Re: [OSRM-talk] OSRM 5.0.0 Released

[Stephen Woodbridge]

On 4/23/2016 6:46 PM, Daniel Patterson wrote:

Hi Steve,

  You're probably remembering this
ticket: https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/483


Yes, that is the one, thanks! OK, I saw a bunch of comments about 
restrictions and turn penalties so I thought I would check on it as I 
would like to see it implemented.



  We still haven't added support for this kind of restriction.

  Support for the `via node` restrictions exists because it maps fairly
directly to OSRM's internal data model.  All we have to do is remove the
corresponding edge-based-edge identified by the edge-node-edge values.

  For edge-edge-edge restrictions, we'll need a more complex graph to
represent a restricted intersection.  Instead of just removing the
restricted edge-based-edge, we'll need to replace the existing simple
edges with a set of synthetic edges that represent the permitted
routes.  This is quite a bit more involved than the current approach,
and is the reason that nobody has tackled it yet.


I confess some ignorance in how these gets implemented, but in the 
simple model in my mind when doing Dijkstra, I would think that that 
when you are at a node in the graph and you are deciding which of the 
next nodes to evaluate, that if you had a restriction(s) for arriving at 
following node, then the restriction could be defined based on the path 
of arrival to that node.


So for example we can represent edge based restriction of say: AB,BC,CD 
as a path sequentially through nodes A, B, C, arriving at D.


So if we are at node C and the next node in the graph to be evaluated is 
D and D's parent is C, and C's parent is B, and B's parent is A, then 
you can not go to D and you evaluate the other following nodes if any 
that follow on from C.


But if you were at C and your parentage was say C, B, Z, then you could 
proceed to D, unless you also had a restriction for Z->B->C->D.


But I suspect that it is not this simple because of the contracted graph 
and you probably have to transform the intersection into some analogous 
representation that removes restricted paths through the intersection or 
something like that.


Regardless, thank you for your response, the issue number and 
explanation. It would be a nice feature to support if anyone is up for 
the challenge.


Thanks,
  -Steve


daniel

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Stephen Woodbridge
> wrote:

Patrick, et al,

Congrats! Nice job on a major effort to pull this release together.

I have one question, regarding turn restrictions. Last I knew, OSRM
only supported edge-node-edge restrictions and not a more complex
edge-edge-edge-... style restriction.

There used to be issue for this, but I can't find it now. Has this
been implemented and I just missed it? I believe there are cases for
this in the OSM data and I can provide some simple use cases if needed.

Thanks,
  -Steve


On 4/23/2016 7:12 AM, Patrick Niklaus wrote:

Hey,

I'm proud to announce the 5.0.0 OSRM release. This is by far one
of our biggest
releases in terms of lines of code changed, since... a while. It
was a
real team effort featuring contributions from:

@akaiser, Aleksei Potov, Bas Couwenberg, Wilhelm Berg, Dane
Springmeyer, Daniel J. Hofmann, Daniel Patterson, David Low,
Johan Uhle, Jeff Miccolis, Karen Shea, Kerrick Staley, Lauren
Budorick, Lev Dragunov, Mathias Gug,
Michael Krasnyk, Moritz Kobitzsch, Mortada Mehyar and yours truly.

This release features a completely revamped API (both HTTP API
and C++
library), a completely new guidance generation engine,
replacing the Ruby based cucumber tests suit with its Javascript
sibling cucumber-js and various other improvements and fixes.
See the detailed changelog at the end of this post.

Checkout the new documentation:

https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/wiki/New-Server-api
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/wiki/Library-API
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/wiki/node-osrm-api

On the development side, we removed the two branch system of
having a
`develop` and master `branch`.
`master` now is _unstable_ and `develop` was removed.  This model is
now implemented in both `osrm-backend` and `node-osrm`.
If you have a look at the structure of the source tree, you will
notice we also re-arranged it a lot to more match the module
structure.
Combined with consistent namespacing, this makes the code a lot
easier
to navigate now.

Changes with regard 5.0.0 RC2:
- API:
  - if `geometry=geojson` is passed the resulting geometry can be a
LineString or Point
depending on how many coordinates are present.
  - the 

[Talk-it] Import confini quartieri comune di Cesena

[Gianmario Mengozzi]

ciao a tutti

utilizzando gli opendata del sito http://dati.unionevallesavio.it/node/13
ho aggiornato i confini del Comune di Cesena e ora vorrei importare quelli
di tutti i quartieri.

qui i dettagli : https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jinx71/diary/38511

attendo osservazioni prima di procedere

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

Re: [OSRM-talk] OSRM 5.0.0 Released

[Stephen Woodbridge]

Patrick, et al,

Congrats! Nice job on a major effort to pull this release together.

I have one question, regarding turn restrictions. Last I knew, OSRM only 
supported edge-node-edge restrictions and not a more complex 
edge-edge-edge-... style restriction.


There used to be issue for this, but I can't find it now. Has this been 
implemented and I just missed it? I believe there are cases for this in 
the OSM data and I can provide some simple use cases if needed.


