries, and not a "public > transport" category? Good point. If we would start from scratch them perhaps public_transport=bus_stop would be the logical tag. But in OSM we usually don't do renaming of established tags. And at least the value part is correct in the key-value pair, at that is the one most important to get right. And the highway-key isn't really that much off. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 20:55 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote: > a "public_transport=platform" is not defined as being "platform" > (raised good concrete flooring) but as "the place where people wait > to board a bus/tram/train". Whatever form that is. > > It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM. Clearest > example is private-access ways being tagged as highway=* (plus > access=no) which is a misnomer in British English (which we use) Misnomers should clearly be avoided if at all possible. And here it is quite possible, by calling a bus stop a bus stop. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On Mon, 2019-05-06 at 13:53 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 2019-05-03 12:09, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: > > On 30/04/2019 18:34, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > > A platform is where people wait to board; if they stand at a > > > pole > > > (typical for buses), then the pole is logically the platform. > > > > This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform > > is > > a physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to allow > > easier boarding. > > It's a logical platform whether it physically exists or not. It's > pretty well established that using a platform node for a mere pole > is valid. People wait there to be picked up, regardless of the > actual surface type (which can change over time anyway). I think you are mistaken here. The logical entity here is the 'bus stop', what ever its physical manifestation. English is not my native language but I don't think one would ever construct a sentence like "Let's meet at the Main street platform" when you were meaning "Let's meet at the Main street bus stop". I don't think a logical platform makes any sense in the context of public transport. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 17:10 +0200, Markus wrote: > Hi all, > > I've added, updated and corrected several dozen public transportation > routes in the past few years using the PTv2 scheme. As is the case > with most route relations, they often break (e.g., because the course > of a road or rails is modified, a new roundabout is built, a stop is > displaced or simply by accident). However, with all the > stop_positions > and stop_areas, maintaining these routes and stops is very much > time-consuming. > > There have been several ideas to simplify and improve public > transportation mapping (e.g. [1] or [2]), however they either faced > too much opposition or are inactive. Therefore I've worked out three > different drafts for an improved public transportation scheme and > would like your opinion. After that, i plan to write a full proposal > for the option that got the most support. Somehow I think that it is too late to define one schema that would rule the world. Too much has already been mapped for it to be redone. But I might be wrong. I also share your observation that PTv2 is way too complex. For what it is worth I might point you to have a look at how things are mapped in Stockholm metropolitan region. It is our version of a simplified PTv2. Unfortunately there isn't any English language definition of it. But I hope an example is self explanatory enough https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2376126 Stockholm Public Transport Agency also uses OSM https://sl.se/en ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-se] Changeset 69441387
Ingen fara On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 21:43 +0300, Grigory Rechistov via Talk-se wrote: > Jo, det var inte något gammalt basdata, det var mitt eget misstag. > Jag förväxlade nämligen mellan de mängder filer som hade "Stockholm" > i namnet och laddade upp en tidigare version som hade kvar alla dumma > artefakter. JOSM-valideringen hjälpte inte (det granskar inte att t > ex en byggnad korsar en skog), och dessutom orkade jag inte sålla > genom alla 14 tusen varningar som nuförtiden finns nära Stockholm. > > Det är ett bevis till att tätorterna skulle man helst undvika vid den > pågående importen. Det går inte att kartlägga gräs mellan byggnaderna > om datat har upplösningen bara 10 meter, det kräver mycket manuellt > arbete, och sedan förväxlar man filen :-( . Det var tur att den > felaktiga ändringsuppsättningen var liten. > > Snusmumriken, tack så hemskt mycket och förlåt igen för besväret. > > > Понедельник, 22 апреля 2019, 20:49 +03:00 от Grigory Rechistov > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hej, det var jag som gjorde morgonens import. Förlåt för besväret > > det skapade. Antagligen var mitt exportdata för gammalt som > > användas som areans basskikt. Låt mig granska lokalt konflikternas > > natur och återvända med fler detaljer. > > > > > > > Понедельник, 22 апреля 2019, 10:59 +03:00 от Snusmumriken < > > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hej listan > > > > > > > > > > > > Jag tog och reverterade importen som gjordes i morse > > > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69441387 > > > > > > > > > > > > Orsaken var de omfattande konflikter som uppstod med befintlig > > > data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > > Talk-se mailing list > > > > > > Talk-se@openstreetmap.org > > > > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > С наилучшими пожеланиями, > > Григорий Речистов. > > Med vänliga hälsningar, > > Grigory Rechistov > > With best regards, > > Grigory Rechistov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > С наилучшими пожеланиями, > Григорий Речистов. > Med vänliga hälsningar, > Grigory Rechistov > With best regards, > Grigory Rechistov > > ___Talk-se mailing > listtalk...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
[Talk-se] Changeset 69441387
Hej listan Jag tog och reverterade importen som gjordes i morse https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69441387 Orsaken var de omfattande konflikter som uppstod med befintlig data. ___ Talk-se mailing list Talk-se@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
