[OSM-talk-be] wandelknooppunten
Als ik tijdens een wandeling een wandelknooppunt tegenkom dan probeer ik dat in te brengen in de hoop dat ik een klein steentje kan bijdragen aan diegenen die van de wandelknooppunten hun 'levenswerk' maken. In dat verband heb ik twee vragen. Bij mijn thuiskomst kom ik dikwijls tot de vaststelling dat ik verschillende knooppunten heb beschreven die reeds opgenomen blijken te zijn. Noch op mijn GPS (Garmin etrex met OSM kaart), nog op mijn smartphone met OSMAND kan ik zien of die knooppunten al ingebracht zijn. Is er een oplossing om onderweg te kunnen zien of dat werk al gebeurd is? Vorige week heb ik een paar dagen in West Vlaanderen gewandeld (ver van huis!). Daar ben ik verschillende knooppunten tegengekomen. Op het plaatje stond 'Brugse ommeland'. Bij mijn thuiskomst zag ik dat ze bijna allemaal al waren ingebracht door 'TripleBee' maar als 'Wandelnetwerk Bulskampveld'. Welke naam moet het nu eigenlijk zijn? Guy Vanvuchelen ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wandelknooppunten
De andere.optie.is in je browser hikeandbikemap.de weergeven, maar echt handig werkt dat niet op.zo'n klein schermpje. Jo On Mar 9, 2014 1:49 PM, Guy Vanvuchelen guy.vanvuche...@gmail.com wrote: Als ik tijdens een wandeling een wandelknooppunt tegenkom dan probeer ik dat in te brengen in de hoop dat ik een klein steentje kan bijdragen aan diegenen die van de wandelknooppunten hun ‘levenswerk’ maken. In dat verband heb ik twee vragen. Bij mijn thuiskomst kom ik dikwijls tot de vaststelling dat ik verschillende knooppunten heb beschreven die reeds opgenomen blijken te zijn. Noch op mijn GPS (Garmin etrex met OSM kaart), nog op mijn smartphone met OSMAND kan ik zien of die knooppunten al ingebracht zijn. Is er een oplossing om onderweg te kunnen zien of dat werk al gebeurd is? Vorige week heb ik een paar dagen in West Vlaanderen gewandeld (ver van huis!). Daar ben ik verschillende knooppunten tegengekomen. Op het plaatje stond ‘Brugse ommeland’. Bij mijn thuiskomst zag ik dat ze bijna allemaal al waren ingebracht door ‘TripleBee’ maar als ‘Wandelnetwerk Bulskampveld’. Welke naam moet het nu eigenlijk zijn? Guy Vanvuchelen ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wandelknooppunten
From: Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com Message-ID: CAJKJX-TvoABas26ikSVEK-FwA=zNMEaiL2GeKg=h5cwb7x2...@mail.gmail.com 2014-03-09 13:49 GMT+01:00 Guy Vanvuchelen guy.vanvuche...@gmail.com: Bij mijn thuiskomst kom ik dikwijls tot de vaststelling dat ik verschillende knooppunten heb beschreven die reeds opgenomen blijken te zijn. Noch op mijn GPS (Garmin etrex met OSM kaart), nog op mijn smartphone met OSMAND kan ik zien of die knooppunten al ingebracht zijn. Is er een oplossing om onderweg te kunnen zien of dat werk al gebeurd is? […] De knooppunten en routes van http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/ (lonvia) zijn als laag voor webapplicaties beschikbaar, misschien dat iemand daar wat mee is.. Ik dacht dat OpenFietsMap ook een bestand had met de wandelroutes die je bij elke kaart op een Garmin kan tonen Inderdaad: Zie http://www.openfietsmap.nl/downloads/hiking-layer Dat zou je probleem voor de Etrex moeten oplossen. groeten, Klaas ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wandelknooppunten
Eigenaardig. Het waren nochtans houten palen zoals ik die al dikwijls tegengekomen ben en ik heb er minstens 5 gezien waar onder de nummers 'Brugse Ommeland' stond. en ik was niet zat! Bedankt voor de tip van openfietsmap hiking-layer. Dat ga ik uitproberen. Guy Vanvuchelen Van: Marc Gemis [mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com] Verzonden: zondag 9 maart 2014 19:03 Aan: OpenStreetMap Belgium Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-be] wandelknooppunten volgens wandelknooppunt.be en http://www.brugseommeland.be/ heet het wandelnetwerk Bulskampveld. Het fietsnetwerk Brugse Ommeland. Ik vind niet zo gauw een verwijzing naar een wandelnetwerk (ook niet bij de brochures) dat Brugse Ommeland heet. Vreemd. Zelf heb ik een python script dat een GPX-bestand maakt met alle knooppunten van een netwerk. De knooppunten en routes van http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/ (lonvia) zijn als laag voor webapplicaties beschikbaar, misschien dat iemand daar wat mee is.. Ik dacht dat OpenFietsMap ook een bestand had met de wandelroutes die je bij elke kaart op een Garmin kan tonen met vriendelijke groeten m 2014-03-09 13:49 GMT+01:00 Guy Vanvuchelen guy.vanvuche...@gmail.com: Als ik tijdens een wandeling een wandelknooppunt tegenkom dan probeer ik dat in te brengen in de hoop dat ik een klein steentje kan bijdragen aan diegenen die van de wandelknooppunten hun 'levenswerk' maken. In dat verband heb ik twee vragen. Bij mijn thuiskomst kom ik dikwijls tot de vaststelling dat ik verschillende knooppunten heb beschreven die reeds opgenomen blijken te zijn. Noch op mijn GPS (Garmin etrex met OSM kaart), nog op mijn smartphone met OSMAND kan ik zien of die knooppunten al ingebracht zijn. Is er een oplossing om onderweg te kunnen zien of dat werk al gebeurd is? Vorige week heb ik een paar dagen in West Vlaanderen gewandeld (ver van huis!). Daar ben ik verschillende knooppunten tegengekomen. Op het plaatje stond 'Brugse ommeland'. Bij mijn thuiskomst zag ik dat ze bijna allemaal al waren ingebracht door 'TripleBee' maar als 'Wandelnetwerk Bulskampveld'. Welke naam moet het nu eigenlijk zijn? Guy Vanvuchelen ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
[OSM-talk] Key:layer update
Hi, for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly uncontroversial. Some of the changes: * the vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly only in the point where the ways cross or objects overlap * define layer as higher value means above, lower value means bellow. Avoid the complicated layer=0 definition as the natural ground level as it would be shown by contour lines on a topographic map. Explicit layer=0 seems to be deprecated now. * layer on ways should be used only in combination with one of tunnel=*, bridge=*, highway=steps, highway=elevator, covered=* or indoor=yes. For areas, it could be used in combination with tags such as man_made=bridge, building=* and similar. The motivation for this is to make it easy for validators to spot errors such as when the wrong segment is accidentaly tagged, bridge/tunnel forgotten, or someone tags excessively long ways for no good reason - common problem with waterways and elevated roads/railroads. I have validated this rule for ways in large parts of the world, there are exceptions which currently I do not know hot to tag better but those are rare. * in some cases level may be more appropriate than layer https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Alayerdiff=999107oldid=935491 Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Use of Key:* as wiki web page titles
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:11:35AM +, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
Prompted by the discussion on the Layer tag I've just noticed
there's two separate pages for it: 'Layer' 'Key:Layer'
What's the reason for the 'Key:' prefix? IMO it can only lead to
confusion. Haven't checked all, but Landuse Natural each have
separate entries in the wiki.
Key:* is the documetation of a specific key, linked to for example
by {{key|layer}}, other names are just names someone invented.
Sometimes it is useful to have a page like waterway with an overview
of related pages.. but may be still confusing at the same time.
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Use of Key:* as wiki web page titles
Am 09.03.2014 12:11, schrieb Dave F.: Prompted by the discussion on the Layer tag I've just noticed there's two separate pages for it: 'Layer' 'Key:Layer' The page Layer is just a (wordy) disambiguation page because layer means so many different things in OSM. What's the reason for the 'Key:' prefix? IMO it can only lead to confusion. This is the standard naming convention for all pages documenting a key, just like there is a 'Tag:' prefix for all tags. The convention has been there almost forever. It helps to easily tell whether something is or isn't tagging documentation and prevents naming conflicts when the word being used as a key also has a different meaning outside tagging. Anyway, I don't think many will be confused by having the word Key in the title of a page that documents the meaning of a key. Haven't checked all, but Landuse Natural each have separate entries in the wiki. *These* are the newcomers. Those pages used to be only a redirect to the Key pages, to help people who didn't know the naming conventions find them. But then someone had the idea of creating feature[1] pages with a high-level overview of certain concepts. While that is useful where the tags related to a concept were spread across many pages, a lot of them are indeed redundant because they 1:1 correspond to a key, so their content could just be on the Key:* page. Tobias [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Features ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On 09/03/2014 10:30, Richard Z. wrote: Hi, for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly uncontroversial. Some of the changes: * the vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly only in the point where the ways cross or objects overlap If you take that literally users will join rivers flowing under a bridge with a node add the layer tag to it, which is incorrect: those ways should not join. * define layer as higher value means above, lower value means bellow. Avoid the complicated layer=0 definition as the natural ground level as it would be shown by contour lines on a topographic map. Explicit layer=0 seems to be deprecated now. * layer on ways should be used only in combination with one of tunnel=*, bridge=*, highway=steps, highway=elevator, covered=* or indoor=yes. For areas, it could be used in combination with tags such as man_made=bridge, building=* and similar. The motivation for this is to make it easy for validators to spot errors such as when the wrong segment is accidentaly tagged, bridge/tunnel forgotten, or someone tags excessively long ways for no good reason - common problem with waterways and elevated roads/railroads. I have validated this rule for ways in large parts of the world, there are exceptions which currently I do not know hot to tag better but those are rare. This is not my understanding of the layer tag. It is a tool to help renderers place objects on top of each other has no real world implication in differences of height. For instance if you had an area tagged 'park' another area within it tagged 'lake' you could add a 'layer' tag to 'lake' to ensure the render displayed it. Using multi-polygons is not the solution as it would take the lake /outside/ of the park, so if the renderer didn't want to render it's internal details (playground, wood buildings etc) it would end up with more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:47:32AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 09/mar/2014 um 11:30 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: * the vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly only in the point where the ways cross or objects overlap actually at the Point where a layer Way Connects to an layer=0 way both are at the same height (e.g. where a bridge starts) currently the assumption that everything meeting in a node is physically at the same elevation in this point is not valid in OSM. It is broken by definition in at least one case: waterways ar supposed to share a node with the dam they are crossing, which means the highway passing across the dam will also share a node with the river passing thorugh a tunnel or pipeline bellow it. Some objects (such as dam, buildings) have the property to define their own physical level relations. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:35 schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: This is not my understanding of the layer tag. It is a tool to help renderers place objects on top of each other has no real world implication in differences of height. it has implications on real world topology: it says which object is above and which below when they cross, it is not only for rendering For instance if you had an area tagged 'park' another area within it tagged 'lake' you could add a 'layer' tag to 'lake' to ensure the render displayed it. -1, you should not add any layer in this case (tagging for the renderer) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:43 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: It is broken by definition in at least one case: waterways ar supposed to share a node with the dam they are crossing, which means the highway passing across the dam will also share a node with the river passing thorugh a tunnel or pipeline bellow it. -1, it is a modeling problem/error, the highway should not have a common node with the waterway, if it has, it is wrong or should be tagged ford=yes ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On 09/03/2014 12:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:35 schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: This is not my understanding of the layer tag. It is a tool to help renderers place objects on top of each other has no real world implication in differences of height. it has implications on real world topology: it says which object is above and which below when they cross, it is not only for rendering Disagree. A bridge at the top of Everest would be tagged 'layer=1' exactly as it would be if in Death Valley (86m below sea level) For instance if you had an area tagged 'park' another area within it tagged 'lake' you could add a 'layer' tag to 'lake' to ensure the render displayed it. -1, you should not add any layer in this case (tagging for the renderer) The correct expression is 'don't tag incorrectly for the renderer'. There's /nothing/ wrong in making OSM data clearer more accurate. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 01:05:18PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:43 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: It is broken by definition in at least one case: waterways ar supposed to share a node with the dam they are crossing, which means the highway passing across the dam will also share a node with the river passing thorugh a tunnel or pipeline bellow it. -1, it is a modeling problem/error, the highway should not have a common node with the waterway, if it has, it is wrong or should be tagged ford=yes ;-) the same conceptual problem exists with pylons where they are shared by two bridges or aerial tramways. Actualy every pylon breaks the rule by definition because it connects ground with layer=0 with something else at a different level. How do you want to model such cases better? Lifts in buildings? In practice this rule is broken more often than you would think: Hamburg is full of waterways connected with roads on bridges through a tag obstacle. France is full of bridges sharing a node with the waterway bellow. It may be worth to tag have such a rule restricted for ways of the same type and a short well defined list of exceptions. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:35:20AM +, Dave F. wrote: On 09/03/2014 10:30, Richard Z. wrote: Hi, for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly uncontroversial. Some of the changes: * the vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly only in the point where the ways cross or objects overlap If you take that literally users will join rivers flowing under a bridge with a node add the layer tag to it, which is incorrect: those ways should not join. it says point, not node the difference probably needs to be emphasized very strongly. There is a difference between mathematicaly precise and intuitive formulations:(( Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:35:20AM +, Dave F. wrote: On 09/03/2014 10:30, Richard Z. wrote: Hi, for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly uncontroversial. Some of the changes: * the vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly only in the point where the ways cross or objects overlap If you take that literally users will join rivers flowing under a bridge with a node add the layer tag to it, which is incorrect: those ways should not join. changed the intro text to say The layer=* tag is used to mark vertical relationships between crossing or overlapping features. The vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly only in the point (not node!!!) where the ways cross or objects overlap. Joining the ways with a common node at the point where they cross would destroy the vertical order established by layer. The layer=* is not suitable to define vertical relationships of adjoining or nearby elements or areas. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On 09/03/2014 12:24, Richard Z. wrote: it says point, not node the difference probably needs to be emphasized very strongly. There is a difference between mathematicaly precise and intuitive formulations:(( https://www.google.co.uk/#q=node%20definition a point in a network or diagram at which lines or pathways intersect or branch Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On 09.03.2014 13:17, Dave F. wrote: On 09/03/2014 12:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: it has implications on real world topology: it says which object is above and which below when they cross, it is not only for rendering Disagree. A bridge at the top of Everest would be tagged 'layer=1' exactly as it would be if in Death Valley (86m below sea level) True, but that because layer models *relative* real-world elevation *locally* (between vertically stacked objects), rather than globally. Your statement points out that the layer relationship is neither global nor representative of absolute elevation, but that was never contested. Tobias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 12:34:31PM +, Dave F. wrote: On 09/03/2014 12:24, Richard Z. wrote: it says point, not node the difference probably needs to be emphasized very strongly. There is a difference between mathematicaly precise and intuitive formulations:(( https://www.google.co.uk/#q=node%20definition a point in a network or diagram at which lines or pathways intersect or branch in OSM this is called node. Better suggestions instead of point? Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On 09.03.2014 13:21, Richard Z. wrote: the same conceptual problem exists with pylons where they are shared by two bridges or aerial tramways. Actualy every pylon breaks the rule by definition because it connects ground with layer=0 with something else at a different level. How do you want to model such cases better? Lifts in buildings? Typical pylons aren't a problem because the ground is not an OSM element that they could share a node with. Pylons shared between more than one bridge are indeed an interesting problem for 3D mapping, but I'm not aware that this is commonly mapped or used by applications yet, so there is still some room for establishing good standard practice. Lifts in buildings don't use layer, they use level. That tag follows different rules than layer. In practice this rule is broken more often than you would think: Hamburg is full of waterways connected with roads on bridges through a tag obstacle. France is full of bridges sharing a node with the waterway bellow. I would prefer correcting these errors instead of changing the rule they break. It may be worth to tag have such a rule restricted for ways of the same type and a short well defined list of exceptions. The rule is also needed for ways of different types, e.g. for ordering a stack of road, railway, and waterway bridges. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 12:34:31PM +, Dave F. wrote: On 09/03/2014 12:24, Richard Z. wrote: it says point, not node the difference probably needs to be emphasized very strongly. There is a difference between mathematicaly precise and intuitive formulations:(( https://www.google.co.uk/#q=node%20definition a point in a network or diagram at which lines or pathways intersect or branch changed to precise location instead of point.. is that better? Also listed teh pylon as exception. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 02:00:36PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 09.03.2014 13:21, Richard Z. wrote: the same conceptual problem exists with pylons where they are shared by two bridges or aerial tramways. Actualy every pylon breaks the rule by definition because it connects ground with layer=0 with something else at a different level. How do you want to model such cases better? Lifts in buildings? Typical pylons aren't a problem because the ground is not an OSM element that they could share a node with. Pylons shared between more than one bridge are indeed an interesting problem for 3D mapping, but I'm not aware that this is commonly mapped or used by applications yet, so there is still some room for establishing good standard practice. Lifts in buildings don't use layer, they use level. That tag follows different rules than layer. I would be in favor of using level more widely but the rules are not so much different because you can also have all kinds of highways and railways on levels. In practice this rule is broken more often than you would think: Hamburg is full of waterways connected with roads on bridges through a tag obstacle. France is full of bridges sharing a node with the waterway bellow. I would prefer correcting these errors instead of changing the rule they break. are those really errors? Pylons must share a node with the waterway bellow in my opinion. They are a pretty relevant part of it. It may be worth to tag have such a rule restricted for ways of the same type and a short well defined list of exceptions. The rule is also needed for ways of different types, e.g. for ordering a stack of road, railway, and waterway bridges. then there is the alternative of having a list of exceptions. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
Not all OSM nodes are also network/diagram nodes, which are points with (AFAIK) three or more lines in common. Intermediate OSM nodes in the middle of a way are not topologically significant. On 2014-03-09 14:00, Richard Z. wrote: On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 12:34:31PM +, Dave F. wrote: On 09/03/2014 12:24, Richard Z. wrote: it says point, not node the difference probably needs to be emphasized very strongly. There is a difference between mathematicaly precise and intuitive formulations:(( https://www.google.co.uk/#q=node%20definition [1] a point in a network or diagram at which lines or pathways intersect or branch in OSM this is called node. Better suggestions instead of point? Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [2] Links: -- [1] https://www.google.co.uk/#q=node%20definition [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
2014-03-09 13:17 GMT+01:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: it has implications on real world topology: it says which object is above and which below when they cross, it is not only for rendering Disagree. A bridge at the top of Everest would be tagged 'layer=1' exactly as it would be if in Death Valley (86m below sea level) to me it seems your example does agree with my statement For instance if you had an area tagged 'park' another area within it tagged 'lake' you could add a 'layer' tag to 'lake' to ensure the render displayed it. -1, you should not add any layer in this case (tagging for the renderer) The correct expression is 'don't tag incorrectly for the renderer'. There's /nothing/ wrong in making OSM data clearer more accurate. +1, but adding a layer=1 to a lake in a park isn't clearer or more accurate, they are both on the same layer, the lake is in the park, not above (usually). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On 09.03.2014 14:18, Richard Z. wrote: Pylons must share a node with the waterway bellow in my opinion. They are a pretty relevant part of it. Pylons will often be somewhere within the riverbank area - based on their exact positions in reality -, but I would not insert them into the waterway way. What do you do if one pylon is left of the center of the waterway and one is right of it? then there is the alternative of having a list of exceptions. That's more reasonable, but exceptions should only be made where it is really necessary. I haven't encountered such an example yet. Tobias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 04:55:51PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 09.03.2014 14:18, Richard Z. wrote: Pylons must share a node with the waterway bellow in my opinion. They are a pretty relevant part of it. Pylons will often be somewhere within the riverbank area - based on their exact positions in reality -, but I would not insert them into the waterway way. somehow they ought to be connected to the river though, just beeing in the area is not enough. As they are relevant for navigation there can be situations where inserting them into the waterway way would be indeed the most logical solution. What do you do if one pylon is left of the center of the waterway and one is right of it? interesting question.. I will look again at the examples and ask the author. then there is the alternative of having a list of exceptions. That's more reasonable, but exceptions should only be made where it is really necessary. I haven't encountered such an example yet. Having seen a few examples of vertical lifts I am sure there will be more exceptions. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On 09/03/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: For instance if you had an area tagged 'park' another area within it tagged 'lake' you could add a 'layer' tag to 'lake' to ensure the render displayed it. -1, you should not add any layer in this case (tagging for the renderer) The correct expression is 'don't tag incorrectly for the renderer'. There's /nothing/ wrong in making OSM data clearer more accurate. +1, but adding a layer=1 to a lake in a park isn't clearer or more accurate, they are both on the same layer, the lake is in the park, not above (usually). On top of tagging different layers for a park and its lake not being clearer and more accurate, it really is a renderer decision wether to render a park on top of a lake or vice-versa. For example if your rendering of leisure=park is a very transparent green area, then you do want to render it on top of lakes and all other features. So please do not use the layer tag for that purpose. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On 9 March 2014 10:30, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly uncontroversial. Thank you for doing this, it's very useful to have this properly documented. I have been working on layering in the main CartoCSS stylesheet, and found that at the moment, indeed not all aspects of the layering model are defined precise enough. A question: a single road can contain sections on multiple layers, so there will be a point where the sections that are on different layers meet. At that point, there might even be a side street. However, no vertical ordering should be assumed at such a point. It is written that The vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly only in the point where the ways cross or objects overlap. Perhaps 'crossing' should be interpreted here as crossing without node, but that causes problems with bridge/waterway. In other words, I am wondering for each of the following situations if the roads should be interpreted as meeting on the same or different levels: - A node where two waterways on layer 1 and two roads on layer 2 meet; - A node where two roads on layer 1 and two roads on layer 2 meet; - A node where two roads on layer 1 and one road on layer 2 meet; - A node where one road on layer 1 and one road on layer 2 meet. Perhaps some text that answers questions like this should be added to the Wiki-page. -- Matthijs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:layer update
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 10:26:59PM +, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 9 March 2014 10:30, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: for some time now I have been working on the wiki page to state the rules as clearly as possible.. hope that most of the improvements are fairly uncontroversial. Thank you for doing this, it's very useful to have this properly documented. I have been working on layering in the main CartoCSS stylesheet, and found that at the moment, indeed not all aspects of the layering model are defined precise enough. A question: a single road can contain sections on multiple layers, so there will be a point where the sections that are on different layers meet. At that point, there might even be a side street. However, no vertical ordering should be assumed at such a point. It is written that The vertical ordering established by the layer values is valid exactly only in the point where the ways cross or objects overlap. Perhaps 'crossing' should be interpreted here as crossing without node, but that causes problems with bridge/waterway. it should be indeed crossing without a shared node, have already updated the text to clarify that. In other words, I am wondering for each of the following situations if the roads should be interpreted as meeting on the same or different levels: - A node where two waterways on layer 1 and two roads on layer 2 meet; the roads should join at the same physical level in this node. Except the node is a pylon connecting two bridges on two levels and a waterway or a similarly weird exception which is not described in the wiki but happens in real life and probably somewhere in OSM data as well. Generally, if the node does not have a special type (lift, pylon, part of buildings with level) the roads should join as expected. Nothing is certain about the waterway unless the node is of type ford or pylon, or the layering is otherwise obvious such as when the road is on a dam or weir. Exceptions and errors in data are currently very common where waterways and roads have shared nodes. Once I have mapped a weir with a highway ford on top it and part of the water going through a pipe through the weir. Conceptually I am thinking of it so that certain constructions such as a dam establish a connection in the sense that both the road and the river are passing over/through it and hence are connected to the dam without really meeting in this point - the dam establishes its own layering rules. - A node where two roads on layer 1 and two roads on layer 2 meet; - A node where two roads on layer 1 and one road on layer 2 meet; - A node where one road on layer 1 and one road on layer 2 meet. they should all join without steps and exceptions should be extremely rare.(maybe lifts and such) More precisely layer does not say anything in this situation so the default rule applies - roads are expected to join without steps. It is important to understand that the meaning of layer is very limited: - it applies exactly only in the point (without shared node) of the crossing and has absolutely no meaning anywhere else - it has absolutely no defined meaning if not in combination with one of bridge, tunnel and the other tags listed in the wiki (I may have forgotten some but you get an idea) - a number of other tags (covered, location, level, dam and probably some other) define own layering concepts or modify layer in strange ways Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-br] Arquivo .poly do Brasil com menos de 60.000 segmentos
Pessoal, Estou desenvolvendo um .BAT de compilação Garmin do mapa do Brasil e estou tomando um erro no programa osmupdate.exe que diz que o .poly (baixado de http://downloads.cloudmade.com/americas/south_america/brazil/brazil.poly ) é muito grande. Pesquisando a solução eis que tenho que: a) Ter um .poly mais simples; OU b) Recompilar o osmupdate alterando uma constante para ele alocar mais memória; Gostaria de saber se alguém por um acaso tem um .poly dos limites do Brasil que seja mais grosseiro. A intenção é atualizar um mapa .OSM local com as últimas atualizações feitas no OSM, portanto o limite não precisa ser exato ou detalhado. []s PC ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Progresso com os mapas do IBGE
Oi Thiago,
Se for o caso, oferece uma máquina com acesso remoto, muita memória e hd e
um razoável poder de processamento para você processar mais coisas...