Thanks,
  -Steve

On 4/23/2016 7:12 AM, Patrick Niklaus wrote:

Hey,

I'm proud to announce the 5.0.0 OSRM release. This is by far one of our biggest
releases in terms of lines of code changed, since... a while. It was a
real team effort featuring contributions from:

@akaiser, Aleksei Potov, Bas Couwenberg, Wilhelm Berg, Dane
Springmeyer, Daniel J. Hofmann, Daniel Patterson, David Low,
Johan Uhle, Jeff Miccolis, Karen Shea, Kerrick Staley, Lauren
Budorick, Lev Dragunov, Mathias Gug,
Michael Krasnyk, Moritz Kobitzsch, Mortada Mehyar and yours truly.

This release features a completely revamped API (both HTTP API and C++
library), a completely new guidance generation engine,
replacing the Ruby based cucumber tests suit with its Javascript
sibling cucumber-js and various other improvements and fixes.
See the detailed changelog at the end of this post.

Checkout the new documentation:

https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/wiki/New-Server-api
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/wiki/Library-API
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/wiki/node-osrm-api

On the development side, we removed the two branch system of having a
`develop` and master `branch`.
`master` now is _unstable_ and `develop` was removed.  This model is
now implemented in both `osrm-backend` and `node-osrm`.
If you have a look at the structure of the source tree, you will
notice we also re-arranged it a lot to more match the module
structure.
Combined with consistent namespacing, this makes the code a lot easier
to navigate now.

Changes with regard 5.0.0 RC2:
- API:
  - if `geometry=geojson` is passed the resulting geometry can be a
LineString or Point
depending on how many coordinates are present.
  - the removal of the summary field was revered. for `steps=flase`
the field will always be an empty string.

Changes with regard to 4.9.1:
- API:
  - BREAKING: Complete rewrite of the HTTP and library API. See
detailed documentation in the wiki.
  - BREAKING: The default coordinate order is now `longitude,
latidue`. Exception: Polyline geometry
  which follow the original Google specification of `latitdue, longitude`.
  - BREAKING: Polyline geometries now use precision 5, instead of previously 6
  - BREAKING: Removed GPX support
  - New service `tile` which serves debug vector tiles of the road network
  - Completely new engine for guidance generation:
 - Support for highway ramps
 - Support for different intersection types (end of street, forks, merges)
 - Instruction post-processing to merge unimportant instructions
 - Improved handling of roundabouts

- Tools:
  - BREAKING: Renamed osrm-prepare to osrm-contract
  - BREAKING: Removes profiles from osrm-contract, only needed in osrm-extract.
  - Abort processing in osrm-extract if there are no snappable edges remaining.
  - Added .properties file to osrm-extract ouput.
  - Enables the use of multiple segment-speed-files on the
osrm-contract command line

- Profile changes:
  - Remove movable bridge mode
  - Add `maxspeed=none` tag to car profile.
  - A `side_road` tag support for the OSRM car profile.

- Fixes:
  - Issue #2150: Prevents routing over delivery ways and nodes
  - Issue #1972: Provide uninstall target
  - Issue #2072: Disable alternatives by default and if core factor < 1.0
  - Issue #1999: Fix unpacking for self-loop nodes not in core.

- Infrastructure:
  - Cucumber test suit is now based on cucumber-js, removes Ruby as dependency
  - Updated to mapbox/variant v1.1
  - Updated to libosmium v2.6.1
  - Remove GeoJSON based debugging output, replaced by debug tiles

Obtain the new release of node-osrm via:

npm install osrm

Or obtain our C++ core engine here:

https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/archive/v5.0.0.tar.gz

Cheers,
Patrick

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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

[Talk-se] Motorcykelparkeringar i Göteborg

[Erik Lundin]

Hej!

Tänkte bara tala om att Göteborg numera är en bättre plats för alla 
motorcyklister! Jag har precis lagt in den sista av de 
motorcykelparkeringar som finns publicerade av Göteborgs kommun på [1]. 
Obs: jag har alltså inte bara kopierat därifrån, utan tagit mig runt 
alla 98 (nja, 97, för en var redan inlagd) för fotografering så att det 
sen gick att pricka in dem m.h.a. flygfoto (Bing). Rätt kul med lite 
stadsorientering, men man får tåla lite konstiga blickar när man 
(motor)cyklar runt och fotograferar parkeringsplatser - det brukar man 
få göra när man är ute i OSM-ärende... :)


Förutom de som finns inlagda i Göteborgs kommuns databas finns det 
ytterligare parkeringar runt om i stan. En del är med i OSM men det 
finns säkert fler, så ni som vistas i Göteborg: fortsätt att hålla 
ögonen öppna efter motorcykelparkeringar. Ni andra: kolla gärna om er 
respektive kommun har en liknande karta över parkeringar.


Mvh Erik

Ps. Webbadresser på goteborg.se är helt vansinniga, eller vad sägs om 
länken nedan (som förhoppningsvis fortfarande går till sidan med 
motorcykelparkeringar)?


[1] 
http://goteborg.se/wps/portal/invanare/trafik-o-gator/parkera/parkeringskarta/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8ziAwy9Ai2cDB0N_N0t3Qw8Q7wD3Py8ffw9DA30wwkpiAJKG-AAjgb6BbmhigAxu41T/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/#gbgmap/121


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

[Talk-br] ID " Dicas/ Sugestões"

[A. Carlos]

Ola...
Procurando e não acho no ID uma ferramenta para  medição de uma linha 
selecionada..

