date:20200524

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:39:11AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> > Legally this is broken. Legally you may not enter the zone when
> > your destination is not within that zone and there nothing like a 
> > distance based penalty within that area.
> > 
> > So yes - there is a problem - But not within tagging. Its something
> > routers need to solve.
> 
> Routers cannot work alone, they have to work together with the tagging.
> It's not fair to claim it's all their problem. If the tagging does not
> represent the nuances required, the router should not be expected to
> just guess (at least where the difference is between legal and illegal).

Dont get me wrong - If there is information missing to distinguish
cases i am happy to find new tags/ways to describe them.

For a destination case routers need to take that step.

If there is a grid of roads all connect each other and all of them are
destination its basically a subgraph which you pay a penalty to enter.
Its not a "per distance" penalty which it is currently for the ones
i am using/testing regularly. 

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-de] oneway = no

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 09:32:28PM +0200, Markus via Talk-de wrote:
> Hi Florian,
> 
> > alle default tags nochmal taggen nur damit einige wenige eine
> > Vollständigkeitsstatistik führen können ist auch irgendwie missbrauch
> > der osm tags oder sehe nur ich das so?
> 
> Ich habe mal gelernt, dass es da 3 Zustände gibt:
> - ja
> - nein
> - weiss nicht
> 
> und dass Letzterer unbedingt noch geprüft werden muss
> (und die anderen Beiden regelmässig auf Änderung kontrolliert werden)

Also nicht das ich nicht gerne label an Objekte hängen würde die ich 
gerne rechecken würde - Hatten wir ja auch schon mit den verschiedenen
Proposals was check_date oder survery_date angeht.

Da wir ja wissen das Kneipen statistisch nur wenige Monate existieren
wäre also ein "wiedervorlage" tag super.

Die Frage ist eben nachwievor ob wir diese meta-meta informationen 
in die OSM Datenbank packen wollen.

Ich habe da keine harte Meinung zu aber ICH packe meinen Kram da nicht
rein sonst explodiert das was ich mir gerne alles merken würde und dann 
haben wir hier Streit wegen der ganzen tags ;)

Und jedes halbe Jahr ändert sich ja der Fokus was man an Tags
komplettieren möchte und dann fängt man wieder an sich mehr meta-meta
tags zu erfinden.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Mateusz Konieczny via talk


May 24, 2020, 23:54 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-05-24 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>
>> Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?
>>  
>>
> In the UK there are many small roads signed as "Unsuitable for HGVs." Legally 
> you are allowed to drive your 44T truck down there, but you will almost 
> certainly get stuck. How do we tell the router?
>
hgv=discouraged - covered by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

"usage is officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). 
Only if marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise)."


> There are also many roads signed as "No HGVs except for access." It is 
> tempting to tag them as "hgv=destination" but that doesn't cover the case 
> where you are allowed to follow that route for many miles and make several 
> turnoffs IF you "need access". The current definition of "access=destination" 
> doesn't allow routers to distinguish between truly "first/last segment only" 
> and "its fine if you are going to/from this general area".
>

AFAIK this awaits solution, at least I am not aware about even a tag proposal.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Colin Smale

On 2020-05-25 00:16, Florian Lohoff wrote:

> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:54:02PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: On 2020-05-24 
> 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> 
> Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction? 
> In the UK there are many small roads signed as "Unsuitable for HGVs."
> Legally you are allowed to drive your 44T truck down there, but you will
> almost certainly get stuck. How do we tell the router?

width? maxwidth? 

It needs to be a physical attribute, not a purely legal one. It could be
a combination of road width and bends, or undulations giving a risk of
grounding. For the former, the router would need accurate geometry info
(centre line and width) which is often not present or not reliable in
OSM. For the latter, do we have anything for "risk of grounding due to
dips and humps"? 

> It a different attribute than legalese which makes it unsuitable - so
> tag it appropriate.
> 
> There are also many roads signed as "No HGVs except for access." It is
> tempting to tag them as "hgv=destination" but that doesn't cover the
> case where you are allowed to follow that route for many miles and make
> several turnoffs IF you "need access". The current definition of
> "access=destination" doesn't allow routers to distinguish between truly
> "first/last segment only" and "its fine if you are going to/from this
> general area". 
> Discussion here shows the  
> http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5=140446
> Thats a technical difficulty in the OSM Data model which may fill pages.
> 
> At least in Germany a restriction sign is not a "linear restriction"
> e.g. is restricting the whole way. Instead you may not traverse the
> point of the sign. We are currently unable to put this into OSM.
> 
> A workaround is to put 2 short oneways on top of each other - one of
> them carrying the restriction - which is in itself a pretty ugly
> solution - and - this does not work for destination.
> 
> There are other problems. A destination technically is currently solved
> by increasing the "cost" in the routing graph. So for example for
> every meter on a destination road you may travel 20m on others. Which
> most of the time works pretty well in avoiding the destination roads.
> It has pretty bad side effects which causes the router to try to send
> you out of the destination area with the shortest way even producing
> very long diverts around.