abraços!
bráulio
2014-03-07 18:02 GMT-03:00 Thiago Marcos P. Santos tmpsan...@gmail.com:
Olá pessoal,
Consegui gerar tiles estáticos a partir dos mapas do IBGE. Esta é uma
nova etapa e tem o potencial de deixar estes mapas gerados acessíveis
a todos, sem a necessidade de rodar scripts e processar imagens. No
momento só gerei o mapa de Pará de Minas, mas a ideia seria ter de
todo o país (um sonho que vai requerer muito poder de processamento e
espaço de armazenamento). :)
Proponho duas maneiras de usar, uma fácil (1), outra avançada (2):
1. Apenas acesse o endereço do mapa, no formato http://sevidor/[codigo
do estado]/[codigo da cidade]/
Ex.: Pará de Minas:
http://vps-01.tmpsantos.com.br/31/3147105/
2. Adicione como uma layer TMS no JSOM:
Editar Preferências TMS / WMS +TMS (ícone) Adicione a URL
e dê um nome
http://sevidor/[codigo do estado]/[codigo da cidade]/{zoom}/{x}/{-y}.png
Depois ative a layer.
Ex.: Pará de Minas:
http://vps-01.tmpsantos.com.br/31/3147105/{zoom}/{x}/{-y}.png
Confesso que fiquei impressionado com o resultado final. O mapa é
muito bom como referência para mapeamento urbano (i.e. pegar nome de
ruas).
[]'s e aguardo feedback.
___
Talk-br mailing list
Talk-br@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
--
Lute pela sua ideologia. Seja um com sua ideologia. Viva pela sua
ideologia. Morra por sua ideologia P.R. Sarkar
EITA - Educação, Informação e Tecnologias para Autogestão
http://cirandas.net/brauliobo
http://eita.org.br
Paramapurusha é meu pai e Parama Prakriti é minha mãe. O universo é meu
lar e todos nós somos cidadãos deste cosmo. Este universo é a imaginação da
Mente Macrocósmica, e todas as entidades estão sendo criadas, preservadas e
destruídas nas fases de extroversão e introversão do fluxo imaginativo
cósmico. No âmbito pessoal, quando uma pessoa imagina algo em sua mente,
naquele momento, essa pessoa é a única proprietária daquilo que ela
imagina, e ninguém mais. Quando um ser humano criado mentalmente caminha
por um milharal também imaginado, a pessoa imaginada não é a propriedade
desse milharal, pois ele pertence ao indivíduo que o está imaginando. Este
universo foi criado na imaginação de Brahma, a Entidade Suprema, por isso
a propriedade deste universo é de Brahma, e não dos microcosmos que também
foram criados pela imaginação de Brahma. Nenhuma propriedade deste mundo,
mutável ou imutável, pertence a um indivíduo em particular; tudo é o
patrimônio comum de todos.
Restante do texto em
http://cirandas.net/brauliobo/blog/a-problematica-de-hoje-em-dia
___
Talk-br mailing list
Talk-br@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] [OpenStreetMap] #4902: Warnings for deleting/merging relation members
On 14/02/14 17:55, Fernando Trebien wrote: Sorry for double posting, but I wanted to provide an example. These four relations: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20391254 If you want to comment on a ticket use the web interface - sending email to trac@ will achieve exactly nothing as the only person that will see it is me. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Proposta de padronização de lombadas no Brasil
É bem como o John falou, não fomos nós (comunidade brasileira) que inventamos essa distinção. Então, ao traduzir, temos que optar por não traduzir, ou achar o nome adequado em português. Não traduzir algo que tem equivalente brasileiro me parece desperdiçar a oportunidade de agregar informação. Mas como muitas pessoas pensam como você, existem várias tags com valores genéricos (ex.: surface=paved/unpaved). Você poderia aproximar todos esses casos por hump e deixar pra que alguém refinasse essa escolha depois. Mas se você sabe a diferença entre as 3 coisas e fazer essa escolha não lhe custa nem 1 segundo a mais, seria um desperdício de tempo não fazer assim já de cara. 2014-02-27 14:20 GMT-03:00 Marcelo Pereira pereirahol...@gmail.com: Srs, Que tal usar a filosofia KISS aqui e manter somente um tipo de lombada ? Sem diferenciar pelo tamanho, comprimento, material, afinal para que serviria a informação que uma lombada tem 50 cm e não 2 m ? Para mim elas servem para um só fim e o uso de mais de uma tag para identificar elementos virtualmente iguais só aumenta a complexidade ( já considerável ) de se mapear para o OSM. Vejam que no caso de algumas delas terem atreladas faixas de pedestres seriam sim necessárias tags específicas, mas só pq isso muda a função da bendita. Mudando de assunto. Além dos tipos de lombada que vem sendo discutidas, existem locais nas estradas em que são colocados sonorizadores ( exemplo http://goo.gl/uYt6Eu) imediatamente antes das lombadas de forma a avisar aos que não leem placas para diminuir a velocidade. Nestes casos, seria uma tag a mais na lombada ou um elemento adicional ? Não lembro se já vi, in loco, esse tipo de sonorizador sendo usado em outra função que não o aviso de lombada. Att, Marcelo Pereira Em 27 de fevereiro de 2014 13:47, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.comescreveu: Sugestão: ao colocar as traduções, coloque também a fonte delas. Por exemplo, onde você descobriu que table é travessia elevada, foi alguma fonte oficial? Mais adiante, pode ser necessário saber. Hum, eu não lembro como vi pela primeira vez, mas pesquisei por imagens usando esse termo, e apareceu placas com esse nome. Pesquisando no DENATRAN, apareceu um outro termo: Faixa Elevada para travessia de pedestres [1]http://www.denatran.gov.br/download/Minuta%20Faixa%20Elevada%2006-05-1.DOC. Eu ainda acho que table pode existir em lugares que não são travessias. Mas se a definição desse termo oficialmente (dada por algum Detran ou pelo DNIT ou pelo CTB) permitir essa interpretação, então traduziremos assim. É, parece que segundo a lei, travessias elevadas tem que ter faixa de pedestre (veja o Art.7°. IV aqui[1]http://www.denatran.gov.br/download/Minuta%20Faixa%20Elevada%2006-05-1.DOC ). Mas me ajudem aqui: o que é minuta, e por que ela não tem um número nela? Quando à questão das depressões, não lembro de ter visto uma antes, então não vou poder ajudar nisso. Em 27 de fevereiro de 2014 12:52, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com escreveu: Sugestão: ao colocar as traduções, coloque também a fonte delas. Por exemplo, onde você descobriu que table é travessia elevada, foi alguma fonte oficial? Mais adiante, pode ser necessário saber. Eu ainda acho que table pode existir em lugares que não são travessias. Mas se a definição desse termo oficialmente (dada por algum Detran ou pelo DNIT ou pelo CTB) permitir essa interpretação, então traduziremos assim. 2014-02-27 12:28 GMT-03:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com: Amigos, Descobri qual é o termo brasileiro para traffic_calming=table. É Travessia Elevada. Com isso, acredito que os nós da proposta fecham. Farei uma página de desambiguação na wiki chamada Lombada, e redirecionar os links traffic_calming=bump, traffic_calming=hump e traffic_calming=table para essa página. Também adicionarei os seguintes termos na página de referência de traduções: - *Bump* = Lombada Tipo I - *Hump* = Lombada Tipo II - *Table (traffic calming)* = Travessia Elevada E classificarei essas traduções como literais. (isso tudo assim que tiver tempo) Em 27 de fevereiro de 2014 11:28, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com escreveu: Elas ocorrem em travessias de pedestre, mas pelo que diz na Wikipédia, não só nessa situação. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_deflection_traffic_calming_device#Speed_tables Talvez no Brasil seja só nessa situação. Além disso, acho que tables não são chamadas de lombadas no Brasil. 2014-02-27 11:23 GMT-03:00 Arlindo Pereira openstreet...@arlindopereira.com: (Acabei mandando antes) Portanto, table seria esse tipo de travessia específica e bump e hump quebra-molas/lombadas, sendo bump o quebra-mola tradicional e hump um tipo de quebra-mola que só seria utilizado em estradas federais ou estaduais. Não há tag para quebra-molas irregulares/ilegais/menores que o tamanho padrão. Podemos propor uma. Mas não acho
Re: [Talk-br] Digest Talk-br, volume 65, assunto 93
Ola gente, obrigado pelas ricas informações, vou ver se consigo fazer o mais certo para as comunidades...Abs Clément Vialle (71) 9627 3415 Mestre em Engenharia Ambiental Urbana - UFBA Consultor em Transporte e Mobilidade Urbana 2014-02-19 16:08 GMT-03:00 talk-br-requ...@openstreetmap.org: Enviar submissões para a lista de discussão Talk-br para talk-br@openstreetmap.org Para se cadastrar ou descadastrar via WWW, visite o endereço https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ou, via email, envie uma mensagem com a palavra 'help' no assunto ou corpo da mensagem para talk-br-requ...@openstreetmap.org Você poderá entrar em contato com a pessoa que gerencia a lista pelo endereço talk-br-ow...@openstreetmap.org Quando responder, por favor edite sua linha Assunto assim ela será mais específica que Re: Contents of Talk-br digest... Tópicos de Hoje: 1. Criar Layers novos (Clément Vialle) 2. Re: Criar Layers novos (John Packer) 3. Re: Criar Layers novos (Marcelo Pereira) 4. Re: Criar Layers novos (Fernando Trebien) 5. Re: Criar Layers novos (Fernando Trebien) -- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:09:17 -0300 From: Clément Vialle clement.via...@gmail.com To: talk-br@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-br] Criar Layers novos Message-ID: caeszgnkjfpjyw5fyafe68-rh7zrgdqhn+l05mlbggbycwvx...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Boa tarde a todos, Professor de urbanismo, gostaria de envolver meus alunos no processo de cadastramento de informações ligadas a urbanismo. Pelo visto, OSM tem layers predefinidos (parão, rede de ciclovias,..). Seria interessante ter outros layers, como: - Uso do solo - Gabaritos (alturas dos edificios) - Saneamento básico (agregados por zona IBGE) - ... Ja teve uma tentativa de ordenar as informações existentes, por exemplo, sobre o tipo de uso dos objetos: - residencial - comercial - lazer - escritorios -... Não sei como criar outros layers...Alguém teria uma suggestão? Obrigado! -- Próxima Parte -- Um anexo em HTML foi limpo... URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-br/attachments/20140219/63120422/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:14:34 -0300 From: John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com To: OpenStreetMap no Brasil talk-br@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-br] Criar Layers novos Message-ID: CAE85Uis6JGznjC2i3YFr4it-ku3HmNTT5K+4kZ96KUVDdF= v...