Alguém sabe se lá existe este recurso? (Vi que este recurso só existe num 
plugin no JOSM..)

Se NAO alguém que participa da lista dele poderia sugerir lá este recurso?

  
 
 
 
 
 
 

___

Anor C. A. de Souza 
   
  ___
Talk-br mailing list
Talk-br@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br

Re: [Talk-de] Mechanischer Edit an Radrouten in Niedersachsen

[Michael Reichert]

Hallo Martin,

Am 23.04.2016 um 19:06 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>> Il giorno 23 apr 2016, alle ore 18:26, Michael Reichert  ha 
>> scritto:
>>
>> Die Abfrage gibt mir alle Ways mit lcn=yes oder rcn=yes, die
>> mittlerweile durch einen anderen Benutzer bearbeitet wurden (d.h.
>> last_modified != morla/Linnie).
> 
> 
> alles was zwischenzeitlich von jemand anderem editiert wurde, danach aber 
> wieder von morla/Linnie, wird dabei unter den Tisch fallen, oder?

Die Edits von morla, Linnie und Halbmond waren eine einmalige Aktion.
Also wie ein typischer Import – upload and forget. Alle drei Benutzer
sind nicht mehr aktiv.

Jeder Way mit lcn=yes oder rcn=yes wird entweder in Schritt 1 oder 2
oder 3 Ergebnis der jeweiligen Overpass-Abfrage sein. In Schritt 2 habe
ich die Abfrage recht konservativ formuliert, da ich bei einem
vollautomatischen Edit Kollateralschäden tunlichst vermeiden will.

Viele Grüße

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] Mechanischer Edit an Radrouten in Niedersachsen

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 23 apr 2016, alle ore 18:26, Michael Reichert  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Die Abfrage gibt mir alle Ways mit lcn=yes oder rcn=yes, die
> mittlerweile durch einen anderen Benutzer bearbeitet wurden (d.h.
> last_modified != morla/Linnie).


alles was zwischenzeitlich von jemand anderem editiert wurde, danach aber 
wieder von morla/Linnie, wird dabei unter den Tisch fallen, oder?


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

[Talk-de] Mechanischer Edit an Radrouten in Niedersachsen

[Michael Reichert]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

TL;DR mechanischer Edit, der lcn=yes und rcn=yes an Straßen und Wegen
in Niedersachsen löscht, die mit source="WMS-Freizeitinfo-Dienst LGLN"
getaggt sind. Dazu kommen noch diverse manuelle Löschungen nach
vorheriger Prüfung.

Crossposting zu
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=589814#p589814


Hallo,

im Frühjahr 2014 haben die Benutzer Linnie und morla in weiten Teilen
Niedersachsens lcn=yes und rcn=yes an Wegen ergänzt, die in den
Radwanderkarten 1:75.000 der LGLN (niedersächs. Vermessungsverwaltung)
als Radrouten markiert sind. Ihr Kollege Halbmond hat im Februar/März
2014 selbiges in Ostfriesland gemacht, aber dafür
Sammelrelations-artige Radroutenrelationen verwendet. Diese habe ich
in den vergangen Tagen gelöscht und seine übrigen Edits gesichtet.
Siehe dazu mein Posting im Forum, das das noch etwas genauer erklärt.
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=589811#p589811

Ich habe heute angefangen, die Edits von Linnie manuell rückgängig zu
machen. lcn=yes oder rcn=yes an den Ways ist schwerer zu revertieren
als eine Sammelrelation – die kann man nach Prüfung ihrer History
einfach löschen.

Der Revert ist in Teilen ein mechanischer Edit und als solche
diskussionspflichtig.

*Schritt 1*
Alle Ways, die ich mit folgender Overpass-Abfrage erhalte, sichten
(d.h. Tags und Versionsgeschichte anschauen, ggf. Umgebung anschauen):

[out:xml];
(way[lcn=yes]({{bbox}}); way[rcn=yes]({{bbox}});)->.lcnways;
(.lcnways; - way.lcnways(user:Linnie);)->.lcnways;
(.lcnways; - way.lcnways(user:morla););
out meta;
   > ;
out meta;

Die Abfrage gibt mir alle Ways mit lcn=yes oder rcn=yes, die
mittlerweile durch einen anderen Benutzer bearbeitet wurden (d.h.
last_modified != morla/Linnie). Das passiert, wenn ein Benutzer einen
Way aufteilt (dann ist ein Teil ein neues OSM-Objekt), Tags ergänzt
oder einen Node in den Way einfügt. Durch dieses Verfahren stelle ich
sicher, dass ich keine Tags lösche, die von anderen Benutzer
(vermutlich nach Begehung vor Ort) eingetragen wurden. Im Zweifelsfall
frage ich bei dem Mapper nach.

Einen Änderungssatz aus Schritt 1 habe ich schon hochgeladen. Mit dem
Rest werde ich warten, bis mein Vorschlag für Schritt 2 diskutiert ist.

