date:20140803


On 03/08/14 15:49, Colin Smale wrote:

As this discussion is about UK specifics, I thought it would be a good
plan to reach out to the talk-GB list.


The only things I would say you can commonly assume from such signs are 
that the road is unadopted, and that the residents/owners would like you 
to think that they can control access to it.


In reality such roads may, even though they are not adopted and are 
hence not maintained at public expense, be highways with an associated 
right of way for the public.


It's quite likely that the owners have the right to control parking but 
less likely that they have the right to control access and passing along 
the road.


See, for example:

http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/atoz/a_to_z/service.asp?u_id=1065tab=3siteid=5409pageid=29027e=e

Tom


--colin

On 2014-08-03 16:44, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2014-08-03 16:24, Craig Wallace wrote:

On 2014-08-03 11:00, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

Residential roads in the UK often seem to have 'private road' signs,
such as: - 'Private road' - 'Private road no parking' - 'Private
road no parking no turning' - 'Residents only no unauthorised
parking or turning' How do people tag these roads? For which of
these would you use access=private? Thanks in advance.

Depends on just what sort of road it is, and how it is signed. ie are
they actually official signs or something more homemade. Often a
Private road sign is specifically referring to motor vehicles, so
it should just be tagged as motor_vehicle=private (or motor_vehicle=no).

How about horses? How do you conclude that these signs are only for motor 
vehicles?

In Scotland, you would generally have a right to walk or cycle there
etc, so should also be tagged as foot=yes, bicycle=yes.

There are exceptions to this, which include Land on which there is a house, 
caravan, tent or other place affording a person privacy or shelter, and sufficient 
adjacent land to enable those living there to have reasonable measures of privacy and to 
ensure that their enjoyment of the house or place is not unreasonably disturbed. 
IANAL but I suspect this might be applicable to residential roads in private ownership.

Not sure about the legality in England and Wales.

Land ownership in EW is absolute isn't it? Trumped only by a public 
right-of-way.

Craig ___ talk mailing
list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk]

Links:
--
[1]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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



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




--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of private roads


On 03/08/14 17:02, Tom Hughes wrote:


See, for example:

http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/atoz/a_to_z/service.asp?u_id=1065tab=3siteid=5409pageid=29027e=e


http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn00402.pdf is also informative.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

[OSM-talk] HOT Mapping thoughts

I was talking to someone who worked with one of the Agencies that used the
data in the field and he was saying how great it was.

However he said that the map started to appear after three of four days
which struck me as a little odd.

I understood HOT starts very quickly within hours and since we have mappers
around the world working odd hours there should be something happening very
quickly in the database.

However the rendering means that tiles have to get refreshed, data has to
be packaged for OSMAND etc.

Is there a way the tiles and packaging for HOT areas given priority and
done more frequently or is this already being done?

I also note that in Haiti a sensefly eBee UAV has been used to collect
aerial imaging for OSM mapping.  I assume that the procedures have been
worked out to use this device.  Could one of the partner agencies UN, or
someone with a bit of cash, be approached to arrange for one to be part of
the initial deployment when a new area to be HOT mapped is decided on?

Many Thanks

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

Re: [OSM-talk] HOT Mapping thoughts

2014-08-03 Per discussione Pierre Béland

Hi John,

In general, the tiles are updated to the minute. Looking at my edits this 
morning after a few minutes, tiles were refreshed both for the OSM and 
Humanitarian layers. I press F5 to refresh the screen and obtain the new tiles 
in the navigator.

For OSMAnd, updates may vary. For major activations such as Ebola, we ask 
contributors to provide daily updates. For Ebola, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_Response#Offline_Navigation_on_Small_Devices
For custom OSMAnd updates, see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_Response#Custom_Android.2FOSMAnd_offline_file

 
Pierre 




 De : john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com
À : OpenStreetMap talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org 
Envoyé le : Dimanche 3 août 2014 12h28
Objet : [OSM-talk] HOT Mapping thoughts
 


I was talking to someone who worked with one of the Agencies that used the data 
in the field and he was saying how great it was.


However he said that the map started to appear after three of four days which 
struck me as a little odd.


I understood HOT starts very quickly within hours and since we have mappers 
around the world working odd hours there should be something happening very 
quickly in the database.


However the rendering means that tiles have to get refreshed, data has to be 
packaged for OSMAND etc.


Is there a way the tiles and packaging for HOT areas given priority and done 
more frequently or is this already being done?


I also note that in Haiti  a sensefly eBee UAV has been used to collect aerial 
imaging for OSM mapping.  I assume that the procedures have been worked out to 
use this device.  Could one of the partner agencies UN, or someone with a bit 
of cash, be approached to arrange for one to be part of the initial deployment 
when a new area to be HOT mapped is decided on?


Many Thanks 

Cheerio John

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

Re: [OSM-talk] HOT Mapping thoughts

Thank you for your input, that was roughly in line with my expectations but
for some reason didn't seem to match the person's experience in the field,
it could have been some time ago.

Thanks John

On 3 August 2014 12:40, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote:

Hi John,

In general, the tiles are updated to the minute. Looking at my edits this
morning after a few minutes, tiles were refreshed both for the OSM and
Humanitarian layers. I press F5 to refresh the screen and obtain the new
tiles in the navigator.

For OSMAnd, updates may vary. For major activations such as Ebola, we ask
contributors to provide daily updates. For Ebola, see

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_Response#Offline_Navigation_on_Small_Devices
For custom OSMAnd updates, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_Response#Custom_Android.2FOSMAnd_offline_file

Pierre

--
*De :* john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com
*À :* OpenStreetMap talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org
*Envoyé le :* Dimanche 3 août 2014 12h28
*Objet :* [OSM-talk] HOT Mapping thoughts

I was talking to someone who worked with one of the Agencies that used the
data in the field and he was saying how great it was.

However he said that the map started to appear after three of four days
which struck me as a little odd.

I understood HOT starts very quickly within hours and since we have
mappers around the world working odd hours there should be something
happening very quickly in the database.

However the rendering means that tiles have to get refreshed, data has to
be packaged for OSMAND etc.

Is there a way the tiles and packaging for HOT areas given priority and
done more frequently or is this already being done?

I also note that in Haiti a sensefly eBee UAV has been used to collect
aerial imaging for OSM mapping. I assume that the procedures have been
worked out to use this device. Could one of the partner agencies UN, or
someone with a bit of cash, be approached to arrange for one to be part of
the initial deployment when a new area to be HOT mapped is decided on?

Many Thanks

Cheerio John

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

[OSM-talk] Fixing common possible Tagging Mistakes

2014-08-03 Per discussione Andreas Goss

I have been trying to document all the common tags for keys like 
amenity, shop, craft etc. in the Wiki using TagInfo. In the process I 
found several low usage tags that might have other matching well 
established tags. I put a small section with a Taginfo box and Overpass 
API link on those pages allowing mappers to find these tags in their 
area to fix them with local knowledge as some Tags might indeed be 
valid. Now I also added a category to them to make it easier to find all 
such tags in one's area!


Would be great if everybody could take a look in his/her region and 
maybe clean up some outdated tags!


Also feel free to add the code to other pages or remove/discuss it if 
you think it doesn't fit somewhere.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tagging_Mistakes

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88/diary/23443
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of private roads

2014-08-03 Per discussione John F. Eldredge

In the USA, it depends upon whether the property owner has given permission for 
public use.  If a private road through an apartment complex is signed as 
residents and guests only, for example, an outsider driving through can be 
charged with trespassing.


On August 3, 2014 6:50:55 AM CDT, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 It depends whether a right of way exists. Things are rather
 complicated in the UK. Private means private, so no entry by default.
 If you are visiting an address on a private road, you have presumably
 been invited, explicitly or implicitly. An unofficial sign residents
 only might not have any force in law. A road in private ownership,
 with a public right of way, can be used though if it is a byway open
 to all traffic. Landowners often object to rights of way across their
 land and might try to discourage their use with misleading signs.
 
 
 On 3 August 2014 12:43:50 CEST, Matthijs Melissen
 i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:
 On 3 August 2014 11:18, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
  Residential roads in the UK often seem to have 'private road'
 signs,
 such
  as:
 
  - 'Private road'
  - 'Private road no parking'
  - 'Private road no parking no turning'
  - 'Residents only no unauthorised parking or turning'
 
  How do people tag these roads? For which of these would you use
  access=private?
 
  I would tag them all with access=destination, unless there are
 additional
  signs that forbid entering.
  A private road is privately owned and maintained, but you
 normally
 may use
  it to reach the properties facing it as visitor or for delivery
 purposes.
 
 Most private roads are cul-de-sacs, but in the hypothetical situation
 where a private road connects two non-private roads, would there be a
 legal reason you couldn't use the private road as shortcut?
 
 -- Matthijs
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 
 
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of private roads

In the UK there are rights of way which date back in time to the days of
pack horses and long distance footpaths.  I don't think you have the
equivalent in North America.  So in the UK a right of way may still follow
a privately maintained road.

It's probably better to leave the tagging of this to local mappers who
hopefully know the rules/laws and they are different in different countries.