You talk as if all routers are the same I accept that such
heuristics are inevitable to choose between multiple possibilities, but
proposing a route that would actually be considered illegal should not
ever happen (subject to data currency considerations). 

But still, access=destination does not permit the router to apply
different penalties to the two cases I mentioned. 

> Legally this is broken. Legally you may not enter the zone when
> your destination is not within that zone and there nothing like a 
> distance based penalty within that area.
> 
> So yes - there is a problem - But not within tagging. Its something
> routers need to solve.

Routers cannot work alone, they have to work together with the tagging.
It's not fair to claim it's all their problem. If the tagging does not
represent the nuances required, the router should not be expected to
just guess (at least where the difference is between legal and illegal).___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Arne Johannessen

Mateusz Konieczny via talk  wrote:
> 
> From quick review I am unable to remember any actually existing
> access restriction that would not be taggable.

The default motor_vehicle=* of Norwegian forest roads [1] by law [2] depends on 
physical criteria such as tracktype=*, surface=*, smoothness=*, width=*. The 
law makes this a judgement call in each and every case. [3]

I'm not aware of a useful way to tag this restriction, so I personally like to 
simply add those physical tags and leave the problem for interested data 
consumers to decide for themselves. A clear consensus on the tagging of forest 
roads does not seem to currently exist in the Norwegian OSM community.

[1] I use "forest road" as a loose translation of "veg i utmark", meaning 
something like "road not in towns or farmland". In OSM, they could be tagged as 
highway=track, service, residential, unclassified; depending on the 
circumstances.
[2] 
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/motor-traffic-on-uncultivated-land-and-i/id173402/
[3] in Norwegian, the government's interpretation of the law:
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokument/dep/kld/rundskriv/1996/t-196-motorferdsel-i-utmark/4/id278805/

> [nuclear power plants vs. residential driveways]
> 
> Is access=private supposed to be incorrect in either case?

I would argue that non-gated driveways are often closer to access=destination 
than they are to access=private.

According to the wiki, private requires individual permission, which I can't 
give to the mailman / delivery person, but I still want them to make their 
deliveries on my doorstep.

-- 
Arne Johannessen

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

[OSM-talk] Access tag abuse examples Was: Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access


Hi,

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:16:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> > - To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible.
> >
> Can you find a good example for that? I was unable to find one that
> would not be ridiculous, so despite of desire of including something
> like that I skipped it.

Found the code to extract all access restrictions in a pbf file - Just
for 4 small countys in Germany - thats what mappers produce - Top 50 in
length. Its redundant, contradicting and most of the time plain wrong.

Its 2664 different combinations and my guess is that 2400 dont match 
the signs and are even impossible to express with German signs.

Here is a nice source of your "Routing in A works but B has a very bad route".