*Schritt 2* (mechanischer Edit)
Ich werde nach Abschluss von Schritt 1 folgende Overpass-Abfrage
ausführen und im Ergebnis alle rcn/lcn=yes-Tags entfernen. Das wird
mit JOSM erfolgen.

[out:xml];
(
way[lcn=yes][source="WMS-Freizeitinfo-Dienst LGLN"]({{bbox}})
(user:morla);
way[rcn=yes][source="WMS-Freizeitinfo-Dienst LGLN"]({{bbox}})
(user:morla);
way[lcn=yes]
[source="WMS-Freizeitinfo-Dienst LGLN"]({{bbox}})(user:Linnie);
way[rcn=yes]
[source="WMS-Freizeitinfo-Dienst LGLN"]({{bbox}})(user:Linnie);
);
out meta;
   > ;
out meta;

Ich habe noch nicht gezählt, wie viele Objekte bzw. Wegkilometer
betroffen sein werden. Nach aktuellem Stand sieht es so aus, als würde
Ostfriesland und der Raum Göttingen nicht betroffen sein. Andernorts
könnt ihr den Umfang abschätzen, indem ihr euch auf der OpenCycleMap
anseht, was dort alles als Radroute gerendert wird und nicht mit ref=*
beschriftet ist.

*Schritt 3*
Das ist die Nachkontrolle. Mit folgender Overpass-Abfrage werde ich
prüfen, was mir durch die Lappen ging (z.B. wenn ein morla oder Linnie
das source=*-Tag vergessen haben):

[out:xml];
(way[lcn=yes]({{bbox}}); way[rcn=yes]({{bbox}});)->.lcnways;
out meta;
   > ;
out meta;

Die Ergebnisse dieser Abfrage werde ich, wie in Schritt 1 beschrieben,
behandeln.

Die Wiki-Seite dieses mechanischen Edits ist
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Nakaner/Deleting_Cycle_Routes_f
rom_LGLN

Viele Grüße

Michael



PS Falls ihr euch gegen meinen Vorschlag entscheiden, sollte euch das
Revertieren meines ersten Änderungssatzes hoffentlich leicht fallen.


- -- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.
(Mailinglisten ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=vKcn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [Talk-br] RES: Limite de cidades com distritos

[Arlindo Pereira]

E se a gente forçasse uma barra e tagueasse subdistrito como
"admin_level=9.5"? Retaguear bairro acho insano.

[]s

2016-04-22 19:42 GMT-03:00 Blademir Andrade de Lima 
:

> Pelo visto este assunto vai longe. Eu li toda a discussão do fórum, tenho
> que concordar que Regiões, Mesorregiões e Microrregiões não são limites
> administrativos, e sim estatísticos.
>
>
>
> Mas bom, temos que usar as ferramentas que nos deram. Distritos
> admin_level:9, subdistritos e bairros admin_level:10.
>
>
>
> Eu vou continuar do jeito que o OSM pede, mas se mudarem as ordens de
> admin_level, o trabalho para adequar tudo o que já foi feito vai ser imenso.
>
>
>
> Forte Abraço,
>
> BladeTC
>
>
>
> Enviado do Email  para
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *De: *Arlindo Pereira 
> *Enviado:*sexta-feira, 22 de abril de 2016 12:17
> *Para: *OpenStreetMap no Brasil 
> *Assunto: *Re: [Talk-br] Limite de cidades com distritos
>
>
> Dito isto, eu não gosto muito da ideia de um endereço vir como:
>
> "Rua tal, Centro, distrito Sede, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil"
>
> Mas isto talvez seja um problema do renderizador (isto é, não incluir
> "distrito Sede" em um município que só tenha um distrito), o que deve
> acontecer em todas as capitais e/ou regiões metropolitanas pelo Brasil.
>
> E também não acho que deva vir microrregião/mesorregião/região do país
> (sudeste etc.), mas isto talvez seja outro problema.
>
> []s
> Arlindo
>
> 2016-04-22 11:20 GMT-03:00 santamariense :
>
> Blademir,
>
> Você tocou num assunto delicado. No wiki do admin_level=9 é para
> distritos e admin_level=10 é para subdistritos e bairros. Mas em
> municípios como em Santa Maria que tem distritos, subdistrito e
> bairro, nessa ordem. O que se faz? (discussão no fórum:
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=26430)
>
> Eu apoio a inclusão do admin_level=11 para abrigar os bairros e
> admin_level=10 ficaria para os subdistritos.
>
> Apoio ainda a aplicação da tag place=city para todos as cidades
> reconhecidas pela ONU (aglomerados urbanos com mais de 20 mil
> habitantes se não me engano) e a tag place=town para as demais cidades
> não importando a quantidade de moradores. A tag population daria o
> parâmetro para que cada um desse sua definição de cidade.
>
> E ainda tenho desapontamento com a tag  place=hamlet. Não sei se vocês
> já perceberam que ao pesquisar sobre um resultado hamlet, o resultado
> sai (nome da hamlet), microrregião, mesorregião, estado,etc. Exemplo:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Santos%20Anjos#map=15/-29.5879/-53.4982
> .
> Por quê não é incluso o nome do município? Dai eu fui pesquisar qual o
> motivo. Na wikipédia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_(place))
> diz que hamlet são pequenos povoados, geralmente com menos de 100
> habitantes. Até aí tudo bem... Mas olha o que segue... As hamlets são
> áreas não incorporadas, ou seja, não fazem parte de nenhum município,
> explicando assim o porquê do resultado no OSM sair daquele jeito. E
> isso não existe no Brasil. Essas pequenas localidades ficam dentro de
> todas as delimitações: Município, distrito, e em alguns casos até
> bairro, quando estes últimos tem delimitação oficial.
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
___
Talk-br mailing list
Talk-br@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br