Cheerio John


On 3 August 2014 21:35, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:

 In the USA, it depends upon whether the property owner has given
 permission for public use.  If a private road through an apartment complex
 is signed as residents and guests only, for example, an outsider driving
 through can be charged with trespassing.


 On August 3, 2014 6:50:55 AM CDT, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl
 wrote:
  It depends whether a right of way exists. Things are rather
  complicated in the UK. Private means private, so no entry by default.
  If you are visiting an address on a private road, you have presumably
  been invited, explicitly or implicitly. An unofficial sign residents
  only might not have any force in law. A road in private ownership,
  with a public right of way, can be used though if it is a byway open
  to all traffic. Landowners often object to rights of way across their
  land and might try to discourage their use with misleading signs.
 
 
  On 3 August 2014 12:43:50 CEST, Matthijs Melissen
  i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:
  On 3 August 2014 11:18, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
   Residential roads in the UK often seem to have 'private road'
  signs,
  such
   as:
  
   - 'Private road'
   - 'Private road no parking'
   - 'Private road no parking no turning'
   - 'Residents only no unauthorised parking or turning'
  
   How do people tag these roads? For which of these would you use
   access=private?
  
   I would tag them all with access=destination, unless there are
  additional
   signs that forbid entering.
   A private road is privately owned and maintained, but you
  normally
  may use
   it to reach the properties facing it as visitor or for delivery
  purposes.
  
  Most private roads are cul-de-sacs, but in the hypothetical situation
  where a private road connects two non-private roads, would there be a
  legal reason you couldn't use the private road as shortcut?
  
  -- Matthijs
  
  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 
  
 
  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

 --
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot
 drive out hate; only love can do that.
 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of private roads

Whilst I think of it there are some footpaths and roads in the UK which are
open to the public on 364 days a year but closed one day a year to prevent
them from becoming a public right of way.

Cheerio John


On 3 August 2014 21:47, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:

 In the UK there are rights of way which date back in time to the days of
 pack horses and long distance footpaths.  I don't think you have the
 equivalent in North America.  So in the UK a right of way may still follow
 a privately maintained road.

 It's probably better to leave the tagging of this to local mappers who
 hopefully know the rules/laws and they are different in different countries.

 Cheerio John


 On 3 August 2014 21:35, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:

 In the USA, it depends upon whether the property owner has given
 permission for public use.  If a private road through an apartment complex
 is signed as residents and guests only, for example, an outsider driving
 through can be charged with trespassing.


 On August 3, 2014 6:50:55 AM CDT, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl
 wrote:
  It depends whether a right of way exists. Things are rather
  complicated in the UK. Private means private, so no entry by default.
  If you are visiting an address on a private road, you have presumably
  been invited, explicitly or implicitly. An unofficial sign residents
  only might not have any force in law. A road in private ownership,
  with a public right of way, can be used though if it is a byway open
  to all traffic. Landowners often object to rights of way across their
  land and might try to discourage their use with misleading signs.
 
 
  On 3 August 2014 12:43:50 CEST, Matthijs Melissen
  i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:
  On 3 August 2014 11:18, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
   Residential roads in the UK often seem to have 'private road'
  signs,
  such
   as:
  
   - 'Private road'
   - 'Private road no parking'
   - 'Private road no parking no turning'
   - 'Residents only no unauthorised parking or turning'
  
   How do people tag these roads? For which of these would you use
   access=private?
  
   I would tag them all with access=destination, unless there are
  additional
   signs that forbid entering.
   A private road is privately owned and maintained, but you
  normally
  may use
   it to reach the properties facing it as visitor or for delivery
  purposes.
  
  Most private roads are cul-de-sacs, but in the hypothetical situation
  where a private road connects two non-private roads, would there be a
  legal reason you couldn't use the private road as shortcut?
  
  -- Matthijs
  
  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 
  
 
  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

 --
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot
 drive out hate; only love can do that.
 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of private roads

2014-08-03 Per discussione Kevin Broderick

It varies by jurisdiction within the U.S., too; Vermont has an Ancient
Roads doctrine that has kept many right-of-ways legally open despite towns
no longer maintaining them. It gets a bit more complicated in that some of
them are posted contrary to their legal status, and the only way to
definitively answer the question at this point in time is to dig through
local records dating back to the founding of the town in question. Vermont
has changed the law recently to require all towns document all their
right-of-ways on the standard town highway maps within a certain number of
years, which I think is coming up soon. I believe that New Hampshire and
Maine also have historic right-of-ways that are no longer town-maintained
but are still legally open to public travel.

To bring this back on topic (at least somewhat), I've been tagging many of
the Vermont ancient roads as tracks (which they are) and explicitly setting
motor_vehicle=yes, foot=yes, etc to indicate public access. Whether or not
to route on such ways is a whole other topic, I suspect.


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 9:47 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:

 In the UK there are rights of way which date back in time to the days of
 pack horses and long distance footpaths.  I don't think you have the
 equivalent in North America.  So in the UK a right of way may still follow
 a privately maintained road.

 It's probably better to leave the tagging of this to local mappers who
 hopefully know the rules/laws and they are different in different countries.

 Cheerio John


 On 3 August 2014 21:35, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:

 In the USA, it depends upon whether the property owner has given
 permission for public use.  If a private road through an apartment complex
 is signed as residents and guests only, for example, an outsider driving
 through can be charged with trespassing.


 On August 3, 2014 6:50:55 AM CDT, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl
 wrote:
  It depends whether a right of way exists. Things are rather
  complicated in the UK. Private means private, so no entry by default.
  If you are visiting an address on a private road, you have presumably
  been invited, explicitly or implicitly. An unofficial sign residents
  only might not have any force in law. A road in private ownership,
  with a public right of way, can be used though if it is a byway open
  to all traffic. Landowners often object to rights of way across their
  land and might try to discourage their use with misleading signs.
 
 
  On 3 August 2014 12:43:50 CEST, Matthijs Melissen
  i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:
  On 3 August 2014 11:18, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
   Residential roads in the UK often seem to have 'private road'
  signs,
  such
   as:
  
   - 'Private road'
   - 'Private road no parking'
   - 'Private road no parking no turning'
   - 'Residents only no unauthorised parking or turning'
  
   How do people tag these roads? For which of these would you use
   access=private?
  
   I would tag them all with access=destination, unless there are
  additional
   signs that forbid entering.
   A private road is privately owned and maintained, but you
  normally
  may use
   it to reach the properties facing it as visitor or for delivery
  purposes.
  
  Most private roads are cul-de-sacs, but in the hypothetical situation
  where a private road connects two non-private roads, would there be a
  legal reason you couldn't use the private road as shortcut?
  
  -- Matthijs
  
  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 
  
 
  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

 --
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot
 drive out hate; only love can do that.
 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

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



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




-- 
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk-nl] OSM verjaardagsfeestje

2014-08-03 Per discussione Henk Hoff

Hoi allen,

Zoals jullie waarschijnlijk weten bestaat OSM de komende week 10 jaar.

Ik wil voorstellen om komende zaterdag of zondag een locatie te prikken om
bij elkaar te komen om een glas te heffen op het 10-jarig bestaan van OSM.
Tijd om leuke anecdotes op te halen en misschien een blik te werpen op de
toekomst.
Ik zat zelf te denken aan Amersfoort, aangezien dat (voorheen) het
middelpunt van NL is. Moet nog wel even een locatie zien te vinden. Als
plan B denk ik aan Dudok in Hilversum (lekker vlak bij station).

Om snel even te kijken welke dag geschikter is, hier even een link naar een
Doodle met de vraag of je zaterdag of zondag kunt.
http://doodle.com/qefi5t267xtiq3ns

In de loop van dinsdag wil ik kijken welke dag de meeste stemmen heeft. Bij
gelijk aantal wil ik voor de zaterdag gaan.

Laat even weten welke dag je kunt!

Gr,
Henk
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl

[Talk-br] aplicativo OsMoDroid e plugin no osmand

2014-08-03 Per discussione Gerald Weber

Oi Turma

baixei a versão mais recente do osmand e vi que tem um plugin novo chamado
OsMo service. Procurando mais informações cheguei no aplicativo para
android chamado OsMoDroid http://osmo.mobi/app/.

Achei documentação bem escassa então fiquei curioso para saber se alguém
aqui da lista já testou o sistema.

abraço

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

Re: [Talk-br] housenumber - numeração de porta

2014-08-03 Per discussione Márcio Vinícius Pinheiro

Olá,
hoje me deparei com o trabalho de numeração que o Paulo Carvalho vem
fazendo na Barra e achei estranho. Então, vim à lista ver se isso já havia
sido discutido aqui.

Achei esquisita essa linha com diversos endereços espalhados por ela (na
verdade achei estranho porque nunca vi em nenhum outro lugar, e por que é
estranho mesmo uma linha solta com números)

Eu li a respeito em
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Using_interpolation e não sei
se entendi bem, mas me parece algo para quando não há pontos ou contornos
com os endereços corretos. Mas em diversos trechos há o contorno dos
edifícios (muitos mapeados pelo próprio Paulo Carvalho). O método é esse,
mesmo? E o resultado esperado é esse mesmo? (ou se trata de algo
temporário?)