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Olá Clement, Dê uma olhada no ITO Maps http://www.itoworld.com/map/main É uma empresa que mostra o OSM com outros tipos de camadas. Para camadas personalizadas, ainda não ouvi falar como fazer de uma forma que não envolva programação. Em 19 de fevereiro de 2014 15:09, Clément Vialle clement.via...@gmail.comescreveu: Boa tarde a todos, Professor de urbanismo, gostaria de envolver meus alunos no processo de cadastramento de informações ligadas a urbanismo. Pelo visto, OSM tem layers predefinidos (parão, rede de ciclovias,..). Seria interessante ter outros layers, como: - Uso do solo - Gabaritos (alturas dos edificios) - Saneamento básico (agregados por zona IBGE) - ... Ja teve uma tentativa de ordenar as informações existentes, por exemplo, sobre o tipo de uso dos objetos: - residencial - comercial - lazer - escritorios -... Não sei como criar outros layers...Alguém teria uma suggestão? Obrigado! ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br -- Próxima Parte -- Um anexo em HTML foi limpo... URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-br/attachments/20140219/2e80a4ad/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 3 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:51:09 -0300 From: Marcelo Pereira pereirahol...@gmail.com To: OpenStreetMap no Brasil talk-br@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-br] Criar Layers novos Message-ID: CALGa_gwyna4duA9zdVWVygrWhC_9cUQ-k7KRxxctCfHb98p1= a...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Até onde eu sei : - O OSM não tem layers, é só uma base de dados geográficos, acessível via API, entre outras formas. - O que aparece no site do OSM e tb no ITO, são diferentes maneiras de renderizar o mapa, usando CSS, se n me engano. - Se vc pretende renderizar um mapa de forma particular, acho que pode usar o Leaflet por exemplo, alterando o CSS, e até acrescentando layers com info local, ou que tenha vindo de um banco de dados local. - Visitando o site Switch2OSM ( http://goo.gl/h4xRH ) pode ser uma ideia de como isso pode ser feito. Espero não ter falado besteira Marcelo Pereira Em 19 de fevereiro de
[Talk-br] Área para circos, eventos, etc
Para quem também tem dificuldade em representar áreas para eventos, circos, festas e similares, é bom apoiar esta proposta: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents Está havendo uma discussão agora nessa thread https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-March/016768.html A sugestão inicial do meu irmão é landuse=events (que eu também concordo que deva ser) Ver também http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
[Talk-br] Kit para compilação Garmin em Windows e mapas Garmin para download
Pessoal, Hoje conseguimos compilar os mapas do Brasil e do RJ para Garmin em ambiente Windows usando os dados do Projeto Openstreetmap. Também já havia sido disponibilizado o shell script para compilação em ambiente Unix ( http://cocardl.com.br/viewtopic.php?f=23t=42). Para este ambiente decidimos preparar um kit para facilitar a compilação: http://cocardl.com.br/viewtopic.php?f=23t=114http://cocardl.com.br/viewtopic.php?f=23t=114 . Espero que as pessoas possam compilar mapas Garmin em casa com um mínimo de esforço. Como este kit foi preparado há pouco tempo, erros podem acontecer. Quem quiser fazer o download do mapa do CR-BR e CR-RJ (Cocar Rodoviário do estado do RJ) produzido com este kit, acesse http://cocardl.com.br e no menu Download de mapas há duas novas opções. Os IMGs disponíveis são para cópia direta para o GPS. Conforme amadurecemos e mais pessoas participam, esperamos em breve disponibilizar instaladores para Mapsource/Basecamp. Quem quiser estudar e participar compilando mapas, já há farto material de compilação Garmin aqui: http://cocardl.com.br/viewforum.php?f=5http://cocardl.com.br/viewforum.php?f=5. Para quem está curioso sobre o tempo de compilação, as modernas ferramentas de produção que existem no kit são otimizadas e tiram proveito dos vários núcleos que houver na máquina. O mapa do Brasil, por exemplo, foi compilado (2 núcleos) em 20min, incluindo o quadriculamento e a compilação em si. O mapa do RJ fora compilado em 3min. O kit é composto por ferramentas *freeware *e de código aberto, desenvolvidas pela comunidade de usuários OSM. Lembrando que os mapas compilados, mapas-base e ferramentas são gratuitos (*free as in beer*) e livres (*free as in speech*). abraço, Paulo Carvalho ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
[Talk-br] Petição para abrir o CEP
Oi pessoal, Uma petição para abrir a base do CEP: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Paulo_Bernardo_Silva_presidente_dos_Correios_e_Telegrafos_Tornar_aberta_e_gratuita_a_base_de_dados_de_CEPs_do_Brasil/ Vitor ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Petição para abrir o CEP
Excelente, vou divulgar nos meus círculos. []s 2014-03-09 22:11 GMT-03:00 Vitor George vitor.geo...@gmail.com: Oi pessoal, Uma petição para abrir a base do CEP: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Paulo_Bernardo_Silva_presidente_dos_Correios_e_Telegrafos_Tornar_aberta_e_gratuita_a_base_de_dados_de_CEPs_do_Brasil/ Vitor ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Petição para abrir o CEP
Assinado, entretanto, acredito que a opção pelo avaaz.org não foi uma boa ideia. Minha avó não vai conseguir assinar esse petição :) Em 9 de março de 2014 22:11, Vitor George vitor.geo...@gmail.com escreveu: Oi pessoal, Uma petição para abrir a base do CEP: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Paulo_Bernardo_Silva_presidente_dos_Correios_e_Telegrafos_Tornar_aberta_e_gratuita_a_base_de_dados_de_CEPs_do_Brasil/ Vitor ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br -- Alexandre Parente Lima ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-de] Reihenhäuser / 3D-Tagging // Re: 1000 Hausnummern
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hallo, Am 09.03.2014 00:18, schrieb Ralf GESELLENSETTER: Und schließlich: 3D-Tagging ist Tagging NUR für den Renderer, oder? Nein. Man kann mit 3D-Daten in OSM (Anzahl Vollgeschosse, First- und Traufhöhen usw.) mehr machen als nur 3D-Ansichten rendern. Man kann daraus Karten erzeugen, die die Gebäude anhand ihrer Geschossanzahl oder Höhe unterschiedlich einfärben oder Sichtbarkeitsanalysen (Stichwort unverbaubare Aussicht) erstellen. Zwar mit amtlichen Daten, aber nicht überall ist die Verwaltung so offen geworden wie in Hamburg: http://hannes.enjoys.it/geo/odd2014/geschosse.html Viele Grüße Michael - -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTHDQIAAoJEB87G9rMCMyIZpIP/iDJ5kBums5ENjctJJDwVAM2 MLq02O93fxLKxd2ieg6d7MvBptbQlJGb3KnFGz3iXHQnzHf2bneIikPv9sa40hnI BIRpCTAcLmN2Op8wbXAXNVDO0glBdZ0tHRCFvnA+/6ZRMA3HFfQa0StfFpMpKzRC sV8fmyzJTaz4xiB/H6VXi5UE3gPuBQqVaSYZCxrjDnE5GM46S3lvZ8iB7CjEVJpi PQOrqVYSkp7d/WbcBq1jmyz+5Kxw/zMw7PXnITCBzEE/Z3d4b9pcMzN6zLU69qHf /e8qonHhVyL+xkXKUI19xTpvsvNEm3ZxGnOZ1ISqW4tc3kBCf3NXnCXagnYs+Ln8 EwCg71Iyw1kUyHwclcdP6DUYqdC61+CymolLPQcHJMpFI7n33T1yh9V8F55r3LXG 4FN91tsNPxRvrSMFNVLMwweJ+YJbOFvjT8oaHV2qdTahNJrOiXZnctEfMbifA6tE FAA2Yvs+0d29YkJyS28NDVvX5/2D5mrp5PHFnRDjxf2qTG7eIVh4x7MAEUK8EvZc jiIqaQUe3Nkazx5THLI4TrBd4Xre0zG9EmN7ZA3nHB+lx7RuuLoF1yFrd6GAkVhT 8bvBXB4VyGWOoLfvDtnI8CLuIC/3szVz6gqpTzO9R85sdxjNPwd44BHXdDRHeHJI qzKbuxkIj81lu0mFLacm =yiau -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Reihenhäuser / 3D-Tagging // Re: 1000 Hausnummern
Hallo Ralf, Selbst tagging NUR für den Renderer wäre im Grunde doch okay. Problematisch wird es, wenn NUR für den Renderer, aber GEGEN korrekte Daten oder GEGEN andere Anwendungen getagged wird. Das, wo taggen für (und natürlich insbesondere NUR für) den Renderer, kritisiert wird, betrifft vor allem falsche Tags, um richtige Darstellungen zu erzielen, also: - Wer das Sandloch auf dem Golfplatz als Strand einträgt, macht was falsch - das ist kein Strand, sondern ein Sandloch-auf-dem-Golfplatz. - Wer eine Straße mit access=no kennzeichnet, um zu verhindern, dass Routing-Programme Autos vor der eigenen Haustür vorbeiführen, macht was falsch. - Wer eine Firma, die Einkaufswagen herstellt, als Supermarkt einträgt, damit ein entsprechendes Icon auf der Karte auftaucht, der macht was falsch, denn das ist kein Supermarkt, sondern ein Einkaufswagen-Hersteller. Wer aber Daten zum dreidimensionalen Aussehen von Häusern einträgt, der trägt zunächst mal Fakten ein, die für sich genommen sinnvoll sind. Theoretisch könnte man sich sogar vorstellen, danach zu routen: Folgen Sie der Straße bis zum einzigen Haus mit Walmdach auf der linken Seite, und gehen Sie dann rechts querfeldein... Gruß Peter Am 09.03.2014 00:18, schrieb Ralf GESELLENSETTER: Am 08.03.2014 21:10, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: +1, reihenhäuser würde ich als aneinanderhängende Einzelhäuser mappen In diesem Schema gibt es sogar side_hipped (Typ 2.2): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OSM-4D/Roof_table Vielleicht könnte es Sinn machen, für jede Siedlung eine Default-Definition für das Aussehen der Häuser festzulegen. Oder man greift wie oben angegeben auf einen Code zurück, mit dem die gängigsten Hausarten schnell beschrieben werden können. Und schließlich: 3D-Tagging ist Tagging NUR für den Renderer, oder? Gruß Ralf ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Reihenhäuser / 3D-Tagging // Re: 1000 Hausnummern