Re: [Talk-cz] Singletracky u Jedovnic

[Petr Vozdecký]

Vidim jako zajimavejsi se na ne obratit primo s zadosti o spolupraci - 
dodani hotovych GPX apod. 



Pokud nekdo nenapise, ze to uz udelal (ze je nejak kontaktoval), udelal bych
to ca v nedeli ci pondeli ja.



Pak by si to mohl prevzit nekdo, kdo ma s mapovanim MTB a cyklo nejakou 
praxi a muze to klidne doplnit o dalsi podrobnosti, bud osobne, nebo 
korespondencne...



vop



-- Původní zpráva --

Od: Miroslav Suchý 

Datum: 23. 4. 2016 v 16:28:36

Předmět: [Talk-cz] Singletracky u Jedovnic



Dneska jsem si v dennim tisku precetl o novych singletrackach (jednosmerna 
cyklotrasa pro MTB) http://singlekras.cz/nase-stezky Je to otevrene od 
vcerejka. Takze kdo planuje nejaky vylet na kolo tak tam jedte a zmapujte 
to, prosim. :)) Mirek ___ 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-GB] Overpass query help - roads within a ward

[Neil Pilgrim]

I've had a play with this since I've been working with overpass turbo a bit
recently; the best I've come up with so far is something like this:
  http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPR (wy over-commented ;))
As you'll see, this does include these roads, but does also include roads
leaving the area.
If you un-comment the relation, then that shows the boundary too, which I
found useful for debugging.
This may be able to be simplified/optimised, but I've gone with what works,
and I switched to using a timeout/json as I'm used to that :)
If the ways missing were part of the relation then I think
way(r.A)[highway][name] should select them too, but that's not how the
relation is composed.

Hope that gives some other ideas, if nothing else :)

--
Neil


On 23 April 2016 at 14:20, Tom Chance  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It has been a very long time since I last posted here!
>
> I'm trying to use the Overpass API to extract all the roads within the
> bounds of a relation, in this case a local government ward. Can anyone spot
> the problem in the data?
>
> Here's the example I'm working with:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPI
>
> The problem is that some roads aren't being downloaded with the query.
>
> If you follow that link and run the query, you'll see that the top section
> of Belvedere Road, and all of Landsdowne Place, are excluded. There are a
> few others like this on the edges of the area.
>
> I thought it might be because the way used by the boundary relation runs
> down the same nodes as those roads. But just at the top of those roads, the
> A-Road Church Road is downloaded despite being represented in the data in
> the same way.
>
> I tried putting a 'kink' in the boundary way down at the other end of
> Landsdowne Place where it meets Fox Hill so it 'encompasses' a node, but
> that didn't help.
>
> I hope this all makes sense, and maybe somebody can help?
>
> Tom
>
> web: http://tomchance.org
> twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP
>
> ___
> 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] UK Chapter Directors' Powers

[Rob Nickerson]

Draft articles:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NbHiUcQjz0SHKlt6BzGp2z_Lo1YH1RmdEZ2kMkpNI04/edit

*Rob*

On 23 April 2016 at 16:10, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

>
> To breed a culture of Member-led organisation (with Directors as figure
> heads) I suggest:
>
>1. Directors have all the power
>2. Members can direct the Directors to take/refrain from taking action
>via a ORDINARY Resolution
>3. Voting on Ordinary resolutions can be opened immediately (not 14
>days), be online, and after a period of X days the vote is passed if 50% of
>those who voted (not 75% of ALL members in the case of the Written Special
>Resolution) accept the resolution.
>
> This sends a strong message that this is a member led organisation.
>
> I include for comparison the Constitution of the West Midlands Open Data
> User Group (WM-ODUG). This was a boilerplate template from
> OneClickOrgs.com, a site that let you set up Unincorporated Associations
> and managed the Proposals and Voting of members via their online portal -
> It was a great site but seems to have gone quiet now :-(
>
> The difference is remarkable. It is so much clearer that the WM-ODUG was a
> member led organisation.
> I'm hoping we can move in that direction.
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Chapter Directors' Powers

[Rob Nickerson]

On 22/04/16 12:14, Brian Prangle wrote:
>
> *Full powers*. Standard boilerplate text. Easy to do. Downside is
> that removing powers may require alterations to AoA, and furthermore
> restricting Directors' powers is quite likely to end up being
> contentious. Any such process will appear to be a group of members
> not trusting the Directors.