E de qualquer forma, vai uma dica (que não é exatamente nova): no Rio de
Janeiro temos um site público com informação pública (ou seja, sem receios
referentes a copyright) de onde se pode tirar as dúvidas sobre os endereços:
http://pgeo2.rio.rj.gov.br/ArcGIS2/rest/services/Basico/mapa_basico_utm/MapServer?f=jsapi
ou
http://portalgeo.rio.rj.gov.br/mapa_digital_rio/?config=config/ipp/cadlog.xml.
A consulta a esses mapas da Prefeitura dispensaria esse esquema da
interpolação nos edifícios já mapeados.

Junto a tudo isso, gostaria de perguntar: Ao me deparar com um mapeamento
desses, posso colocar os endereços corretos/reais nos edifícios e apagar
essa linha com números estimados nas regiões próximas a eles?

- - - ·
Atenciosamente,

Márcio Vinícius Pinheiro
http://about.me/Doideira
 http://pt.gravatar.com/marciovinicius


Em 26 de julho de 2014 13:02, thunder...@gpsinfo.com.br escreveu:

   Esse é o no meu entender o correto e sem a necessidade de configuração
 do maxspeed para as vias porque a própria classificação delas já faz  a
 diferenciação da velocidade máxima quando não configurada.

  *From:* Paulo Carvalho paulo.r.m.carva...@gmail.com
  *Sent:* Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:38 PM
 *To:* OpenStreetMap no Brasil talk-br@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-br] housenumber - numeração de porta

  Já consertei isso na Américas e na Ayrton Senna já tem tempo.  As pistas
 centrais integram um território mais vasto == alta classe.  As pistas
 laterais são para acessar o arruamento local.  Por isso classifiquei as
 laterais duas classes abaixo (no caso trunk para as centrais e secondary
 para as laterais).



 ___
 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] housenumber - numeração de porta

2014-08-03 Per discussione Márcio Vinícius Pinheiro

Não estou criticando o trabalho feito, que acho inclusive muito louvável. A
única crítica que fiz, foi o fato de achar estranho, em especial
visualmente (mas isso é opinião pessoal, não é ciência, nem argumento).

Também acho que alguma numeração é melhor que nenhuma. O meu questionamento
se deu pelo fato de já haver os edifícios mapeados e, portanto, ter onde
colocar o endereço real (se se pode dar ao trabalho de colocar endereço em
um ponto aleatório, acho que não é um trabalho muito maior colocar o
endereço no objeto real).

E a minha questão prática, ainda não respondida, se dá por receio de
estragar um trabalho maior que já realizado. É problema numerar o edifício
(na verdade, colocar o endereço completo) e, por assim dizer, cortar a tal
linha com a numeração aproximada?

Não vem muito ao caso se eu pretendo ou não numerar uma área com informação
aproximada e ou sem informação nenhuma (também concordo que devemos nos
concentrar em áreas ainda não cobertas por informação nenhuma). Por isso,
fiz questão de frisar que seria no caso de me deparar com um mapeamento
desses. Para mim, um mapeador esporádico (infelizmente, não tenho tido
tanto tempo para fazer grandes contribuições), faz diferença eu já estar
ali com a mão na massa em uma área específica fazendo o mapeamento de outra
coisa qualquer.

Não acho que aproveitar uma oportunidade de aprimorar algo já feito seja
total perda de tempo (mesmo havendo muitas coisas que ainda nem foram
feitas para aprimorar).
Especialmente se não posso me comprometer com me dedicar um esquema mais
abrangente (eu perderia mais tempo e o aproveitamento seria bem menor).

P.S.: Minha sugestão relativa aos mapas do IPP não se refere a importar,
mas consultar os mapas. Já disse isso em outras instâncias e repito, sou
contra importação direta de dados do IPP, por que tem muita coisa mal
(geo)localizada no banco de dados do IPP (não se trata apenas de dados
imprecisos, mas muitas vezes errados). Também, importar os edifícios (cujos
números de porta, pelo menos, estão corretos, do ponto de vista oficial)
talvez fosse um trabalho difícil, já que as etiquetas do mapa do IPP não
são lá tão compatíveis com as do OSM (mas essa avaliação eu deixaria para
quem tem experiência em importação).

- - - ·
Atenciosamente,

Márcio Vinícius Pinheiro
http://about.me/Doideira
 http://pt.gravatar.com/marciovinicius


Em 3 de agosto de 2014 20:30, Paulo Carvalho paulo.r.m.carva...@gmail.com
escreveu:

 Gerson, sugiro que você reporte os problemas observados aos
 desenvolvedores do OSMAND, pois definitivamente isso não é culpa das
 interpolações.


 Em 3 de agosto de 2014 20:17, Gerson Barcelos gbst...@gmail.com
 escreveu:

 Concordo com VC Paulo,pois a interpolação gera todos os números,inclusive
 nos lotes vagos.
 Em 03/08/2014 20:08, Paulo Carvalho paulo.r.m.carva...@gmail.com
 escreveu:

 Na plataforma Garmin e no Nominatim funcionam bem.  A interpolação é um
 método rápido e eficaz para cobrir uma grande extensão de endereços.  Só
 partiria para numerar ponto-a-ponto em ruas com numeração caótica ou quando
 tivermos todas as ruas cobertas.  Numeração interpolada é muito melhor do
 que nenhuma...  IMHO.

 Para quem torce o nariz para interpolação saiba que se usa um processo
 chamado krigagem (um tipo de interpolação) para fazer mapas para encontrar
 de petróleo, ouro, cobre, diamante, urânio, etc.

 Interpolação não é uma coisa ruim.


 Em 3 de agosto de 2014 19:53, Gerson Barcelos gbst...@gmail.com
 escreveu:

 Tenho feito feito este trabalho aqui em BH também,porém estou tentando
 entender o motivo de algumas interpolações não surtirem efeito no
 OSMAND+,em alguns casos parece que o problema é pelo fato da linha
 interpoladora ter sido criada na ordem decrescente ( ex: rua Josué de
 Castro no RJ),nos demais não entendi o motivo.
 Em 03/08/2014 19:32, Paulo Carvalho paulo.r.m.carva...@gmail.com
 escreveu:

 Se tu tens disposição para numerar, acho que seria melhor investir o
 esforço em locais ainda não numerados.  O que temos de ruas não numeradas
 nem preciso dizer.  A numeração por interpolação atende perfeitamente bem.


 Em 3 de agosto de 2014 19:17, Márcio Vinícius Pinheiro 
 marcioviniciu...@gmail.com escreveu:

 Olá,
 hoje me deparei com o trabalho de numeração que o Paulo Carvalho vem
 fazendo na Barra e achei estranho. Então, vim à lista ver se isso já 
 havia
 sido discutido aqui.

 Achei esquisita essa linha com diversos endereços espalhados por ela
 (na verdade achei estranho porque nunca vi em nenhum outro lugar, e por 
 que
 é estranho mesmo uma linha solta com números)

 Eu li a respeito em
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Using_interpolation e
 não sei se entendi bem, mas me parece algo para quando não há pontos ou
 contornos com os endereços corretos. Mas em diversos trechos há o 
 contorno
 dos edifícios (muitos mapeados pelo próprio Paulo Carvalho). O método é
 esse, mesmo? E o resultado esperado é esse mesmo? (ou se trata de algo
 temporário?)

 E de

Re: [Talk-de] Eigenen kartenausschnitt auf server.

2014-08-03 Per discussione Michael Weidemann

Hallo zusammen,

am einfachsten ist das mit der UMAP zu machen.
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/de/

Gruß
Michael
Am 02.08.2014 09:49, schrieb Frank J.:
 Am 01.08.2014 um 23:09 schrieb Michael Rohweder:
 ..
 Ich möchte auf basis der aktuellsten OSM karten, die ich auch selber mit
 aktualisieren werde,
 in einem Stadtplan eigene Gebiete eintragen.
 Diese sollten am besten nur für mich und ausgewählte zu sehen sein.
 Des weiteren möchte ich auch nur ein Gebiet hervorheben können und ggf
 Druckansichten daraus generieren.
 Einen Tile server habe ich testweise schon erstellt, doch müsste ich da
 noch den richtigen Kartenausschnitt eintragen oder halt meine Gebiete
 über die normale Karte drüber legen können.

 Wenn möglich das ganze dann auch noch einfach zu bearbeiten.

 Also Kartenbearbeitung über openstreetmap.de per json und Bearbeitung
 meiner Gebiete per ??? eigenem ?? Server der als Hintergrund die OSM
 karte hat??
 ..
 Michael

 Hallo Michael,
 willkommen in der Welt des GIS ...

   ...  und ausgewählte

 äääh, des Web-GIS.

 Schau dir mal die folgenden Programme an:

 QGIS - Als Desktop-Programm zum Erfassen
 PostgreSQL/PostGIS-Datenbank zum Speichern deiner Geometrien


  Einen Tile server habe ich testweise schon erstellt,

 OSM (Kacheln) können als Hintergrund-Karte dargestellt werden.
 Deine Daten und OSM wären getrennte Layer. Somit bräuchtest du für OSM
 keinen eigenen Kachelserver aufsetzen. Das Zusammenfügen der Layer
 erfolgt im Client. Du könntest also die Kacheln vom OSM-Server einbinden.


  in einem Stadtplan eigene Gebiete eintragen.