flo@p4:~/projects/osm/wayproblems$ ./accesscombinations -i 
../localosm/pbf/detmold-regbez-latest.osm.pbf  \
| sort -u | awk '{ print length, $0 }' \
| sort -rn | awk '{$1=""; print $0}' | head -50
 highway=unclassified access=destination vehicle=destination 
motor_vehicle=destination motorcycle=destination motorcar=destination 
hgv=destination bicycle=yes foot=yes agricultural=yes goods=destination 
horse=yes
 highway=unclassified access=destination vehicle=destination 
motor_vehicle=private motorcycle=destination motorcar=destination 
hgv=destination bicycle=yes foot=yes agricultural=yes goods=destination 
horse=yes
 highway=track access=destination vehicle=destination motor_vehicle=destination 
motorcycle=destination motorcar=destination hgv=destination bicycle=yes 
foot=yes agricultural=yes goods=destination horse=yes
 highway=track access=destination vehicle=destination motor_vehicle=destination 
motorcycle=destination motorcar=destination hgv=destination bicycle=yes 
foot=yes agricultural=destination goods=destination
 highway=service access=destination motorcycle=destination motorcar=destination 
hgv=destination psv=destination bicycle=yes foot=yes agricultural=yes 
goods=destination horse=yes
 highway=bridleway access=private motor_vehicle=no motorcycle=no motorcar=no 
hgv=no psv=no bicycle=no foot=private agricultural=no goods=no horse=private
 highway=service access=no vehicle=no motor_vehicle=no motorcycle=no 
motorcar=no hgv=no psv=no bicycle=no foot=no agricultural=no goods=no horse=no
 highway=residential access=yes motor_vehicle=no motorcycle=no motorcar=no 
hgv=no psv=no bicycle=yes foot=yes agricultural=no goods=no horse=yes
 highway=track access=forestry motor_vehicle=agricultural 
motorcycle=agricultural motorcar=agricultural bicycle=yes foot=yes 
agricultural=yes
 highway=track vehicle=agricultural;forestry 
motor_vehicle=agricultural;forestry motorcycle=yes motorcar=yes bicycle=yes 
foot=yes horse=yes
 highway=residential access=permissive motor_vehicle=destination 
motorcycle=destination motorcar=destination bicycle=yes foot=yes horse=yes
 highway=footway access=no motor_vehicle=no motorcycle=no motorcar=no hgv=no 
psv=no bicycle=yes foot=yes agricultural=no goods=no horse=yes
 highway=unclassified access=permissive motor_vehicle=destination 
motorcycle=private motorcar=private bicycle=permissive foot=yes horse=no
 highway=service access=destination motorcycle=destination motorcar=destination 
hgv=no psv=no bicycle=designated foot=designated goods=no
 highway=residential access=private motorcycle=private motorcar=private 
hgv=private psv=no bicycle=private foot=private goods=private
 highway=track access=private motor_vehicle=private motorcycle=private 
motorcar=private bicycle=private foot=private horse=private
 highway=track access=agricultural motor_vehicle=agricultural 
motorcycle=agricultural motorcar=agricultural bicycle=yes foot=yes
 highway=track access=agricultural motor_vehicle=agricultural 
motorcycle=destination motorcar=destination bicycle=yes foot=yes
 highway=track access=agricultural motor_vehicle=agricultural motorcycle=no 
motorcar=no bicycle=yes foot=yes agricultural=yes
 highway=unclassified access=destination motorcycle=destination 
motorcar=destination bicycle=yes foot=yes agricultural=yes
 highway=track motor_vehicle=agricultural, forestry motorcycle=forestry 
motorcar=forestry bicycle=yes foot=yes horse=yes
 highway=residential access=private motor_vehicle=private motorcycle=designated 
motorcar=designated bicycle=yes foot=yes
 highway=residential access=destination motor_vehicle=destination 
bicycle=destination foot=destination horse=destination
 highway=track access=agricultural motor_vehicle=agricultural 
motorcycle=agricultural motorcar=agricultural bicycle=yes
 highway=service motor_vehicle=destination motorcycle=agricultural 
motorcar=agricultural bicycle=yes foot=yes horse=yes
 highway=unclassified motor_vehicle=agricultural;forestry 
motorcycle=destination motorcar=destination agricultural=yes
 highway=track access=agricultural motorcycle=agricultural 
motorcar=agricultural bicycle=yes foot=yes agricultural=yes
 highway=track motor_vehicle=destination motorcycle=agricultural 
motorcar=agricultural

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:54:02PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-05-24 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> 
> > Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?
> 
> In the UK there are many small roads signed as "Unsuitable for HGVs."
> Legally you are allowed to drive your 44T truck down there, but you will
> almost certainly get stuck. How do we tell the router? 

width? maxwidth? 

It a different attribute than legalese which makes it unsuitable - so
tag it appropriate.

> There are also many roads signed as "No HGVs except for access." It is
> tempting to tag them as "hgv=destination" but that doesn't cover the
> case where you are allowed to follow that route for many miles and make
> several turnoffs IF you "need access". The current definition of
> "access=destination" doesn't allow routers to distinguish between truly
> "first/last segment only" and "its fine if you are going to/from this
> general area". 
> Discussion here shows the  
> http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5=140446 

Thats a technical difficulty in the OSM Data model which may fill pages.

At least in Germany a restriction sign is not a "linear restriction"
e.g. is restricting the whole way. Instead you may not traverse the
point of the sign. We are currently unable to put this into OSM.

A workaround is to put 2 short oneways on top of each other - one of
them carrying the restriction - which is in itself a pretty ugly
solution - and - this does not work for destination.

There are other problems. A destination technically is currently solved
by increasing the "cost" in the routing graph. So for example for
every meter on a destination road you may travel 20m on others. Which
most of the time works pretty well in avoiding the destination roads.
It has pretty bad side effects which causes the router to try to send
you out of the destination area with the shortest way even producing
very long diverts around.

Legally this is broken. Legally you may not enter the zone when
your destination is not within that zone and there nothing like a 
distance based penalty within that area.

So yes - there is a problem - But not within tagging. Its something
routers need to solve.

> And then there are all the subtle differences in the semantics of the
> vehicle classes, but that's a whole different can of worms...

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-at] Abzeichnen von OpenTopoMap?