David Woolley responded:
>Anything other than this suggests to me that there is something
>fundamentally wrong in the way that directors are chosen.  All the
>others seem to imply that there is a group of members that doesn't trust
>the directors ab initio!
>
>It would basically be asking for the directors to be figure heads, in
>which case you should have only enough directors to cover for deaths and
>loss of mental capacity.


Hi David, All,

There are a couple of things going on here. We need Directors and cannot
avoid that but the concept of having a elected Directors risks sending the
message (to our Members) that these as the folks who are in charge and will
lead the project. In my view this fails to bring the OpenStreetMap
community together (except for the once per year in which we vote in
Directors).

The poll we did last year (?) suggested that the OpenStreetMap UK community
want to be involved in decision making. My suggestion is that, if this is
the culture we want to breed then the Articles should reflect this. I
therefore agree that the Directors should be figure heads and we should
therefore have as small a number as possible (currently this is set to 5).
To me the argument of "Trust" shouldn't really matter. If they are genuine
figure heads then they should (in as many cases as possible) be relying on
the Members and when the members are fully in control then the matter of
Trust kind of disappears.

Currently the Articles state that (assuming my understanding of Special
Resolutions is correct):


   1. Directors have all the power
   2. Members can direct the Directors to take/refrain from taking action
   via a Special Resolution
   3. A Special Resolution requires a general meeting (requiring 14 days
   notice) and then requires 75% approval to pass.
   4. Alternatively a Spacial Resolution can be a Written Special
   Resolution. In this case, instead of a meeting you write to the members
   (can be electronically). To pass 75% of ALL members must accept the
   resolution.

In my view this is the Directors failing to trust the members (not the
members failing to trust the Directors!).

To breed a culture of Member-led organisation (with Directors as figure
heads) I suggest:

   1. Directors have all the power
   2. Members can direct the Directors to take/refrain from taking action
   via a ORDINARY Resolution
   3. Voting on Ordinary resolutions can be opened immediately (not 14
   days), be online, and after a period of X days the vote is passed if 50% of
   those who voted (not 75% of ALL members in the case of the Written Special
   Resolution) accept the resolution.

This sends a strong message that this is a member led organisation.

I include for comparison the Constitution of the West Midlands Open Data
User Group (WM-ODUG). This was a boilerplate template from
OneClickOrgs.com, a site that let you set up Unincorporated Associations
and managed the Proposals and Voting of members via their online portal -
It was a great site but seems to have gone quiet now :-(

The difference is remarkable. It is so much clearer that the WM-ODUG was a
member led organisation.
I'm hoping we can move in that direction.

Best regards,
Rob

p.s. Please accept my apologies that it has taken me this long to review
the AoA. I received an invitation to edit the AoA on 15 March 2016 (5 and
half weeks ago, and just 2 days before March's meeting - which happened to
be 1 day before I went on holiday for 3 weeks). I appreciate that the AoA
have been worked on by others for longer, but I feel I need a bit longer to
review it before rushing ahead.


West Midlands Open Data User Group Constitution.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] http://api.openstreetmap.fr/oapi hors service

[mga_geo]

Bonjour à tous,

Le service fonctionne de nouveau avec de très bonnes performances.

Merci aux réparateurs !
Marc



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/http-api-openstreetmap-fr-oapi-hors-service-tp5872102p5872335.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

[Talk-cz] Singletracky u Jedovnic

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dneska jsem si v dennim tisku precetl o novych singletrackach
(jednosmerna cyklotrasa pro MTB)
  http://singlekras.cz/nase-stezky
Je to otevrene od vcerejka.

Takze kdo planuje nejaky vylet na kolo tak tam jedte a zmapujte to,
prosim. :))

Mirek

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query help - roads within a ward

[Dave F]

Unsure if it's the reason but Church Road doesn't share all the nodes. 
At the junction of Stoney Lane it's inside the boundary.


I wouldn't lay multiple ways on top of each other as in Landsdowne 
Place. The main point of relations was to allow entities such as 
boundaries to be tagged into ways (see the bus route relation on Church 
Road).  It makes it extremely hard to select the correct ways in some 
editors.


Dave F.

On 23/04/2016 14:20, Tom Chance wrote:

Hi all,

It has been a very long time since I last posted here!

I'm trying to use the Overpass API to extract all the roads within the 
bounds of a relation, in this case a local government ward. Can anyone 
spot the problem in the data?


Here's the example I'm working with:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPI

The problem is that some roads aren't being downloaded with the query.

If you follow that link and run the query, you'll see that the top 
section of Belvedere Road, and all of Landsdowne Place, are excluded. 
There are a few others like this on the edges of the area.


I thought it might be because the way used by the boundary relation 
runs down the same nodes as those roads. But just at the top of those 
roads, the A-Road Church Road is downloaded despite being represented 
in the data in the same way.


I tried putting a 'kink' in the boundary way down at the other end of 
Landsdowne Place where it meets Fox Hill so it 'encompasses' a node, 
but that didn't help.


I hope this all makes sense, and maybe somebody can help?