 Das ist somit falsch ausgedrückt. Das bleibt getrennt.


 Wenn auch andere darauf zugreifen sollen, musst du deine Daten als
 Service publizieren. Als Alternative zu Kacheln bietet sich WMS an.
 WMS = Web Map Service
 Programme für WMS: Mapserver, Geoserver, QGIS-Server
 Als Client fürs Web: Openlayers.

 Faustregel:

 - Viele Nutzer und einheitliches Kartenbild
 - Kacheln, Tileserver (wie OSM, Google-Maps)

 - Wenige Nutzer, beliebige Kombination von Layern abrufbar
 - WMS

 Kacheln werden vorproduziert.
 WMS rendert jeden Aufruf einzeln.

 Beispiel: http://map.krz.de/cms/cms2mapu.php?id=670

 OSM oder Luftbild = Hintergrundkarte
 Wohnbaulücken = eigene Daten darüber

 In diesem Fall sind die OSM-Daten allerdings aber auch ein eigener
 WMS, keine Kacheln.
 Grund: Der Client Mapbender kann nur WMS, keine Kacheln.

 Frank

 ___
 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-it] Relation non chiusa

2014-08-03 Per discussione Alberto Nogaro

Non so darti una risposta generale alla domanda (la vorrei sapere anch'io).
Nel caso specifico, se sulla pagina web della relazione clicchi su
Visualizza cronologia vedi la storia della relazione. Qui si nota che due
way sono listate fino alla versione #2 con una linea a metà altezza che
significa che sono state cancellate. Aprendo la pagina relativa, vedi che
sono state cancellate entrambe nel gruppo di modifiche
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14999530, il commento non aiuta.

Per ripristinarle, se usi josm puoi usare il plugin undelete
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Undelete) per renderle
nuovamente visibili, e poi se pensi che siano state cancellate per errore
riaggiungerle alla relazione.

Ciao,
Alberto

-Original Message-
From: Tommaso Grenga [mailto:tommasogre...@yahoo.it]
Sent: domenica 3 agosto 2014 00:10
To: Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-it] Relation non chiusa

Buona sera

Volevo chiedervi qual'è sia l'approccio migliore e il tool da utilizzare (
josm,
web o altro )  per poter analizzare un set di dati e capire in quale Gruppo
di
modifiche sono state effettuate dei cambiamenti.
Nel caso specifico ho notato che questa relation

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2054914

non risulta essere chiusa perchè mancante di una o più way però non so
destreggiarmi con i gruppi di modiche per capire quando queste elementi
sono stati eventualmente eliminati, sempre che la Relation non sia stata
creata così per qualche motivo che mi sfugge.

Vi ringrazio
Tommaso


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

Re: [Talk-it] Relation non chiusa

2014-08-03 Per discussione Alberto Nogaro

-Original Message-
From: Tommaso Grenga [mailto:tommasogre...@yahoo.it]
Sent: domenica 3 agosto 2014 00:10
To: Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-it] Relation non chiusa

Buona sera

Volevo chiedervi qual'è sia l'approccio migliore e il tool da utilizzare (
josm,
web o altro )  per poter analizzare un set di dati e capire in quale Gruppo
di
modifiche sono state effettuate dei cambiamenti.
Nel caso specifico ho notato che questa relation

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2054914

Sto provando anche con Overpass ed il comando adiff, mi sembra interessante
per casi più complessi. Ad esempio nel caso di questa relazione, si vede che
è stata creata il 27 feb 2008. Lanciando questa query [1] possiamo
visualizzare quali sono stati i cambiamenti di way dalla data successiva
alla creazione ad oggi (compare un warning perché per semplicità ho scelto
di non scaricare i nodi, scegli semplicemente show data). Scorrendo i  dati,
con il tag action ti viene mostrato che cosa è cambiato per ogni elemento
diverso rispetto alla situazione attuale, e ritrovi le due way cancellate,
in più vedi che la way 152146370 è stata modificata.

[1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4rc

Ciao,
Alberto

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

Re: [Talk-it] sentiero non percorribile con gpsies.com (gruppo del Carega - VR)

2014-08-03 Per discussione scratera

Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote
 
 Forse il problema era quel sac_scale=hiking_biking. Ho notato che anche
 su altri percorsi che ce l'avevano il routing non funziona con
 graphhopper.
 Adesso li ho corretti tutti, bisogna aspettare che aggiornino i dati ma
 non vedo ogni quanto lo fanno
 
 Ciao
 
 ___
 Talk-it mailing list

 Talk-it@

 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

...ricordo che non si mappa per il routing...se quel sentiero è
sac_scale=hiking_biking
...quello deve restare...se poi graphhopper non lo considera non è un
problema di mappatura...contatta gli amministratori di graphhopper e chiedi
che modifichino il loro routing...




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/sentiero-non-percorribile-con-gpsies-com-gruppo-del-Carega-VR-tp5813454p5813559.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] sentiero non percorribile con gpsies.com (gruppo del Carega - VR)

2014-08-03 Per discussione Alessandro


Il 03/08/2014 19:47, scratera ha scritto:


...ricordo che non si mappa per il routing...se quel sentiero è
sac_scale=hiking_biking
...quello deve restare...


Ma il valore hiking_biking non esiste!

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale

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

Re: [Talk-it] sentiero non percorribile con gpsies.com (gruppo del Carega - VR)

2014-08-03 Per discussione Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi

Il giorno dom, 03/08/2014 alle 10.47 -0700, scratera ha scritto:

 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote
  
  Forse il problema era quel sac_scale=hiking_biking. Ho notato che anche
  su altri percorsi che ce l'avevano il routing non funziona con
  graphhopper.
  Adesso li ho corretti tutti, bisogna aspettare che aggiornino i dati ma
  non vedo ogni quanto lo fanno
  
  Ciao
  
  ___
  Talk-it mailing list
 
  Talk-it@
 
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
 
 ...ricordo che non si mappa per il routing...se quel sentiero è
 sac_scale=hiking_biking
 ...quello deve restare...se poi graphhopper non lo considera non è un
 problema di mappatura...contatta gli amministratori di graphhopper e chiedi
 che modifichino il loro routing...


Normalmente avresti ragione ma sac_scale è basato sullo schema dello
Swiss Alpine Club e prevede valori ben definiti. Non credo abbia senso
utilizzarne di alternativi.
Pensavo di verificare che il problema fosse quello ed eventualmente poi
segnalarlo 
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Carta tecnica Comune di Lecce

2014-08-03 Per discussione Martin Koppenhoefer



 Il giorno 02/ago/2014, alle ore 13:42, Leonardo Frassetto 
 kinetocor...@gmail.com ha scritto:
 
 Mi puoi linkare la pagina che butto un'occhiata?  Grazie!


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:telecom
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:telecom%3Dcross-connect
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:telecom%3Dremote_terminal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:DSL-Hauptverteiler
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref:FR:42C
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_cabinet
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dutility_pole

E probabilmente tant'altro ;-)

Ciao,
Martin



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

Re: [Talk-es] Décimo Aniversario OpenStreetMap

2014-08-03 Per discussione Jaime Crespo

Y pronto será el 8º aniversario de la primera reunión de OpenStreetMap
España!


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spanish_1st_anniversary_mapping_party_(Zaragoza)


Propongo uno (o varios hangouts) para comentar el Estado del mapa en
diversas comunidades autónomas y países y preparar mapping parties
simultáneas a lo largo de la geografía:

http://tinyurl.com/osmes2

¿Cuándo podéis?
http://doodle.com/yngduzd9bn8tnfbw

Aprendidos errores de la primera versión, yo me enmarrono para organizar
una segunda.

Un saludo,


El 1 de agosto de 2014, 14:12, Óscar Zorrilla Alonso 
oscar_zorri...@hotmail.com escribió:

 Buenos días;

 Se acerca el décimo aniversario (9 de Agosto 2014) y me gustaría conocer
 si hay organizada alguna actividad para ello a lo largo de la geografía
 española o que podríamos organizar.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_10th_Anniversary_Birthday_party

 Un saludo
 Óscar (aka cronoser)



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




-- 
Jaime Crespo
http://dbahire.com
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

[Talk-es] Manual import of 1,701 Madrid pharmacies

2014-08-03 Per discussione Rafael Avila Coya

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi all:

The Madrid city council is releasing some of their data as open data.
One of the datasets is a list of 1,807 pharmacies, of which 1,701 are
geolocalized.

The purpose of this import [1] is to process that data to produce 34
osm files with 50 nodes each (the last one with 51), so the interested
mappers can import manually those pharmacies, following a detailed
workflow [2], one file at a time, and therefore adapting the import to
their own time availability.

After finishing a task, they will have to write it down in a wiki [3],
commenting any issues.

The import was submitted for comments in the talk-es mailing list. The
only issue mentioned was about dropping the addr:city and
addr:province tags, in which I also agree.