Am 9. März 2014 10:45 schrieb Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de: Hallo Ralf, Selbst tagging NUR für den Renderer wäre im Grunde doch okay. Problematisch wird es, wenn NUR für den Renderer, aber GEGEN korrekte Daten oder GEGEN andere Anwendungen getagged wird. Das, wo taggen für (und natürlich insbesondere NUR für) den Renderer, kritisiert wird, betrifft vor allem falsche Tags, um richtige Darstellungen zu erzielen, also: [...] Sehr schön erklärt. Das hätte ich auch so schreiben sollen. Leider hatte meine polemische Seite die Regie bei der Antwort auf Ralfs Posting übernommen. Gruß Falk ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-it] Elenco Ufficiale Aree EUAP
teoricamente la limitazione è dovuta alla clausola ShareAlike (-SA) della licenza...la licenza stessa indica che per ShareAlike non è necessario che sia per forza una Cc, l'importante è che sia una licenza compatibile/equivalente alla Cc+Clausole presenti. questo potrebbe andare bene in questo caso per noi perchè la Odbl è di fatto una Cc-SA-By, purtroppo però non è ancora stata elencata alcuna licenza compatibile perchè la discussione è in corso. per il BY mi sembra che dalla versione 3.0 della Cc sia compatibile con il metodo utilizzato da Osm per dichiarare la fonte (l'origine non necessariamente indicata sull'elemento stesso ma su un changeset e/o una pagina wikipedia) ma qui servirebbe un parere da parte di utenti più esperti di me al riguardo :( - Ciao, Aury -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Elenco-Ufficiale-Aree-EUAP-tp5799115p5799156.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Elenco Ufficiale Aree EUAP
Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:00 schrieb Aury88 spacedrive...@gmail.com: l'importante è che sia una licenza compatibile/equivalente alla Cc+Clausole presenti. questo potrebbe andare bene in questo caso per noi perchè la Odbl è di fatto una Cc-SA-By, dipende del caso di utilizzo, la odbl consente di produrre opere in qualsiasi licenza, anche full copyright, mentre la cc-by-sa insiste che opere prodotte devono rimanere open, non è una piccola differenza. Poi dall'altro canto uno potrebbe interpretare che la cc-by-sa non protegge i fatti contenuti, al meno non in contesti senza direttiva di banca dati, ma la osmf si è sempre opposta di mettersi su quel punto di vista... ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Elenco Ufficiale Aree EUAP
Il 08 marzo 2014 17:12, Guido Salemme ha scritto: immaginavo :-( però sarebbe bello fare pressioni su qualcuno per renderli compatibili ma siamo sicuri che la qualità sia adatta? e quante ne mancano in OSM che sono presenti in quei dati? Secondo la Gazzetta Ufficiale le aree protette sono 871 e in questo elenco ne sono presenti 992 (però quelle che fanno parte di più regioni/province/comuni qui sono contate più volte): http://geodati.fmach.it/gfoss_geodata/osm/wtosm/subpages/Aree_naturali_protette_per_regione.html La Gazzetta Ufficiale riporta anche gli estremi dei provvedimenti che hanno istituito le aree protette e che dovrebbero descrivere i confini, sarebbe un lavoro lungo ma sono dati utilizzabili, dipende da quante ne mancano: http://www.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/archivio/normativa/dm_27_04_2010.pdf -- Daniele Forsi ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Elenco Ufficiale Aree EUAP
dieterdreist wrote Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:00 schrieb Aury88 lt; spacedriver88@ gt;: l'importante è che sia una licenza compatibile/equivalente alla Cc+Clausole presenti. questo potrebbe andare bene in questo caso per noi perchè la Odbl è di fatto una Cc-SA-By, dipende del caso di utilizzo, la odbl consente di produrre opere in qualsiasi licenza, anche full copyright, questa non la capisco. nel senso che uno può prendere i dati da osm e diciamo rilicenziarli come se fosse una Cc-by-nc-nd? comunque sia ho una domanda: io aprendo la mappa delle aree EUAP potrei vedere dalle ortofoto i confini delle aree in base gli elementi presenti sul territorio. per chiarire con un esempio io posso vedere da questa mappa che una determinata area protetta confina a nord con una strada statale. senza copiare o ricalcare potrei utilizzare questa conoscenza ,derivata dalla visione della loro mappa, per definire il confine nord dell'area protetta sfruttando la ortofoto PCN presente nell'editor (che posso ricalcare)? cioè la licenza si applica al dato e all'immagine in se o anche alla conoscenza acquisita attraverso loro? - Ciao, Aury -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Elenco-Ufficiale-Aree-EUAP-tp5799115p5799197.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
[Talk-it] zona Gran Sasso
...qualcuno può dare un occhio in zona ...sembrerebbe che l'utente http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Simone%20Alesi ...abbia fatto un po' di confusione...forse @niubii ce ne capisce qualcosa... -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/zona-Gran-Sasso-tp5799198.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Elenco Ufficiale Aree EUAP
Aury88 wrote: dieterdreist wrote Am 09/mar/2014 um 12:00 schrieb Aury88 lt; spacedriver88@ gt;: l'importante è che sia una licenza compatibile/equivalente alla Cc+Clausole presenti. questo potrebbe andare bene in questo caso per noi perchè la Odbl è di fatto una Cc-SA-By, dipende del caso di utilizzo, la odbl consente di produrre opere in qualsiasi licenza, anche full copyright, questa non la capisco. nel senso che uno può prendere i dati da osm e diciamo rilicenziarli come se fosse una Cc-by-nc-nd? No: i dati restano in quella licenza. Si parla delle opere derivate, come le mappe. Ciao -- Luigi ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Elenco Ufficiale Aree EUAP
2014-03-09 19:20 GMT+01:00 Aury88 spacedrive...@gmail.com: senza copiare o ricalcare potrei utilizzare questa conoscenza ,derivata dalla visione della loro mappa, per definire il confine nord dell'area protetta sfruttando la ortofoto PCN presente nell'editor (che posso ricalcare)? credo di si. Per intenderci, io penso che le aree protette le possiamo prendere da qualche parte, forse dalle leggi / delibere / ecc. dove sono stati definiti / decisi. Dovremmo capire qual'è la fonte primaria per questo tipo di oggetto. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] zona Gran Sasso
2014-03-09 19:38 GMT+01:00 scratera piz...@alice.it: ...qualcuno può dare un occhio in zona ...sembrerebbe che l'utente http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Simone%20Alesi ...abbia fatto un po' di confusione...forse @niubii ce ne capisce qualcosa... confermo, visto che abbiamo fatto un mapping party in quella zona qualche anno fa, questo way mi sembra strano (per esempio): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264921556 in generale sembra che abbia importato da una fonte poca precisa. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] zona Gran Sasso
...più che altro ho notato più way sovrapposte una sull'altra con diffrenti tag... dieterdreist wrote 2014-03-09 19:38 GMT+01:00 scratera lt; pizpiz@ gt;: ...qualcuno può dare un occhio in zona ...sembrerebbe che l'utente http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Simone%20Alesi ...abbia fatto un po' di confusione...forse @niubii ce ne capisce qualcosa... confermo, visto che abbiamo fatto un mapping party in quella zona qualche anno fa, questo way mi sembra strano (per esempio): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264921556 in generale sembra che abbia importato da una fonte poca precisa. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@ https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/zona-Gran-Sasso-tp5799198p5799208.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] zona Gran Sasso
Mi unisco alla discussione visto che ho segnalato io l'anomalia a Scratera. In certi punti, come nella zona dei due Corni, si notano più way sovrapposte (anche 4-5) mappate in modo molto approssimativo. Per esempio: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/42.47035/13.56154 Senza contare che il Gran Sasso era già una zona ben mappata. Poi più che altro sembra abbia messo percorsi ad anello. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/zona-Gran-Sasso-tp5799198p5799211.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] zona Gran Sasso
C'è qualcuno che si offre a scrivere una mail gentile all'utente per segnalarlo i problemi e per offrire aiuto? Se fosse di zona, ancora meglio. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] zona Gran Sasso
dieterdreist wrote C'è qualcuno che si offre a scrivere una mail gentile all'utente per segnalarlo i problemi e per offrire aiuto? Se fosse di zona, ancora meglio. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@ https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it Io gli ho scritto appena ho notato il problema (circa 2 ore fa), non so se l'ha avvertito anche qualcun altro. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/zona-Gran-Sasso-tp5799198p5799218.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] zona Gran Sasso
Scusate ma la maggior parte sono highway=footway. È corretto? :-/ Il 09/03/2014 22:32, Pier88 ha scritto: dieterdreist wrote C'è qualcuno che si offre a scrivere una mail gentile all'utente per segnalarlo i problemi e per offrire aiuto? Se fosse di zona, ancora meglio. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@ https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it Io gli ho scritto appena ho notato il problema (circa 2 ore fa), non so se l'ha avvertito anche qualcun altro. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/zona-Gran-Sasso-tp5799198p5799218.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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-it] Import Civici Pavia e Rimini
Ciao a tutti, recentemente su Hangout si è discusso dei civici di Rimini e Pavia, che sono rilasciati come Opendata. Io li avrei pronti a breve e taggati correttamente, se nessuno si offre interessato o ha qualche obiezione provvederei a caricarli, avvisando prima il DWG tramite una mail. Ovviamente verranno integrati con i (pochi) dati già presenti, ottenuti tramite query overpass. Fatemi sapere! Leonardo ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Import Civici Pavia e Rimini