Tom

web: http://tomchance.org 
twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP


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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-ca] Gouvernement du Québec et Municipalités : Nouveau portail et licence ouverte

[Charles Basenga Kiyanda]

Je ne sais pas si une autre réponse a été donnée, mais je pense que pour
que ça soit suffisant il faut avoir l'approbation du fournisseur de
données. C'est l'approche que nous avons prise avec la ville de Montréal
et il y a (si je ne me trompe) une mention sur la page de la ville de
Montréal qui stipule que ce mode d'attribution par openstreetmap est
suffisant. Nous avons aussi conservé copie des communications avec la
ville qui disait que c'était correct.

Charles

On 04/20/2016 09:13 PM, Bruno Remy wrote:
> Bonjour  à tous,
>
>
> Concernant la notion d'attribution des licences, n'y a-t-il pas un
> consensus pour rattacher cette d'attribution à la mention dans la
> page  https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright ?
>
> On y retrouve d'ailleurs/GeoBase/®, /GeoGratis/ (© Département des
> Ressources naturelles du Canada), /CanVec/ (© Département des
> Ressources naturelles du Canada) et /StatCan/ (Division Géographie,
> Statistiques du Canada).
>
> Rajouter dans cette liste les institutions publiques canadiennes
> (provinciales ou municipales) qui publient des jeux de données avec la
> licence CC4 ne serait-il pas suffisant?
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
> Le 6 avril 2016 à 16:23, James  > a écrit :
>
> Scuse j'ai oublié le ne et le pas
>
> On Apr 6, 2016 3:33 PM, "Charles Basenga Kiyanda"
> >
> wrote:
>
> Le lien fourni dit que les licenses ODC-ODbl-1.0 et CC-BY-4.0 sont
> INcompatibles. Est-ce que j'ai mal lu l'information?
>
> Charles
>
> On 04/06/2016 03:13 PM, James wrote:
> > Les licenses ODC-ODbL-1.0 et CC-BY-4.0 sont compatibles.
> > http://clipol.org/licences/70?tab=licence_compatibility
> >
> > 2016-04-06 13:49 GMT-04:00 Charles Basenga Kiyanda
> >  
>  >>:
> >
> > Ce que je comprends, toutefois, c'est que c'est la clause
> > d'attribution
> > qui est problématique avec les licences CC, quand on
> essaye d'intégrer
> > avec l'odbl. La solution que nous avons privilégiée avec
> la ville de
> > Montréal (et qui je crois est acceptée par la communauté
> OSM) c'est
> > d'obtenir une confirmation (la notre est par courriel,
> idéalement la
> > confirmation serait aussi sur le site du fournisseur de
> données)
> > que "le
> > fournisseur des données considère que l'attribution sur
> la page du
> > wiki
> > d'openstreetmap remplit les obligations détaillées dans
> la clause
> > d'attribution de la licence CC pour fin d'inclusion des
> données sous
> > licence odbl." (Ou quelque chose du genre...)
> >
> > Bref, si je comprends bien, CC-by-SA ou CC-by-NC ou
> CC-by auraient
> > toutes le même problème. Au sens strict de la clause
> d'attribution des
> > licences CC, OSM serait tenu de mentionner l'origine des
> données avec
> > les données elles-mêmes et sur toutes les tuiles, ce
> qu'on ne fait
> > pas.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > On 04/05/2016 06:33 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> > > Bonjour Sébastien,
> > >
> > > j'ai mal recopié l'info et n'ai pas vu la subtilité SA
> ou NC. En
> > > relisant sur le site, il semble bien que ce soit la
> licence CC-by
> > > telle que promoise en février 2014.
> > >
> > > Avec cette l'annonce du nouveau site de données ouvertes
> > aujourd'hui,
> > > je n'ai pas vu de menton de la licence. Cependant elle
> est spécifiée
> > > sur le site et avec chaque jeu de données.
> > >
> > > Voici le lien vers la licence. On indique 6 variantes
> possibles.
> > > https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/licence/#cc-by
> > >
> > > La mention de la licence lors du téléchargement d'un
> jeu de
> > données est
> > > Licence Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0
> > >  [Open
> Data]
> > > 
> > >
> > > Voir par exemple
> > >
> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/fr/dataset/liaison-maritime
> > >
> > > Il faudra effectivement s'assurer que c'est bien la
> licence
> > cc-by qui
> > > s'applique.
> > >
> > > Pierre
>   

[Talk-GB] Overpass query help - roads within a ward

[Tom Chance]

Hi all,

It has been a very long time since I last posted here!

I'm trying to use the Overpass API to extract all the roads within the
bounds of a relation, in this case a local government ward. Can anyone spot
the problem in the data?

Here's the example I'm working with:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fPI

The problem is that some roads aren't being downloaded with the query.

If you follow that link and run the query, you'll see that the top section
of Belvedere Road, and all of Landsdowne Place, are excluded. There are a
few others like this on the edges of the area.

I thought it might be because the way used by the boundary relation runs
down the same nodes as those roads. But just at the top of those roads, the
A-Road Church Road is downloaded despite being represented in the data in
the same way.

I tried putting a 'kink' in the boundary way down at the other end of
Landsdowne Place where it meets Fox Hill so it 'encompasses' a node, but
that didn't help.

I hope this all makes sense, and maybe somebody can help?