The workflow wiki is a translation into Spanish of the Workflow
section in the Import wiki, plus some screenshots.

In the progress section, I put an example to make more clear how to
proceed with the import.

All scripts are ready, and can easily be tweaked to adapt to any
tagging modifications that we may agree upon.

Key points to focus on are tagging and merging with existing OSM
pharmacies in the area.

You can download the resulting file in CSV and OSM formats here: [4]

I wait for your comments.

Cheers and have a nice week,

Rafael Ávila Coya (edvac).

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Madrid_Pharmacies_Import

[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Madrid_Pharmacies_Import_Workflow

[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Madrid_Pharmacies_Import_Progress

[4] http://ge.tt/1na4njp1

- -- 
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ravilacoya

- 

Por favor, non me envíe documentos con extensións .doc, .docx, .xls,
.xlsx, .ppt, .pptx, aínda podendoo facer,  non os abro.

Atendendo á lexislación vixente, empregue formatos estándares e abertos.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Tipos_de_ficheros
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=pTev
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

[Talk-cat] L'ajuntament d'Igualada fa servir OSM

2014-08-03 Per discussione yo paseopor

Ieps gent, com van les vacances?

No sé si ho sabíeu però l'ajuntament d'Igualada fa servir OSM.I com ho he
descobert? Perquè estava fent una miqueta de neteja a les notes.A Igualada
n'hi ha moltes.Crec que seria important fer una llista en  alguna banda de
tots els organismes, administracions i empreses que fan servir OSM a
Catalunya o PC, però ja posats, què us semblaria fer una neteja o un
upgrade dels mapes ,noves propietats etc. a Igualada.Ja que han triat OSM
es mereixen uns mapes actualitzats i complets.

Salut, mapes i estiu
yopaseopor

PD: Hi ha algun tipus de formulari, clar , català i assequible i accessible
per a la gent per a detectar errors a OSM i que es converteixin en aquestes
pràctiques notes? (A vegades trobo a faltar una mica més d'informació que
estic segur si l'haguessin preguntat en un formulari o app l'usuari hagués
respost sense dificultats)

PD: També podríem fer una recomanació pública per tal que els ajuntaments i
altres institucions fessin servir / col·laboressin amb OSM.
___
Talk-cat mailing list
Talk-cat@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cat

[Talk-cat] N-11 o_O #oletu #etfelicitofill

2014-08-03 Per discussione yo paseopor

Algú amb un criteri certament curiós ha etiquetat mitja N-II al Maresme com
a N-11 / N-12 . Algú sap com revertir una edició tan extensa però concreta?

Al·lucinant
Salut, mapes i festes majors
yopaseopor
___
Talk-cat mailing list
Talk-cat@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cat

Re: [Talk-cat] L'ajuntament d'Igualada fa servir OSM

2014-08-03 Per discussione Xavier Barnada


Hola,

M'en alegro que un ajuntament estigui fent servir les dades d'OSM, es 
una senyal de que estem fent una bona feina
Crec que pot ser bo fer una neteja de errors en alguna zona,es mes  jo 
hi afegiria els errors del sistema antic d'OpenStreetBugs.


Referent a un formulari per entrar errors/notes em sembla que des de la 
pagina principal d'OSM es pot fer http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/new


Salutacions
El 03/08/14 a les 11:41, yo paseopor ha escrit:

Ieps gent, com van les vacances?

No sé si ho sabíeu però l'ajuntament d'Igualada fa servir OSM.I com ho 
he descobert? Perquè estava fent una miqueta de neteja a les notes.A 
Igualada n'hi ha moltes.Crec que seria important fer una llista en 
 alguna banda de tots els organismes, administracions i empreses que 
fan servir OSM a Catalunya o PC, però ja posats, què us semblaria fer 
una neteja o un upgrade dels mapes ,noves propietats etc. a 
Igualada.Ja que han triat OSM es mereixen uns mapes actualitzats i 
complets.


Salut, mapes i estiu
yopaseopor

PD: Hi ha algun tipus de formulari, clar , català i assequible i 
accessible per a la gent per a detectar errors a OSM i que es 
converteixin en aquestes pràctiques notes? (A vegades trobo a faltar 
una mica més d'informació que estic segur si l'haguessin preguntat en 
un formulari o app l'usuari hagués respost sense dificultats)


PD: També podríem fer una recomanació pública per tal que els 
ajuntaments i altres institucions fessin servir / col·laboressin amb OSM.



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


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Tracer - pLPIS

2014-08-03 Per discussione Pavel Machek

Ahoj!

takže mám skoro dokončenou první verzi.

Gratulace :-).

Na imports@ mailing listu zadny velky rev nebyl, takze jsem zacal
importovat okoli Mukarova abych videl, jak to bude vypadat. Vypada to
o dost lip, nez veci co jsem delal rucne...

Co to umí: umí získat geometrii a kulturu prvku a následně vytvořit
cestu nebo multipolygon (pokud existují nějaké vnitřní prvky) a otagovat.
Co to neumí: napojení na sousední pole (pokud se dané pole dotýkají),
neřeší se konflikty, nekontroluje se existence daného objektu a zatím má
každý modul samostatnou klávesovou zkratku.

Než vám to dám k dispozici na otestování, potřebuji ještě chvíli na
vlastní testování, ale hlavně vyřešit tyto drobnosti

a) Mapování - to mám zatím takto:

*orná půda:* landuse: farmland
*chmelnice:* landuse: farmland; crop: hop
*vinice:* landuse: vineyard
*ovocný sad*: landuse: orchard
*travní porost:* landuse: meadow
*porost RRD:* landuse: forest

Tam jsem chtel davat natural=scrub, ale davam landuse=scrub. Opravim
skript... ale ona na importovanem uzemi zrejme ta situace jeste
nenastala...

*jiná kultura (školka):* landuse: plant_nursery

Tohle v tech cislech nevidim... aha, tak ne, je to tam, 91, taguju
jako landuse=forest.

Aha... ale dle obrazku:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dplant_nursery

Jsme si jisty ze tohle je nase skolka? Obrazek tomu uplne
neodpovida...

Bohužel si nejsem vůbec jistý, že vše dostanu přesně tak jak je to
napsáno výše. Už jsem narazil u zalesněno a zalesněná půda. Bohužel
nevím, kde by se daly otestovat speciální případy.

b) LPIS nebo pLPIS? Hlavně u tagu source a ref.
Jestli do toho skriptu koukám správně, source se nastavuje na lpis a do
ref se dá LPIS_ID. A dále se nastavuje lpis:kultura.

Stat tomu rika Veřejný registr půdy - LPIS, takze bych nechal lpis.

Ve wiki (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Czech_Republic/freemap#pLPIS_-_ve.C5.99ejn.C3.BD_registr_p.C5.AFdy
) navrhuji source=eagri:plpis (podle vzoru: cuzk:km, cuzk:ruian...)

Místo ref= bych nastavil ref:plpis (opět dle ruian)

No, ja bych nechal ref, ale asi je to dost jedno...

Mám taky nastavit pole *(p)lpis:kultura*? A co pole *kultura_od*
namapovaná třeba na *start_date* ?

V importovanejch uz lpis:kultura nenastavuju. Start date proc ne...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Tracer - pLPIS

2014-08-03 Per discussione Marián Kyral

Dne 3.8.2014 10:11, Pavel Machek napsal(a):
Ahoj!

takže mám skoro dokončenou první verzi.
Gratulace :-).

Na imports@ mailing listu zadny velky rev nebyl, takze jsem zacal
importovat okoli Mukarova abych videl, jak to bude vypadat. Vypada to
o dost lip, nez veci co jsem delal rucne...

Evidentně si všichni užívají dovolenou, nebo to přehlédli ;-)

Než vám to dám k dispozici na otestování, potřebuji ještě chvíli na
vlastní testování, ale hlavně vyřešit tyto drobnosti

a) Mapování - to mám zatím takto:

*orná půda:* landuse: farmland
*chmelnice:* landuse: farmland; crop: hop
*vinice:* landuse: vineyard
*ovocný sad*: landuse: orchard
*travní porost:* landuse: meadow
*porost RRD:* landuse: forest
Tam jsem chtel davat natural=scrub, ale davam landuse=scrub. Opravim
skript... ale ona na importovanem uzemi zrejme ta situace jeste
nenastala...

No právě proto je to potřeba sjednotit. Já taky zatím narazil jen na
ornou půdu, travní porost a zalesněnou půdu. Místa, kde jsou školky nebo
ovocné sady v LPIS nejsou.

*jiná kultura (školka):* landuse: plant_nursery
Tohle v tech cislech nevidim... aha, tak ne, je to tam, 91, taguju
jako landuse=forest.

Aha... ale dle obrazku:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dplant_nursery

Jsme si jisty ze tohle je nase skolka? Obrazek tomu uplne
neodpovida...

Tak ona lesní školka má několik oddělení - semínka, sazeničky a
stromečky (v případě lesní školky). No a na obrázku jsou ty sazeničky.
Navíc, když se koukneš na wiki, tak je tam dub.