2014-03-10 0:06 GMT+01:00 Leonardo kinetocor...@gmail.com: Io li avrei pronti a breve e taggati correttamente, se nessuno si offre interessato o ha qualche obiezione provvederei a caricarli, avvisando prima il DWG tramite una mail. Ovviamente verranno integrati con i (pochi) dati già presenti, ottenuti tramite query overpass. almeno per quanto riguarda i dati di Pavia, nel file dei civici, uno dei campi referenzia un ID, il codice contenuto in questo campo è da matchare con campo analogo, presente in altro file dove c'e' la corrispondenza fra ID e nome vero della VIa. avevi considerato di farlo? -- -S ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
[Talk-it] Stazione meteorologica
Ciao a tutti! Per mappare una stazione meteorologica c'è il tag: man_made=monitoring_station ma se questa si trova posizionata in cima ad un palo molto alto che sarebbe man_made=tower come si tagga? Grazie. --enrico -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Stazione-meteorologica-tp5799225.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Import Civici Pavia e Rimini
Grazie degli input Simone, ho una mezza idea per farlo. Al massimo chiedo qui in lista ai nostri maghi dello script! Leonardo Il 10/03/2014 00:12, Simone Cortesi ha scritto: 2014-03-10 0:06 GMT+01:00 Leonardo kinetocor...@gmail.com: Io li avrei pronti a breve e taggati correttamente, se nessuno si offre interessato o ha qualche obiezione provvederei a caricarli, avvisando prima il DWG tramite una mail. Ovviamente verranno integrati con i (pochi) dati già presenti, ottenuti tramite query overpass. almeno per quanto riguarda i dati di Pavia, nel file dei civici, uno dei campi referenzia un ID, il codice contenuto in questo campo è da matchare con campo analogo, presente in altro file dove c'e' la corrispondenza fra ID e nome vero della VIa. avevi considerato di farlo? ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-ee] omavalitsuste teederegistri andmed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kust saab neid andmeid leida? Ma vaatasin maaamet.ee, aga sealt ma ei leidnud midagi. Aga siit ma leidsin nimekirju: https://teeregister.riik.ee/mnt/index/net.do?netSelection=KOH Õige vaatlus et Keila vallas nimed puuduvad... Mis need teenumbrid on? Alguses on vist mingi EHAK registri kood, näiteks Tallinnas see on (0)784: http://metaweb.stat.ee/view_xml.htm?id=3760026selectedRow=3770579 Ma ei tea kas see eriti tasub neid sisse viia. Võib-olla see oleks kasulik kui keegi tahaks OSM'i täielikkust uurida, aga ma arvan et näiteks svimiku rakenduses seda pole vaja. http://osm.svimik.com/stats.php?sort=sizeshow=city Aga mis mõttes saab teede lõpude ja alguseid ühtlustada? Parimat, Manuel On 07.03.2014 20:03, Jaak Laineste wrote: Mis sa ühtlustamise all mõtled täpsemalt? Massiliselt uuendada pole mõtet, aga hea on teada et sealt lisainfot saab. WMS-is ei ole seda? Jaak 7. märts 2014 15:54 kirjutas kasu k...@lap.ee: Maaameti rakenduses on nüüdsest saadaval ka omavalitsuste teederegistri andmed. Kas on mõtet tänavate, teede lõpude ja alguseid ühtlustama hakata ? kohaliku ref numbrit pole vist ka mõtet sisse viia samas nii mõnigi tee saaks endale nime ? Samas näiteks Keila vallas nimed jällegi puuduvad... kasu ___ Talk-ee mailing list Talk-ee@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee ___ Talk-ee mailing list Talk-ee@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTHFppAAoJEPvf9RrsekSyi70IAIMCgkFaf9Fo9iynK4LlJJvr MzL31+iPUm54PUAYBQ232HeidAfXLRnr7xHn4sfYqpLhh+zNv8khhb6Ay48jkpKU cNhFCbA6loTYPmwx52l4AE3z3M0DNCOVpk+cLuZochG+NwfWQzPqt8AZ+pqoG1Lm SA/B4Wr4RUXJrlDlDYS3ZjGN3Nshx+kYQpiDYP6zrwbo6z4eV92/H/jspcVH6UUd 69g0t01Uf+Pb5BmNOgk0vdlf6ziG+w0z5kFpvnmTnmMP+S3JTG2/STkEHm4eN5Ae 3KFTx0NLYgdb9vDureomrXAVVrMD2rLMC3aPsBxG8ms/CmeFMIzGwzT5hNfiW4I= =Tjqp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-ee mailing list Talk-ee@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ee
[Talk-cat] GPS per a waypoints
He estat mirant la wiki de l'OSM per veure mètodes més ràpids per enregistrar POIs. He vist que una manera més lleugera seria mitjançant el registre de waypoints i l'edició de tags posteriorment. No sé molt bé si fa falta un aparell GPS o amb un smartphone faria el pes. Estic interesat en guardar també altitud a ciutat per tal de poder afegir la pendent com a atribut als carrers. He estat mirant per la wiki i la web pero no trobo una opció assequible econòmicament i fiable. Algú de vosaltres coneix algún GPS que compleixi preu econòmic i enregistrament de punts amb altitud? ___ Talk-cat mailing list Talk-cat@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cat
[Talk-ca] Telecommunications Buildings
Hey all, Quick question regarding tagging buildings. I've come across several that are owned and maintained by a local telecom company. These are buildings, usually located in residential areas, look somewhat like houses, but are there to provide switching and distribution of communications equipment (telephone, Internet, etc). What should these be tagged as? My assumption would be building = yes and a Works = tag. Thoughts? Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-cz] Geoportál Praha - to mi hlava nebere
Ahoj, už před nějakou dobou jsem objevil http://www.geoportalpraha.cz/cs/vydej-a-prijem lépe pak http://www.geoportalpraha.cz/uploads/assets/stranky/vydej-prijem/Cenik_URM.pdf , strana 2 a nakonec jsem se rozhodl podělit se, protože toto mi fakt hlava nebere. Data jsou poskytována zdarma, platí se pouze manipulační poplatek za jejich výdej. Jeden by si řekl, že je to pochopitelné, že DVD něco stojí a práce s tím je, ale už je méně pochopitelné, že data musím následně zabezpečit proti zneužití - ??? co to sakra má být? - a nesmím je poskytovat dál. Takže dokonce ani nesmím pomoci naší obci s distribucí dat a pomoci jí tak snížit náklady na výdej dat? !?! To je výsměch a zakrývání skutečnosti, že data fakticky prodávají, i když to prezentují jako zdarma. Myslím si, že by možná stálo za to zahájit nějakou aktivitu nejprve typu zkusit vykomunikovat a následně třeba přiměřeně zostudit naše zastupitelstvo za pomoci opendata.cz apod. Co myslíte? -- Petr, p...@propsychology.cz p ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Geoportál Praha - to mi hlava nebere
No, zní to jako téma pro OSGeo.cz, přeposílám v kopii na Honzu Cibulku, který má z nás asi největší zkušenosti - (s obojím, tedy jak s vymáháním dat, tak s případným zostuzováním). IMHO, jedná se o úřední dílo, z principu je poznámka o zabezpečení proti zneužití naprosto irelevatní. Jáchym On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 10:03:33AM +0100, Petr Vejsada wrote: Ahoj, už před nějakou dobou jsem objevil http://www.geoportalpraha.cz/cs/vydej-a-prijem lépe pak http://www.geoportalpraha.cz/uploads/assets/stranky/vydej-prijem/Cenik_URM.pdf , strana 2 a nakonec jsem se rozhodl podělit se, protože toto mi fakt hlava nebere. Data jsou poskytována zdarma, platí se pouze manipulační poplatek za jejich výdej. Jeden by si řekl, že je to pochopitelné, že DVD něco stojí a práce s tím je, ale už je méně pochopitelné, že data musím následně zabezpečit proti zneužití - ??? co to sakra má být? - a nesmím je poskytovat dál. Takže dokonce ani nesmím pomoci naší obci s distribucí dat a pomoci jí tak snížit náklady na výdej dat? !?! To je výsměch a zakrývání skutečnosti, že data fakticky prodávají, i když to prezentují jako zdarma. Myslím si, že by možná stálo za to zahájit nějakou aktivitu nejprve typu zkusit vykomunikovat a následně třeba přiměřeně zostudit naše zastupitelstvo za pomoci opendata.cz apod. Co myslíte? -- Petr, p...@propsychology.cz p ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz -- Jachym Cepicky URL: http://les-ejk.cz e-mail: jachym.cepicky at gmail com PGP: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp @jachymc ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Geoportál Praha - to mi hlava nebere
Díky, to je super, že je tu někdo zkušený. Oni to řeší smluvní pokutou - pokud bych data zneužil či nezabezpečil či předal dál, měl bych platit smluvní pokutu ve výši stonásobku manipulačního poplatku, proti čemuž by se následně asi bránit dalo, ale s pochybným výsledkem a natolik OSM zase nemiluju, abych toto riskoval. Určitě bude lepší postup je přimět ke změně těchto podmínek. Také si myslím, že jde o úřední dílo. Kdyby nešlo, tak přeci ta data mohou prodávat normálně a nedělat kolem toho takovouto komedii. Jsem zvědavý na názor povolaného. -- Petr Dne Ne 9. března 2014 11:00:40, Jachym Cepicky napsal(a): No, zní to jako téma pro OSGeo.cz, přeposílám v kopii na Honzu Cibulku, který má z nás asi největší zkušenosti - (s obojím, tedy jak s vymáháním dat, tak s případným zostuzováním). IMHO, jedná se o úřední dílo, z principu je poznámka o zabezpečení proti zneužití naprosto irelevatní. Jáchym On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 10:03:33AM +0100, Petr Vejsada wrote: Ahoj, už před nějakou dobou jsem objevil http://www.geoportalpraha.cz/cs/vydej-a-prijem lépe pak http://www.geoportalpraha.cz/uploads/assets/stranky/vydej-prijem/Cenik_URM .pdf , strana 2 a nakonec jsem se rozhodl podělit se, protože toto mi fakt hlava nebere. Data jsou poskytována zdarma, platí se pouze manipulační poplatek za jejich výdej. Jeden by si řekl, že je to pochopitelné, že DVD něco stojí a práce s tím je, ale už je méně pochopitelné, že data musím následně zabezpečit proti zneužití - ??? co to sakra má být? - a nesmím je poskytovat dál. Takže dokonce ani nesmím pomoci naší obci s distribucí dat a pomoci jí tak snížit náklady na výdej dat? !?! To je výsměch a zakrývání skutečnosti, že data fakticky prodávají, i když to prezentují jako zdarma. Myslím si, že by možná stálo za to zahájit nějakou aktivitu nejprve typu zkusit vykomunikovat a následně třeba přiměřeně zostudit naše zastupitelstvo za pomoci opendata.cz apod. Co myslíte? -- Petr, p...@propsychology.cz p ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Geoportál Praha - to mi hlava nebere