Tom

web: http://tomchance.org
twitter: http://twitter.com/tom_chance
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TomChanceGP
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Defibrillator Mapping

[Dave F]

Announced yesterday: Tesco is set to introduce defibrillators in over 
900 of its largest stores


http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=17=1350

Dave F.

On 22/04/2016 14:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

It was suggested that trying to increase our mapping of public
Defibrillators would be a good think. After a bit of digging, it seems
that Ambulance Services typically maintain a list of locations, with a
view to informing people about them if a 999 call comes in nearby
where one might be useful.

The different services seem to take quite different views on these
lists. My local service (East of England) actively publicise their
list 
(http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/Get-involved/Community-Public-Access-Defibrillators.htm)
on the grounds that raising awareness of the locations will make it
more likely that someone will know about and find a defibrillator in
an emergency. Other services have refused FOI requests on the (IMO
spurious) grounds that publicising the list will make thefts /
vandalism more likely, and out of date information may lead to people
wasting time in an emergency.

Anyway, I've taken the East of England list from
http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/Get%20involved/CPADs/CPAD%20List.pdf , and
done a comparison with the OSM data. A rough and ready tool can be
found at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/defib/progress/ for any other
locals who want to use it. We've got a small number of locations they
haven't, and some of their postcodes may not be quite right. But there
are a lot on their list that aren't mapped yet!

Regarding tagging, it seems that a lot of the cabinets have a
reference number on the outside, so I'd suggest recording that in the
ref=* tag. Also, I think a description of the location would be useful
(e.g. "Outside wall of McDonalds, facing Store 21") to help people
find the defibrillator when they need it. I've been putting something
like that in a location=* key.

In terms of getting more data, I've put in FOI requests to the East
and West Midlands Ambulance Services for starters, so we'll see what
line they take...

Best wishes,

Robert.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Talk-it] [Indoor Mapping] Basilica del Santo

[mircozorzo]

Ciao Paolo, grazie.

Buona idea, per la riunione potrebbe essere per il venerdì 3 maggio dopo
cena 20.30? Per la sede provo a trovare una sede nei dintorni della
Basilica?
I tempi per me potrebbe anche essere di finire per l'inverno.

Ciao, Mirco




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Indoor-Mapping-Basilica-del-Santo-tp5871967p5872328.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] [Indoor Mapping] Basilica del Santo

[Paolo Monegato]

Il 20/04/2016 23:16, mircozorzo ha scritto:

Ciao Paolo,

grazie, ho scritto qui perché credo che sia di interesse nazionale il tipo
di progetto e anche l'importanza ma non è detto che sia la corretta
interpretazione.


Il progetto è senz'altro importante, ma la scala è locale. Dato che è un 
tipo di lavoro che, imho, necessita di sopralluoghi è dura trovare 
qualcuno di altre regioni che possa dare una mano concretamente. Dunque 
avrei prima cercato di sondare l'interesse tra i mapper vicini, per poi 
eventualmente avvisare anche qui (che non fa mai male). Anche per 
alleggerire il traffico su questa lista.



Vorrei rendere una mappa con un buon dettaglio della Basilica, con i vari
altari, cappelle, tombe, opere d'arte, ingressi, elementi strutturali ecc..
Per farlo sarebbe utile poter usare Mapillary ma allo stato attuale non è
una via percorribile, un altro modo è quello di prendere degli appunti e
metterli sulla mappa per poi svilupparla in un secondo passaggio, alla fine,
per il momento la cosa primaria sono le relazioni fra gli oggetti sulla
mappa all'interno della sagoma della Basilica.
Credo che chiedendo potremmo avere la piantina dei vari piani e il permesso
di utilizzarla.
Quindi in parte mi mancano le soluzioni che vorrei provare a vedere se
riusciamo ad affinare/individuare assieme, in parte cerco persone che siano
interessate a questo tipo di mappatura.


Ok, hai un'idea sulle tempistiche? Quando vorresti fare questo lavoro? 
Imho una bella riunione in loco con tutti gli interessati non sarebbe 
male (se poi ne nascesse un gruppetto di lavoro regionale dedicato 
all'indoor sarebbe perfetto)...


ciao
Paolo M

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Cyklostezky na taskmanovi

[Tomáš Tichý]

Se začátkem cyklistické sezóny jsem se chtěl trochu podívat na cyklotrasy a
koukám, že to ustrnulo na těch vrstvách.

Takže navrhuji přidat:
- mtbmap.cz
- mapa.prahounakole.cz
A turistickou a cyklo overlay z
- hiking/cycling.waymarkedtrails.org

TT


út 23. 2. 2016 v 16:09 odesílatel Petr Vejsada 
napsal:

> Ahoj,
>
> > Jedna technická - proč se v tomto tasku nezobrazuje jako výchozí nějaká
> > mapa s cyklotyrasami?
> > Mám tam turistickou a nevidím, jak to změnit...
>
> protoze jsme se jeste nedomluvili, jake vrstvy tam maji byt :-).
>
> Nelze menit mapy pro jednotlive projekty. Da se to udelat jen globalne
> a na zacatku prace si vybrat, s jakou mapou dale pracovat. Dejte vedet,
> jake vrstvy/mapy maji na Taskmanu byt k dispozici a hned je tam nandam.
>
> --
> 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