* species:en

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:species:enaction=editredlink=1=White
oak

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:species:en%3DWhite_oakaction=editredlink=1

b) LPIS nebo pLPIS? Hlavně u tagu source a ref.
Jestli do toho skriptu koukám správně, source se nastavuje na lpis a do
ref se dá LPIS_ID. A dále se nastavuje lpis:kultura.
Stat tomu rika Veřejný registr půdy - LPIS, takze bych nechal lpis.

Veřejný - public - pLPIS ;-)

Ale jak tak koukám, pLPIS je jen ta webová prohlížečka a WMS/WFS služby
jsou zvlášť. Takže to předělám na eagri:lpis. A nebo že by mze:lpis?
Eagri je jen specializovaný portál mze.

Ve wiki (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Czech_Republic/freemap#pLPIS_-_ve.C5.99ejn.C3.BD_registr_p.C5.AFdy
) navrhuji source=eagri:plpis (podle vzoru: cuzk:km, cuzk:ruian...)

Místo ref= bych nastavil ref:plpis (opět dle ruian)
No, ja bych nechal ref, ale asi je to dost jedno...
No u importu z RUIANu se nám sešlo, že v některých případech může být na
jednom objektu ID Stavebního objektu a zároveň i ID Adresy. Tak se to
rozdělilo. To u LPIS asi nehrozí (i když kdo ví), ale z jednoduchého ref
není jasné, co za číslo to je. Jestli LPIS ID, nebo nějaké úplně jiné
ID. Myslím že ref:lpis je lepší.

Mám taky nastavit pole *(p)lpis:kultura*? A co pole *kultura_od*
namapovaná třeba na *start_date* ?
V importovanejch uz lpis:kultura nenastavuju. Start date proc ne...
Pavel

OK. Jen právě nevím, jestli je start_date ta správná volba. Více by se
mi líbilo: valid_from nebo něco takového. Ale na wiki jsem nic takového
nenašel.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] LPIS import

2014-08-03 Per discussione Marián Kyral

Dne 3.8.2014 09:52, Pavel Machek napsal(a):
 Ahoj!

 dnes mi z MZe odpověděli, že po konzultaci s CPR MZe (to nevím co je :-)
 ) pole kultura přidali. Takže super, nemusím to hledat někde po všech
 čertech.
 V souvislosti s tím - bylo by možné doplnit tu wiki stránku pro import (
 http://wiki.openstreetmaps.org/wiki/LPIS ) a popsat tam jaké kultury
 se
 Casem pridam, zatim je v priloze konverzni skript.

 importují a jak se mapují? Já jen, abych to měl stejně. Trochu blbé je,
 že já dostanu slovní vyjádření - tedy například: ms:kulturatravní
 porost/ms:kultura, kdežto skript jede podle ID.
 Je někde dokumentace popisující formát souboru a povolené hodnoty?
 Je, s kazdym stazenym blokem se stahne i .doc soubor. je v priloze.



Super díky. Škoda, že k WFS nic takového není.

Marián

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Site basé sur OSM qui dessine routes + ajoute POI + exporte en GPX ou KML?

2014-08-03 Per discussione Eric

Bonjour,

J'ai eu exactement le meme besoin que toi pour planifier mon trip vélo
et je n'ai pas trouvé de solution qui permette d’ajouter les POI. Le
site le plus cool que j'ai finalement adopté et qui ressemble à ton
besoin est OpenRunner (http://www.openrunner.com/). On peut choisir dans
les couches les MapQuest, Open* etc (+google). GoogleStreetView restant,
au risque de me faire jeter, un outil indispensable pour voir le genre
de routes où on met les roues L'export est possible en GPX et KML
La version payante permet de mettre les POI je crois. J'ai essayé de
rajouter mes points de chute dans le GPX et de renvoyer le fichier vers
OpenRunner mais le site les enlève. C'est ballot. J'ai donc un GPX à
part avec dedans juste mes POI.

Bon voyage !

Eric [Blueberry]

Le 03/08/2014 00:38, Shohreh a écrit :

Bonjour

Je n'ai pas trouvé de site web qui permette de faire ça pour préparer une
balade en vélo:

1. Dessiner sur le web un parcours sur une carte en suivant la route, et en
permettant de tirer dessus pour obliger à passer ailleurs
2. Ajouter des POI
3. Exporter le tout en KML ou GPX

Tests:
- GM Classic (https://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces?dg=feature) ne permet
pas d'ajouter des POI
- GM New (https://www.google.fr/maps/preview/) ne permet pas de dessiner des
routes
- la version gratuite de RideWithGPS n'exporte pas les POI
- Strava et PlotARoute ne sont pas mieux
- je n'ai trouvé aucune solution gratuite basée sur OSM qui permette 1) de
dessiner des routes en suivant la route, 2) permette d'ajouter des POI, et
3) export en KML ou GPX.

Quelqu'un connait-il une solution autre que de payer pour la version payante
de RideWithGPS?

Merci.

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Site-base-sur-OSM-qui-dessine-routes-ajoute-POI-exporte-en-GPX-ou-KML-tp5813488.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Site basé sur OSM qui dessine routes + ajoute POI + exporte en GPX ou KML?

2014-08-03 Per discussione PierreV

en effet open runner permet d'afficher des fond carto OSM... mais pour
tracer le trajet le long des routes il utilise la bdd de google... le
chemins non présents sur google mais affichés sur OSM doivent etre modifiés
sur umap.

C'est vrai que umap pourrait être un très bon outil pour préparer des
trajets a condition de pouvoir tracer le long des routes et de pouvoir
donner la distance des lignes tracées



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Site-base-sur-OSM-qui-dessine-routes-ajoute-POI-exporte-en-GPX-ou-KML-tp5813488p5813502.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Site basé sur OSM qui dessine routes + ajoute POI + exporte en GPX ou KML?

2014-08-03 Per discussione Yohan Boniface


On 08/03/2014 11:16 AM, PierreV wrote:

C'est vrai que umap pourrait être un très bon outil pour préparer des
trajets a condition de pouvoir tracer le long des routes et de pouvoir
donner la distance des lignes tracées


Pour la distance, c'est déjà le cas: dernier bouton dans les boutons Plus.
Pour le fait de tracer le long des routes, c'est dans la tout doux liste 
(en utilisant l'API d'un OSRM distant).
Pas dans les top priorités pour l'instant, mais je réfléchis à une 
solution intermédiaire plus facile à mettre en œuvre, et donc que je 
pourrais faire plus tôt, du type: tracer une ligne, puis clic-droit et 
quelque chose comme Modifier le tracé pour suivre les routes.
Reste que les instances OSRM monde que je connais sont seulement pour 
les voitures, donc les sentiers et pistes ne seront pas pris en compte.

Bref, en réflexion pour le moment. ;)

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] effacement volontaire de radar

cela ne correspond pas a un effacement de radar 
mais je laisse le soin aux spécialistes d'améliorer la description :

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1942446524


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Aires de covoiturage

2014-08-03 Per discussione Nicolas Dumoulin

Le dimanche 20 juillet 2014 01:10:26 GwenB a écrit :
 bonjour
 
 je souhaite indiquer des aires de co-voiturage mais malgré mes
 recherches sur cette liste et le wiki je ne trouve pas de tag
 correspondant.
 parking=carpool a été abandonné [1] et amenity=car_sharing ne
 correspond pas [2].

Bonjour,

J'ai ajouté quelques aires qui sont effectivement des parkings publiques 
signalés comme 
aires de covoiturage avec les tags :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128277712[1] 
amenity=parking (c'est un parking publique)
carpool=designated (pour le covoiturage)
park_ride=yes (des gens laissent leur voiture pour monter avec d'autres)

Si on trouve mieux, je suis preneur, en attendant …

-- 
Nicolas Dumoulin
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NicolasDumoulin


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128277712
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] effacement volontaire de radar

2014-08-03 Per discussione Éric Gillet

Il est mappé également ici http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3412111,
mais il manque le noeud to dans la relation enforcement


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM, didier2020 didier2...@free.fr wrote:

 cela ne correspond pas a un effacement de radar
 mais je laisse le soin aux spécialistes d'améliorer la description :

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1942446524


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

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

[OSM-talk-fr] N 906706

2014-08-03 Per discussione Teuxe


Bonjour,

J'avais remarqué il y a quelques temps une référence de route nationale 
N 906706 qui me semblait étrange :

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.43104/5.14320
Il s'agit en fait d'une voie d'accès reliant la D 200 à la N 67 
entre Rupt et Joinville (Champagne-Ardennes), mais elle n'est pas à 
proprement parler une rampe d'accès à une voie rapide (il est possible à 
des tracteurs de l'emprunter pour accéder à des champs au bout de la voie).


D'après la colle (contributeur OSM qui nous lit peut-être), cette 
référence provient de Route 500 mais j'ai cru comprendre que ce 
n'était pas une référence fiable. Je n'ai trouvé aucun autre endroit où 
cette référence est citée. Sur place (Google Street View) les panneaux 
n'indiquent que des directions : soit D 200, soit N 67 ; pas de 
borne kilométrique apparente sur les bas-côtés.