Cus, pokud jde o uredni dilo ... jako ze tomu vse nasvedcuje, tak jsou nesmyslny i ty manipulacni poplatky. Nebot vypaleni/ulozeni dat v digitalni podobne na nejake medium jiste nestoji desitky tisic. IMO typicky priklad jak vyjebavat se 106tkou. Jinak mozna hint ... tyhle piratsky akce radi pirati ... pokud na ne nekdo mate rozumnej kontakt, tak by monza sli do toho, ze ty data vrazej verejne na svuj web a budou ocekavat, jestli je praha bude zalovat. Dne 9.3.2014 11:24, Petr Vejsada napsal(a): Díky, to je super, že je tu někdo zkušený. Oni to řeší smluvní pokutou - pokud bych data zneužil či nezabezpečil či předal dál, měl bych platit smluvní pokutu ve výši stonásobku manipulačního poplatku, proti čemuž by se následně asi bránit dalo, ale s pochybným výsledkem a natolik OSM zase nemiluju, abych toto riskoval. Určitě bude lepší postup je přimět ke změně těchto podmínek. Také si myslím, že jde o úřední dílo. Kdyby nešlo, tak přeci ta data mohou prodávat normálně a nedělat kolem toho takovouto komedii. Jsem zvědavý na názor povolaného. -- Petr Dne Ne 9. března 2014 11:00:40, Jachym Cepicky napsal(a): No, zní to jako téma pro OSGeo.cz, přeposílám v kopii na Honzu Cibulku, který má z nás asi největší zkušenosti - (s obojím, tedy jak s vymáháním dat, tak s případným zostuzováním). IMHO, jedná se o úřední dílo, z principu je poznámka o zabezpečení proti zneužití naprosto irelevatní. Jáchym On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 10:03:33AM +0100, Petr Vejsada wrote: Ahoj, už před nějakou dobou jsem objevil http://www.geoportalpraha.cz/cs/vydej-a-prijem lépe pak http://www.geoportalpraha.cz/uploads/assets/stranky/vydej-prijem/Cenik_URM .pdf , strana 2 a nakonec jsem se rozhodl podělit se, protože toto mi fakt hlava nebere. Data jsou poskytována zdarma, platí se pouze manipulační poplatek za jejich výdej. Jeden by si řekl, že je to pochopitelné, že DVD něco stojí a práce s tím je, ale už je méně pochopitelné, že data musím následně zabezpečit proti zneužití - ??? co to sakra má být? - a nesmím je poskytovat dál. Takže dokonce ani nesmím pomoci naší obci s distribucí dat a pomoci jí tak snížit náklady na výdej dat? !?! To je výsměch a zakrývání skutečnosti, že data fakticky prodávají, i když to prezentují jako zdarma. Myslím si, že by možná stálo za to zahájit nějakou aktivitu nejprve typu zkusit vykomunikovat a následně třeba přiměřeně zostudit naše zastupitelstvo za pomoci opendata.cz apod. Co myslíte? -- Petr, p...@propsychology.cz p ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Geoportál Praha - to mi hlava nebere
Ahoj, Dne Ne 9. března 2014 11:49:31, jzvc napsal(a): Cus, pokud jde o uredni dilo ... jako ze tomu vse nasvedcuje, tak jsou nesmyslny i ty manipulacni poplatky. Nebot vypaleni/ulozeni dat v digitalni podobne na nejake medium jiste nestoji desitky tisic. IMO typicky priklad jak vyjebavat se 106tkou. Nad 106 jsem přemýšlel, tam je situace jiná. Poplatek by asi obhájili, ale už by neobhájili následnou smluvní pokutu. Co podle 106 dostanu, to mohu zveřejnit a dělat si s tím co chci. Sporné mohou být jen osobní údaje, což se tohoto netýká. Jinak mozna hint ... tyhle piratsky akce radi pirati ... pokud na ne nekdo mate rozumnej kontakt, tak by monza sli do toho, ze ty data vrazej verejne na svuj web a budou ocekavat, jestli je praha bude zalovat. Mám kontakt na jednoho aktivního Piráta z Plzně, mohu zkusit. Každopádně bych se napřed slušně zeptal, počkám, co na to napíše ten Honza Cibulka, pokud se vyjádří. -- Petr ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Stav OTM Was: Re: značkový klíč, castle_type, wayside_shrine
Takže ve zkratce: OTM běží ze setrvačnosti, nikdo se o to pravděpodobně nestará a asi to ani nikdo nepoužívá. Marián Dne 8.3.2014 09:45, Petr Vejsada napsal: Ahoj, kdysi jsem si stáhl ze svn na doméně no-ip.org xml styly pro Mapnik a z těch vychází vlastně ta moje mapa. Bylo to pro Mapnik 0.7 nebo 2.0, fakt už nevím, jen si pamatuji, že jsem je musel dost zdlouhavě upravovat, aby fungovaly s tehdy aktuální verzí Mapniku. Nakolik jsou aktualizovaná data opentrackmap.cz netuším, ale tuším, proč tam chybí trasy. Řešil jsem to před několika málo měsíci. Souvisí to s rozmachem užívání relací. Vykreslování tras je totiž udělané IMO velmi pěkně - pokud vede více barev současně, vykresluje se trasa s barvami na střídačku. U relací je to problém. Mapnik sám o sobě s relacemi pracovat neumí (předzpracovává mu to osm2pgsql). Umí jen to, co se mu napíše do selectu. Jistě by se dal napsat select, který relace zahrne a pak vykreslování dlaždice bude trvat pár minut. Vyřešil jsem to samostatnou tabulkou cz_kct, která je předzpracovaná ze stávajících dat Mapniku. Trasy pak vykresluji z cz_kct, nikoli z cz_line. Další problém je, že mohou společně vést cesty například typu peak a local. Šlo by to do Mapniku nadefinovat, ovšem spočítej si, kolik by to bylo permutací ;-). Mohlo by se to kreslit tak, že by jeden znak byl pro peak a druhý znak pro local, ale mohou být i 3 - prostě stovky až tisíce řádků xml. Tak jsem pořešil tak, že se v těchto případech vybere z mého subjektivního pohledu nejdůležitější přívlastek k cestě - nalezneš v tabulce osmtables.kctmax a agregační funkce v Postgresql: 90 | wheelchair 80 | peak 70 | spring 60 | ruin 50 | interesting_object 40 | horse 30 | ski 20 | learning 10 | local Čím vyšší prio, tím větší má přednost, takže wheelchair mám za nejdůležitější a vykreslují se invalidní vozíky a nikoli koňské kruhy v případě souběhu tras. Pokud má někdo nápad, jak to vykreslit najednou a se správnými barvami, tak moc vítám :-). Co se týká ikon, tak se trochu bojím, kdy vyletí KČT (hojně dotovaný z našich daní) a začne ječet, že všechny značky jsou jeho duševním vlastnictvím (tedy vlastnictvím daňových poplatníků, že ...). Momentálně nemám značky úplně sjednocené. Něco je z toho svn, něco jsem teď hojně přidával z oficiální sady ikon OSM. Navíc mám teď celou mapu a DB v takovém mezistavu kvůli importu adres - jsou tam udělané testovací importy z RUIAN a data jsou z října 2013 - aktuální verzi začnu nahrávat začátkem příštího týdne. Paralelně s tím pracuji na vylepšování renderování - soustředím se na velké zoomy a podrobnosti. Tak mám zase na víkend co dělat ;-). Vývojová verze je na http://pedro.poloha.net/mapa - liší se od produkční verze až od zoomu 16; do 15 včetně má společné dlaždice. Třeba se mi tam vykreslují ikony pro školy, ale už se mi nerenderuje název té školy, no to je ta práce na víkend :-) Dne So 8. března 2014 00:03:04, Marián Kyral napsal(a): BTW, když už jsme u toho. Jaký je vlastně stav OTM? Všiml jsem si, že je tam výrazně méně tras než na mtbmap.cz Například Beskydy, okolí Frýdlantu nad Ostravicí: http://www.mtbmap.cz/#zoom=12lat=49.5877lon=18.3557 http://opentrackmap.cz/?zoom=12lat=6375487.45685lon=2037379.38101layers=B 0TTFF Probíhá tam aktualizace? Bohužel nikde žádný link na někoho, kdo by se o to staral. Marián ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Geoportál Praha - to mi hlava nebere
Data jsou poskytována zdarma, platí se pouze manipulační poplatek za jejich výdej. Jeden by si řekl, že je to pochopitelné, že DVD něco stojí a práce s tím je, ale už je méně pochopitelné, že data musím následně zabezpečit proti zneužití - ??? co to sakra má být? - a nesmím je poskytovat dál. Takže dokonce ani nesmím pomoci naší obci s distribucí dat a pomoci jí tak snížit náklady na výdej dat? !?! To je výsměch a zakrývání skutečnosti, že data fakticky prodávají, i když to prezentují jako zdarma. *** OSM poskytuje volne data, ale podminky licence ODbL. Praha poskytuje volne data ale za licencnich podminek, pro ktere je (v ceskem statnim prostredi) nutno uzavrit dvojstrannou dohodu, proto to fyzicke DVD. Ano bylo by krasne, kdyby ta geodata byla k dipozici nejen free ale i open. Zákon 106/1999 Sb o tom vubec nic nerika. AZ definuje uredni dilo jako resjtrik nebo listinu, o geodatech neni reci. Rad se budu mylit. ho hanoj ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Geoportál Praha - to mi hlava nebere
Ahoj, co tedy vlastně jsou geodata? Může to být databáze či kartografické dílo (podle AZ)? Kartografické dílo asi ne; pod tím si představuji mapu vnímatelnou smysly, obvykle zrakem, případně hmatem, interaktivní mapa třeba i zvuková, ale samotná data asi ne. A co je vlastně ten rejstřík? Databáze je databáze, rejstřík je ... druh databáze? Ad 106 - mohu požadovat jakékoli informace (s nějakými výjimkami), tak třeba seznam a polohu a výšku budov, hranice památkových zón, ...) a oni si mohou naúčtovat náklady, které s vydáním informací mají. To by mohlo dopadnout, že náklady budou stejné jako v případě objednávky dat - vyšší by těžko obhájili, s tím rozdílem, že s takto získané veřejné informace už nemusím tajit, ale mohu je třeba pověsit na web. Některá data nejsou veřejná, třeba policejní okrsky. Proč nesmím vědět, na kterou policejní služebnu se v případě potřeby obrátit? Zkusím přeci jen ty piráty, třeba i paralelně s OSGeo. -- Petr Dne Ne 9. března 2014 15:32:57, hanoj napsal(a): Data jsou poskytována zdarma, platí se pouze manipulační poplatek za jejich výdej. Jeden by si řekl, že je to pochopitelné, že DVD něco stojí a práce s tím je, ale už je méně pochopitelné, že data musím následně zabezpečit proti zneužití - ??? co to sakra má být? - a nesmím je poskytovat dál. Takže dokonce ani nesmím pomoci naší obci s distribucí dat a pomoci jí tak snížit náklady na výdej dat? !?! To je výsměch a zakrývání skutečnosti, že data fakticky prodávají, i když to prezentují jako zdarma. *** OSM poskytuje volne data, ale podminky licence ODbL. Praha poskytuje volne data ale za licencnich podminek, pro ktere je (v ceskem statnim prostredi) nutno uzavrit dvojstrannou dohodu, proto to fyzicke DVD. Ano bylo by krasne, kdyby ta geodata byla k dipozici nejen free ale i open. Zákon 106/1999 Sb o tom vubec nic nerika. AZ definuje uredni dilo jako resjtrik nebo listinu, o geodatech neni reci. Rad se budu mylit. ho hanoj ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [Talk-cz] Geoportál Praha - to mi hlava nebere