Alors que faire de cette référence ? Comment confirmer autrement cette 
désignation ?


Teuxe


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] N 906706

la reférence N 906706 n'est que sur les voies d'acces a la N67
http://cartelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartelie/voir.do?carte=markerpost2012service=CEREMA



Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 14:48 +0200, Teuxe a écrit : 
 Bonjour,
 
 J'avais remarqué il y a quelques temps une référence de route nationale 
 N 906706 qui me semblait étrange :
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.43104/5.14320
 Il s'agit en fait d'une voie d'accès reliant la D 200 à la N 67 
 entre Rupt et Joinville (Champagne-Ardennes), mais elle n'est pas à 
 proprement parler une rampe d'accès à une voie rapide (il est possible à 
 des tracteurs de l'emprunter pour accéder à des champs au bout de la voie).
 
 D'après la colle (contributeur OSM qui nous lit peut-être), cette 
 référence provient de Route 500 mais j'ai cru comprendre que ce 
 n'était pas une référence fiable. Je n'ai trouvé aucun autre endroit où 
 cette référence est citée. Sur place (Google Street View) les panneaux 
 n'indiquent que des directions : soit D 200, soit N 67 ; pas de 
 borne kilométrique apparente sur les bas-côtés.
 
 Alors que faire de cette référence ? Comment confirmer autrement cette 
 désignation ?
 
 Teuxe
 
 
 ___
 Talk-fr mailing list
 Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] N 906706

le lien complet c'est mieux ...
http://cartelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartelie/voir.do?carte=markerpost2012service=CEREMAcontext=rupy8562670052836562314


Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 15:33 +0200, didier2020 a écrit : 
 la reférence N 906706 n'est que sur les voies d'acces a la N67
 http://cartelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartelie/voir.do?carte=markerpost2012service=CEREMA
 
 
 
 Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 14:48 +0200, Teuxe a écrit : 
  Bonjour,
  
  J'avais remarqué il y a quelques temps une référence de route nationale 
  N 906706 qui me semblait étrange :
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.43104/5.14320
  Il s'agit en fait d'une voie d'accès reliant la D 200 à la N 67 
  entre Rupt et Joinville (Champagne-Ardennes), mais elle n'est pas à 
  proprement parler une rampe d'accès à une voie rapide (il est possible à 
  des tracteurs de l'emprunter pour accéder à des champs au bout de la voie).
  
  D'après la colle (contributeur OSM qui nous lit peut-être), cette 
  référence provient de Route 500 mais j'ai cru comprendre que ce 
  n'était pas une référence fiable. Je n'ai trouvé aucun autre endroit où 
  cette référence est citée. Sur place (Google Street View) les panneaux 
  n'indiquent que des directions : soit D 200, soit N 67 ; pas de 
  borne kilométrique apparente sur les bas-côtés.
  
  Alors que faire de cette référence ? Comment confirmer autrement cette 
  désignation ?
  
  Teuxe
  
  
  ___
  Talk-fr mailing list
  Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-fr mailing list
 Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] N 906706

2014-08-03 Per discussione Teuxe


Merci Didier,
Mais où trouves-tu la référence N 906706 ? Je n'arrive pas à utiliser 
cet outil web :-\


Teuxe

Le 03/08/2014 15:36, didier2020 a écrit :

le lien complet c'est mieux ...
http://cartelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartelie/voir.do?carte=markerpost2012service=CEREMAcontext=rupy8562670052836562314


Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 15:33 +0200, didier2020 a écrit :

la reférence N 906706 n'est que sur les voies d'acces a la N67
http://cartelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartelie/voir.do?carte=markerpost2012service=CEREMA



Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 14:48 +0200, Teuxe a écrit :

Bonjour,

J'avais remarqué il y a quelques temps une référence de route nationale
N 906706 qui me semblait étrange :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.43104/5.14320
Il s'agit en fait d'une voie d'accès reliant la D 200 à la N 67
entre Rupt et Joinville (Champagne-Ardennes), mais elle n'est pas à
proprement parler une rampe d'accès à une voie rapide (il est possible à
des tracteurs de l'emprunter pour accéder à des champs au bout de la voie).

D'après la colle (contributeur OSM qui nous lit peut-être), cette
référence provient de Route 500 mais j'ai cru comprendre que ce
n'était pas une référence fiable. Je n'ai trouvé aucun autre endroit où
cette référence est citée. Sur place (Google Street View) les panneaux
n'indiquent que des directions : soit D 200, soit N 67 ; pas de
borne kilométrique apparente sur les bas-côtés.

Alors que faire de cette référence ? Comment confirmer autrement cette
désignation ?

Teuxe


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



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



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



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] N 906706

2014-08-03 Per discussione Teuxe

*CARTELIE est une application développée par le ministère de l'écologie, 
du développement et de l'aménagement durables (MEDAD) pour faciliter la 
publication de cartes sur internet* à partir d'informations 
géographiques locales et de référentiels nationaux (principalement 
données IGN dont le ministère a acquis les droits de reproduction 
électronique). Les cartes résultantes offrent des fonctions classiques 
de navigation - déplacement, changement d'échelle, choix des 
informations affichées - et d'interrogation.
*La publication de cartes avec CARTELIE est réservée aux seuls agents 
des services du MEDAD. Il n'est donc pas possible pour des organismes 
extérieurs ou des particuliers d'utiliser ce service.*
Par contre, la consultation d'une carte est tout à fait possible sur 
Internet si le responsable de sa publication l'a autorisée.
Certaines cartes sont également publiées uniquement au sein de la sphère 
interministerielle (visibles par toute personne ayant accès au réseau 
ADER) ou réservées aux agents du MEDAD.
Pour consulter une carte particulière, il est impératif d'en connaître 
l'adresse exacte. Se rapprocher des services locaux du MEDAD pour avoir 
des informations sur un sujet ou une carte particulière.



Ça limite nos moyens de vérification...

Teuxe

Le 03/08/2014 15:42, Teuxe a écrit :

Merci Didier,
Mais où trouves-tu la référence N 906706 ? Je n'arrive pas à utiliser 
cet outil web :-\


Teuxe

Le 03/08/2014 15:36, didier2020 a écrit :

le lien complet c'est mieux ...
http://cartelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartelie/voir.do?carte=markerpost2012service=CEREMAcontext=rupy8562670052836562314 




Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 15:33 +0200, didier2020 a écrit :

la reférence N 906706 n'est que sur les voies d'acces a la N67
http://cartelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartelie/voir.do?carte=markerpost2012service=CEREMA 





Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 14:48 +0200, Teuxe a écrit :

Bonjour,

J'avais remarqué il y a quelques temps une référence de route 
nationale

N 906706 qui me semblait étrange :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.43104/5.14320
Il s'agit en fait d'une voie d'accès reliant la D 200 à la N 67
entre Rupt et Joinville (Champagne-Ardennes), mais elle n'est pas à
proprement parler une rampe d'accès à une voie rapide (il est 
possible à
des tracteurs de l'emprunter pour accéder à des champs au bout de 
la voie).


D'après la colle (contributeur OSM qui nous lit peut-être), cette
référence provient de Route 500 mais j'ai cru comprendre que ce
n'était pas une référence fiable. Je n'ai trouvé aucun autre 
endroit où

cette référence est citée. Sur place (Google Street View) les panneaux
n'indiquent que des directions : soit D 200, soit N 67 ; pas de
borne kilométrique apparente sur les bas-côtés.

Alors que faire de cette référence ? Comment confirmer autrement cette
désignation ?

Teuxe


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



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



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



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


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] N 906706

pas de recopiage rien, c'est juste pour vérifier une information :
N906706 n'existe pas. c'est une gestion du reférenciel de la N67 :
section courante vs echangeur/accès.

le lien originel étant
http://adelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/syntheseFiche.do?id=FR-120066022-MDLOT-284340

Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 15:44 +0200, Teuxe a écrit :
...
La publication de cartes avec CARTELIE est réservée aux seuls agents
des services du MEDAD. Il n'est donc pas possible pour des organismes
extérieurs ou des particuliers d'utiliser ce service.

Par contre, la consultation d'une carte est tout à fait possible sur
Internet si le responsable de sa publication l'a autorisée.
Certaines cartes sont également publiées uniquement au sein de la
sphère interministerielle (visibles par toute personne ayant accès au
réseau ADER) ou réservées aux agents du MEDAD.
Pour consulter une carte particulière, il est impératif d'en connaître
l'adresse exacte. Se rapprocher des services locaux du MEDAD pour
avoir des informations sur un sujet ou une carte particulière.

Ça limite nos moyens de vérification...

Teuxe

Le 03/08/2014 15:42, Teuxe a écrit :

Merci Didier,
Mais où trouves-tu la référence N 906706 ? Je n'arrive pas à
utiliser cet outil web :-\

Teuxe

Le 03/08/2014 15:36, didier2020 a écrit :
le lien complet c'est mieux ...
http://cartelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartelie/voir.do?carte=markerpost2012service=CEREMAcontext=rupy8562670052836562314

Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 15:33 +0200, didier2020 a écrit :
la reférence N 906706 n'est que sur les voies d'acces a la N67
http://cartelie.application.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartelie/voir.do?carte=markerpost2012service=CEREMA

Le dimanche 03 août 2014 à 14:48 +0200, Teuxe a écrit :
Bonjour,

J'avais remarqué il y a quelques temps une référence de route
nationale
N 906706 qui me semblait étrange :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.43104/5.14320
Il s'agit en fait d'une voie d'accès reliant la D 200 à la
N 67
entre Rupt et Joinville (Champagne-Ardennes), mais elle n'est
pas à
proprement parler une rampe d'accès à une voie rapide (il est
possible à
des tracteurs de l'emprunter pour accéder à des champs au bout
de la voie).

D'après la colle (contributeur OSM qui nous lit peut-être),
cette
référence provient de Route 500 mais j'ai cru comprendre que
ce
n'était pas une référence fiable. Je n'ai trouvé aucun autre
endroit où
cette référence est citée. Sur place (Google Street View) les
panneaux
n'indiquent que des directions : soit D 200, soit N 67 ;
pas de
borne kilométrique apparente sur les bas-côtés.

Alors que faire de cette référence ? Comment confirmer
autrement cette
désignation ?

Teuxe

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

[OSM-ja] OSC京都でのOSM認知率

2014-08-03 Per discussione Toshihisa Tanaka

としです．

昨日8月2日のOSC京都はお疲れ様でした．

OSC京都での OSM 展示では，どれくらい OSM の認知が進んでいるか気になった
ので，簡単にですがアンケートを取りました．
（いいださん，田口さん，アンケート協力ありがとうございました m(_ _)m）

●OpenStreetMap 認知率
知っている人：26人
知らなかった人：9人
認知率：26/(26+9)=74.28%

●OpenStreetMap アカウント取得率
アカウントを持っている人：12人
アカウントを持っていない人：21人
アカウント取得率：12/(12+21)=36.36%

このようなアンケートは関西では初めてと思います．

私見ですが，概ねこのような感じだろうと思っていました．
最近は，知らない人よりも知っている人のほうが多くなったと感じます．

この結果を見て，改めて感じたことは，OSM自身の紹介は，OSCではもうそろそろ
飽和（サチる）と思います．
しかしアカウント取得が低いので，今後のOSC等での展示では，OSM自身の紹介よ
り作図に繋げるような紹介にした方が良さそうです．

ここ最近は，OSC京都ではOSMセミナーを出来ていませんが，勉強会などでアカウ
ント取得が増えたら...と考えています．

ではこれにて．


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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

2014-08-03 Per discussione Brian Prangle

Just to remind folk, the West Mids volunteered as a pilot area for the
original NapTAN import. We asked that the nodes were NOT tagged as
highway=bus-stop as we wanted to survey them before they got rendered. We
still haven't got round them all! And given the accuracy we're glad we
asked for the silent import!  In the meantime there have been so many
changes , many of them major like the regrouping and renumbering of ALL the
bus stops in Birmingham City Centre when all bus routes moved out of the
centre in order to make way for the metro, that the original data is even
less accurate. There have been at least 3 new bus stations in the region
opened since then and I've lost track of the bus routes removed or changed!
In short it's  a MAJOR effort to keep this data maintained in OSM. Not that
it's not worth it -  just that with the current population of active
mappers I can't see us staying on top of this. Anything serious is going to
take a lot of outreach work to enthuse new mappers, and also some
co-ordination with the transport folk - we gave up reporting discrepancies
very quickly because of the ensuing deafening silence

Regards

Brian


On 1 August 2014 19:30, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Just a few of my thoughts:

 1. Bus routes
  Stuart wrote:
  I will need to think what to do when a bus turns off halfway along a
 road that is mapped as one line
 

 Here in Coventry we have all the bus routes mapped in OSM (splitting the
 road as necessary). Check out the render on the Transport layer:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.4056/-1.5172layers=T


 2. Novam Viewer
 I'm pleased to see that people are still using the Novam viewer. Was worth
 my effort to get it migrated to the new website when we changed our
 mappa-mercia.org site. :-P The Novam site was set up by OSM user Xoff who
 is no longer living in the UK (and is no longer actively updating Novam).
 We would need someone to be willing to take over this if we were to enhance
 it.
 http://www.mappa-mercia.org/novam


 3. A comparison tool
  Perhaps we need a viewer that does comparisons both ways, so both sides
 can accept changes from the other side if they look better.
 
 Yes, this is a great test case for building such a tool. Something that
 could then be used for other imported data would be great. I'm happy to
 help with testing but have almost no programming experience so cannot help
 to develop it. Stuart, is this something that you would look to develop
 yourself?

  Marc wrote:
  In Belgium Jo Simoens has done similar things for the public transport
  import of De Lijn (Flanders) and Tec (Wallonia).
 

 This could be a good start. Do we have a link to the code?

 Regards,
 R

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Tagging of private roads

2014-08-03 Per discussione Colin Smale

 

As this discussion is about UK specifics, I thought it would be a good
plan to reach out to the talk-GB list. 

--colin 

On 2014-08-03 16:44, Colin Smale wrote: 

 On 2014-08-03 16:24, Craig Wallace wrote:
 On 2014-08-03 11:00, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Residential roads in the UK 
 often seem to have 'private road' signs, such as: - 'Private road' - 'Private 
 road no parking' - 'Private road no parking no turning' - 'Residents only no 
 unauthorised parking or turning' How do people tag these roads? For which of 
 these would you use access=private? Thanks in advance. Depends on just what 
 sort of road it is, and how it is signed. ie are they actually official signs 
 or something more homemade. Often a Private road sign is specifically 
 referring to motor vehicles, so it should just be tagged as 
 motor_vehicle=private (or motor_vehicle=no).

How about horses? How do you conclude that these signs are only for
motor vehicles?

 In Scotland, you would generally have a right to walk or cycle there etc, so 
 should also be tagged as foot=yes, bicycle=yes.

There are exceptions to this, which include Land on which there is a
house, caravan, tent or other place affording a person privacy or
shelter, and sufficient adjacent land to enable those living there to
have reasonable measures of privacy and to ensure that their enjoyment
of the house or place is not unreasonably disturbed. IANAL but I
suspect this might be applicable to residential roads in private
ownership.

 Not sure about the legality in England and Wales.

Land ownership in EW is absolute isn't it? Trumped only by a public
right-of-way.

 Craig ___ talk mailing list 
 t...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1] [1 
 [1]]

Links:
--
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1]

___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1]

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Tagging of private roads


On 03/08/14 15:49, Colin Smale wrote:

As this discussion is about UK specifics, I thought it would be a good
plan to reach out to the talk-GB list.


The only things I would say you can commonly assume from such signs are 
that the road is unadopted, and that the residents/owners would like you 
to think that they can control access to it.


In reality such roads may, even though they are not adopted and are 
hence not maintained at public expense, be highways with an associated 
right of way for the public.


It's quite likely that the owners have the right to control parking but 
less likely that they have the right to control access and passing along 
the road.


See, for example:

http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/atoz/a_to_z/service.asp?u_id=1065tab=3siteid=5409pageid=29027e=e

Tom


--colin

On 2014-08-03 16:44, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2014-08-03 16:24, Craig Wallace wrote:

On 2014-08-03 11:00, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

Residential roads in the UK often seem to have 'private road' signs,
such as: - 'Private road' - 'Private road no parking' - 'Private
road no parking no turning' - 'Residents only no unauthorised
parking or turning' How do people tag these roads? For which of
these would you use access=private? Thanks in advance.

Depends on just what sort of road it is, and how it is signed. ie are
they actually official signs or something more homemade. Often a
Private road sign is specifically referring to motor vehicles, so
it should just be tagged as motor_vehicle=private (or motor_vehicle=no).

How about horses? How do you conclude that these signs are only for motor 
vehicles?

In Scotland, you would generally have a right to walk or cycle there
etc, so should also be tagged as foot=yes, bicycle=yes.

There are exceptions to this, which include Land on which there is a house, 
caravan, tent or other place affording a person privacy or shelter, and sufficient 
adjacent land to enable those living there to have reasonable measures of privacy and to 
ensure that their enjoyment of the house or place is not unreasonably disturbed. 
IANAL but I suspect this might be applicable to residential roads in private ownership.

Not sure about the legality in England and Wales.

Land ownership in EW is absolute isn't it? Trumped only by a public 
right-of-way.

Craig ___ talk mailing
list t...@openstreetmap.org mailto:t...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk]

Links:
--
[1]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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



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




--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

2014-08-03 Per discussione Ed Loach

I downloaded latest naptan data the other day and used qgis to filter
stops.csv to just those in Tendring, or on roads that run along the border,
to give me something more manageable to look at. 995 stops before any other
filtering. I've not finished verifying imported stops after an initial
burst of enthusiasm, but now see a workable plan for maintaining the data
as:

A) Finish verifying those already in OSM. Assume these are revision 1.
B) Filter the 995 stops in the extract mentioned above to just those that
aren't revision 1. Or have a created date newer than the majority of the
rev 1 stops. Verify them.
C) As new updates are released filter by created date and modified date to
find new and changed entries. These are likely to be few. Verify them.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of private roads