Dne 9.3.2014 12:09, Petr Vejsada napsal(a): Ahoj, Dne Ne 9. března 2014 11:49:31, jzvc napsal(a): Cus, pokud jde o uredni dilo ... jako ze tomu vse nasvedcuje, tak jsou nesmyslny i ty manipulacni poplatky. Nebot vypaleni/ulozeni dat v digitalni podobne na nejake medium jiste nestoji desitky tisic. IMO typicky priklad jak vyjebavat se 106tkou. Nad 106 jsem přemýšlel, tam je situace jiná. Poplatek by asi obhájili, ale už by neobhájili následnou smluvní pokutu. Co podle 106 dostanu, to mohu zveřejnit a dělat si s tím co chci. Sporné mohou být jen osobní údaje, což se tohoto netýká. Poplatek = !naklady! = nikoli 10k za vypaleni dat ... takovy prachy by mohli chtit pouze v pripade, kdyby takovy data pripravovali vyhradne pro tebe a priprava by trvala desitky hodin. Takze v pripade vypaleni dat na placku by obhajitelny bylo neco mezi 0-100Kc. V tomhle pripade je zjevny, ze data v digitalni podobe existuji, a ze je jednoduse prodavaji. Jinak mozna hint ... tyhle piratsky akce radi pirati ... pokud na ne nekdo mate rozumnej kontakt, tak by monza sli do toho, ze ty data vrazej verejne na svuj web a budou ocekavat, jestli je praha bude zalovat. Mám kontakt na jednoho aktivního Piráta z Plzně, mohu zkusit. Každopádně bych se napřed slušně zeptal, počkám, co na to napíše ten Honza Cibulka, pokud se vyjádří. -- Petr ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz ___ Talk-cz mailing list Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
Re: [OSM-ja] 城の石垣跡のタグについて
野方です。 2014年3月9日 11:58 yuu hayashi hayashi@gmail.com: 林です。 わたしは barrier=city_wall としています。 現地調査で高さや材質がわかれば追記しています。 積み方などはdesctioptionに書いてます。 barrier=city_wallですか。それもちょっと考えました。 高さや材質は、まだ書いてませんがそれも書けますよね。 積み方は、descriptionですか。そこまでは考えてなかったですね。参考になります。 barrier=city_wall は、 area=yes を付加してエリアとしても描けますので詳細な石垣の形がわかればマイクロマッピングのほうにどんどんはまっていけます。 二段重ねの石垣や、石垣上に櫓や塀があるものなどはlayerを設定して重なり具合を表現しています。 とはいえ面倒なので私自身はあまり描いてませんので自慢できるようなサンプルを例示できないのが残念です。 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/34.97794/138.38434 やっぱりエリアも使いますか。大きさから言うと幅だけでなく厚みもあって エリアでも問題ない大きさだったりしますから、どっちが状況にあってる?? と考えてしまいますね。 それとlayerは使いますか。 姫路城は山城で高さもありますが、建物じゃないからlevelじゃないし そこはlayerで重なりを書くしか無いかなと考えてました。 日本の城郭に多いパターンとして、正面が石垣で裏が土手などとかいろいろなパターンがあるので、書き方も様々になると思います。 どう書けばいいか悩むろことがOSMの楽しさですね。 そうですね。最初のembankment:leftじゃないですが、内と外で変わるので ウェイ、エリア、タグそれぞれ変わるのが面白いところですね。 この話題でSay_noさんが海外を調べたところ、海外は石垣については書いてる事例がほとんどなくて、 シンプルにbarrier=wallとかぐらいしか書いてないそうです。 国によっても見方が変わるんですね。 2014年3月9日 11:58 yuu hayashi hayashi@gmail.com: 林です。 石垣の形状に合わせていろいろな書き方があると思います。 わたしは barrier=city_wall としています。 現地調査で高さや材質がわかれば追記しています。 積み方などはdesctioptionに書いてます。 barrier=city_wall は、 area=yes を付加してエリアとしても描けますので詳細な石垣の形がわかればマイクロマッピングのほうにどんどんはまっていけます。 二段重ねの石垣や、石垣上に櫓や塀があるものなどはlayerを設定して重なり具合を表現しています。 とはいえ面倒なので私自身はあまり描いてませんので自慢できるようなサンプルを例示できないのが残念です。 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/34.97794/138.38434 日本の城郭に多いパターンとして、正面が石垣で裏が土手などとかいろいろなパターンがあるので、書き方も様々になると思います。 どう書けばいいか悩むろことがOSMの楽しさですね。 2014年3月8日 22:35 Jun NOGATA noga...@gmail.com: 野方です。 2014年3月8日 19:35 Shu Higashi higa...@gmail.com: 東です。 答えはひとつではなさそうですね。 そうですね。場所によって状況が違いますし、一つに絞ればないので どの組み合わせが状況と思ってるものに近いか、いろいろありそうです。 私なら以下のいずれかでタグ付けすると思います。 遺跡としての城壁として表現したい場合 historic=citywalls 城跡（の一部）として表現したい場合 historic=ruins ruins=castle なるほど。最初は後者に近いものにしてましたが、書きなおして前者に近いタグつけましたね。 姫路の石垣は、石垣には以前、壁や櫓があって門があったことを表現したかったので、 城の遺跡ではあるけれど、ちょっと意図が違うかなと思ってcitywallsにしましたね。 全国各地お城はあるけど、ほかのところはどうしているのか知りたいので ほかにも、こんな感じで書いてる、うちはこうしている、などあったら教えてください。＞みなさま 2014年3月8日 19:35 Shu Higashi higa...@gmail.com: 東です。 答えはひとつではなさそうですね。 私なら以下のいずれかでタグ付けすると思います。 遺跡としての城壁として表現したい場合 historic=citywalls 城跡（の一部）として表現したい場合 historic=ruins ruins=castle 2014/03/08 Jun NOGATA noga...@gmail.com: 野方です。 タグ付けについての質問です。 姫路城の周りは、今は街中ですが、元は城の中ということで城の石垣跡が 残っていますが石垣のタグはどうつけたらいいでしょうか。 デカイので最初エリアで書いてたのですが、ちょっと違う気がしたのでWayで書 きなおして、barrier=retaining_wall、historic=citywallsというふうにタグ 付けして書きました。 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264918005 とFacebookの姫路グループで書いたところ「embankment:leftつけたほうがいい んじゃない?」とか「historic=ruins?」とか話が出たので、MLでも聞いてみた いと思いました。 イメージとしたらこんな感じです。 http://www.panoramio.com/photo/86265332 http://www.panoramio.com/photo/86268393 http://www.panoramio.com/photo/86268390 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muc2PWWDuzU ということで、城の石垣跡は、どういうふうにタグづけするとよいでしょうか。 -- 野方 純 (NOGATA,Jun) - mail: noga...@gmail.com - web: http://www.nofuture.tv/diary/ ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja -- 野方 純 (NOGATA,Jun) - mail: noga...@gmail.com - web: http://www.nofuture.tv/diary/ ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja -- 野方 純 (NOGATA,Jun) - mail: noga...@gmail.com - web: http://www.nofuture.tv/diary/ ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
Re: [OSM-ja] 学校などの書き方について
野方です。 そういえば、神社やお寺をエリアで書いてノードを置く人もいますが、 これも警告で引っかかりますね。 2014年3月8日 22:01 Jun NOGATA noga...@gmail.com: 野方です。 東さん、飯田さんありがとうございます。 たしかに東さんのおっしゃる原則は分かっていたのですが… 2014年3月8日 18:16 Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com: いちおうの指針として、こんなかんじのものがありました。 (こちらはAreaとして描いています) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool これ見てました。 インポートされた学校はノードになってるけど、どっちに合わせるのがいいのだろうと思ってました。 ただこれだと、例えば中高一貫(1つの敷地内に、異なるnameのオブジェクトが2つ存在する)のときに どうするんだろうなー、というのがあり、 そうですね。 ほかの場所はエリアなのに、同じ敷地の同じ学校だけれど中高一貫、全日制と通信制、 学部違いで別体制になってるところはノードになると揺れが気になってました。 ひとまずはノードだけにしておいたほうがいいのかな 個人的には、shcoolはNodeとして描いて、対応するAreaとrelationで結合したほうがいいのでは？という考えも持っています。 (relation type=siteの定義が完璧に決まっているわけではないのと、 学校Areaをあらわすための landuse=*が無い、というのが辛いところです) うーん…。 気持ちとしてはエリアも書いておきたいのですが、表現がないので迷ってしまったところです。 2014年3月8日 18:16 Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com: いいだです。 理想論として言えば、1つの地物は1つの表現、なので、 NodeかAreaのどちらかにタグを寄せて、もう片方を削除します。 じゃぁ、その場合にNodeかAreaか、どちらを残すのかというのは とても議論の分かれるところで、決めはない、という認識です。 僕も悩んでいます。 いちおうの指針として、こんなかんじのものがありました。 (こちらはAreaとして描いています) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Amenity_school_usage_example.svg ただこれだと、例えば中高一貫(1つの敷地内に、異なるnameのオブジェクトが2つ存在する)のときに どうするんだろうなー、というのがあり、 個人的には、shcoolはNodeとして描いて、対応するAreaとrelationで結合したほうがいいのでは？という考えも持っています。 (relation type=siteの定義が完璧に決まっているわけではないのと、 学校Areaをあらわすための landuse=*が無い、というのが辛いところです) 2014年3月8日 17:28 Jun NOGATA noga...@gmail.com: 野方です。 最近のJOSMの妥当性検査で、amenity=schoolでタグ付けをしたエリアに amenity=schoolのノードが入ってると 「amenity=schoolの中にamenity=schoolがある」と警告されるようになりました。 ほかにもノードとエリアがかぶっていると警告されるようですが、 警告をされないように書くためには、どう書くとよいでしょうか。 -- 野方 純 (NOGATA,Jun) - mail: noga...@gmail.com - web: http://www.nofuture.tv/diary/ ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja -- Satoshi IIDA mail: nyamp...@gmail.com twitter: @nyampire ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja -- 野方 純 (NOGATA,Jun) - mail: noga...@gmail.com - web: http://www.nofuture.tv/diary/ -- 野方 純 (NOGATA,Jun) - mail: noga...@gmail.com - web: http://www.nofuture.tv/diary/ ___ Talk-ja mailing list Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
Re: [Talk-us] maproulette.org
Martijn, the bad versions of the relation pages are back from the beginning of February. :( From: m...@rtijn.org Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 21:55:37 -0800 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] maproulette.org Hi all, I fixed the relation pages problem. It turns out that the crontab entry on the database server, responsible for querying the live OSM database for the relation information and feeding that to the script that generates the pages, got erased. So the relation pages get updated once again. Yay! Full disclosure: I also added piwik web site analytics code in the process - I only use this to help me understand how people are using the pages, and nobody else has access to the piwik reports. If you want to get an idea of what these reports look like, check out http://piwik.org/docs/piwik-tour/#piwik-overview. osm.org uses piwik as well. I will also be installing piwik tracking on the Battle Grid and - soon - on the new version of MapRoulette. (Here is why piwik is cool and Google Analytics (which provides similar functionality) is not: https://piwik.org/privacy/) On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Hi all, I am currently changing the DNS records for maproulette.org to point to a new server, which will contain a shiny new version of MapRoulette Very Soon Now. This means that the following services are currently only available through the old maproulette.org server's IP address: Relation Pages (maproulette.org/relationpages) -- http://184.73.220.107/relationpages Battle Grid (maproulette.org/battlegrid) -- http://184.73.220.107/battlegrid This will all be restored to normal over the next few days, hopefully. By the way, I am aware of an issue with the relation pages not being updated, I will work on that as soon as I get a chance. Best Martijn -- Martijn van Exel http://openstreetmap.us/ -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-TW] 2014過年後的Mapping Party-3/15關渡自然公園
由於活動細節一直到最近才能確定 剩下的活動籌畫被壓縮 加上本人太忙一直沒時間好好弄 宣傳上也來不及 原訂的3/15 mapping party取消 關度、竹圍一帶是好地方 查資料時發現挺多好玩有趣的東西 Dennis 2014-01-22 1:46 GMT+08:00 Dennis Raylin Chen b92612...@gmail.com: 各位好 好久沒辦mapping party了 先前在OSM台北月聚，跟egret討論過年後該來辦mapping party，覺得時間上來說過年後會適合 而跟我比較熟的上官聊了後，權橫我們三人的時間，只有3/15可以 經過討論後，決定想來畫關渡一帶 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/25.1226/121.4671 大致上畫 大度路以南到關渡自然公園之間：著重在道路名稱、單雙方向，商店繪製 由於去比較郊區，所以規畫一整天，上午就畫上面兩個區域 中午就在附近一帶吃 下午到關渡自然公園裡，裡頭有家咖啡簡餐店CAFE YARD咖啡鴨 http://gd-park.org.tw/news/353 將成果繪製輸入openstreetmap上 如果晚上要續攤就到關渡宮前看夕陽好了 egret說假如成行，就招待去自然公園，門票的錢由他出，最多20張 與象山的mapping party剛好隔一個月，間隔差不多 大家覺得如何呢？ Dennis ___ Talk-TW mailing list Talk-TW@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Re: [Talk-TW] 2014過年後的Mapping Party-3/15關渡自然公園
謝謝瑞霖說明 抱歉我也是事情炸開，原本3/15的party也要主辦 結果後來國中同學的婚禮這天要去，人整天不在台北... 之後我再跟瑞霖確認地方和做宣傳分工 上官 Dennis Raylin Chen b92612...@gmail.com 於 2014年3月9日 下午11:05 寫道： 由於活動細節一直到最近才能確定 剩下的活動籌畫被壓縮 加上本人太忙一直沒時間好好弄 宣傳上也來不及 原訂的3/15 mapping party取消 關度、竹圍一帶是好地方 查資料時發現挺多好玩有趣的東西 Dennis 2014-01-22 1:46 GMT+08:00 Dennis Raylin Chen b92612...@gmail.com: 各位好 好久沒辦mapping party了 先前在OSM台北月聚，跟egret討論過年後該來辦mapping party，覺得時間上來說過年後會適合 而跟我比較熟的上官聊了後，權橫我們三人的時間，只有3/15可以 經過討論後，決定想來畫關渡一帶 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/25.1226/121.4671 大致上畫 大度路以南到關渡自然公園之間：著重在道路名稱、單雙方向，商店繪製 由於去比較郊區，所以規畫一整天，上午就畫上面兩個區域 中午就在附近一帶吃 下午到關渡自然公園裡，裡頭有家咖啡簡餐店CAFE YARD咖啡鴨 http://gd-park.org.tw/news/353 將成果繪製輸入openstreetmap上 如果晚上要續攤就到關渡宮前看夕陽好了 egret說假如成行，就招待去自然公園，門票的錢由他出，最多20張 與象山的mapping party剛好隔一個月，間隔差不多 大家覺得如何呢？ Dennis ___ Talk-TW mailing list Talk-TW@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