2020-05-24 Per discussione Friedrich Volkmann


On 24.05.20 20:28, Patrick Strasser-Mikhail wrote:
Ich zeichne gerade in einer sehr spärlich gemappten Region der Welt 
grundlegende Dinge (Straßen, Gewässer, Wald/Farmland, Gebäude). Ich 
verwendet JOSM, mit den in JOSM vorhandenen Hintergründen. Normalerweise ist 
in der Gegend Bing die beste Quelle, manchmal ist OpenTopoMap hilfreich, um 
die Luftbilder besser zu interpretieren: in welche Richtung fließt das 
Gewässer, ist der Weg hier plausiebel, ist das Gelände eher sehr Steil und 
nicht wirklich bearbeitbar usw.


Ich wurde in einem Kommentar darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass OpenTopoMap als 
Quelle wegen der SRTM-Lizenz ungeeignet ist.


Die Lizenzfrage erübrigt sich, weil es sowieso keinen Sinn hat, irgendwas 
aus der Opentopomap abzuzeichnen. Die Geländedaten sind aus SRTM, und das 
ist irrsinnig ungenau. Es stehen viel genauere Geländedaten (10m-Raster) als 
OGD zur Verfügung, und die Openslopemap nutzt diese bereits für ihre 
(folglich viel genaueren) Höhenlinien. Ich hab für Garmin-Geräte ebenfalls 
schon die genauen Höhenlinien zum Download bereitgestellt, und man könnte 
auch einen Vector-Tile-Server aufsetzen mit diesen Höhenlinien. (Hat noch 
keiner gemacht, wär aber super.)


Ob ein Weg plausibel ist, siehst du aber auch mit dem 10m-Raster nicht, 
dafür aber mit dem Geländeschummerungslayer von basemap.at.


Dass Bing die beste Quelle ist, kann ich kaum glauben, denn Bing ist bekannt 
dafür, oft mehrere Meter daneben zu liegen, sogar in flachem Gelände. Kein 
Wunder, weil Bing das genaue amtliche Geländemodell und wahrscheinlich auch 
die Fixpunkte nicht zur Verfügung hat und die Luftbilder somit nicht danach 
ausrichten kann.


Verwende im Normalfall lieber geoimage.at. Bing kann aber hilfreich sein, 
wenn z.B. ein Waldweg auf geoimage.at wegen der Vegetation oder wegen eines 
schiefen Winkels nicht gut sichtbar ist. Manchmal ist er auf Bing besser 
sichtbar - aber man muss dann beim Abzeichnen den Versatz berücksichtigen.


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Hi Mateusz,

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:16:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> > For me its missing at least 2 points:
> >
> > - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
> >  verifyable.
> >
> Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?
> 
> "visible assigned" is not limited to just traffic sign. For example driveway 
> behind
> a gate can be tagged as access=private (except gates that can be opened by
> anybody or by all customers or something like that).

Correct. But a closed and locked gate have (in germany and most likely
in most jurisdications) a legal impact which would justify an
access=private. And thats verifiable that a gate exists and is closed
for the public. If the Bell and the Postbox is at the gate - Perfect
case for access=private.

> In some cases it is visibly assigned and verifiable, but sign may be a bit 
> distant
> - for example access restrictions in nature reserves ("leaving signed trails 
> is
> not acceptable") or zone traffic signs, with entrances signed "no access 
> except residents".

But still in case of a zoned access restrictions i can look up the
boundarys and verify all entrys and exits to see if the zone is
valid and matches the signs.

> >From quick review I am unable to remember any actually existing
> access restriction that would not be taggable.
> 
> > - To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible.
> >
> Can you find a good example for that? I was unable to find one that
> would not be ridiculous, so despite of desire of including something
> like that I skipped it.

I have seen stuff like:

access=no
hgv=destination
goods=destination
motor_vehicle=destination
vehicle=destination
motorcycle=destination
motorcar=destination
foot=yes
bicycle=yes

Thats simply ridiculous to tag stuff like that. I once wrote an filter
to find the longest list of restrictions and you might be astonished
what people construct in there. People sometimes think of the more
they mention the better. I think its the opposite - the smaller the
better.

> > For example the German forum fights (with me) for tagging all driveways
> > as access=private disregarding any signs of the will of the owner. So 
> > even you dont post additional signs or putting a gate on your
> > driveway the proposal is to tag everything access=private.
>
> At least in Poland it is 100% correct, except rare cases where
> any member of public is allowed to open such gate.

Okay - just a thought experiment to map the driveway/private into the 
space of the reality.

In OSM

- private -> "No one except some"
- permissive -> "All except some"

How do you expect your driveway to work, how do you expect way in a nuclear
power plant to work? Different isnt it? We both tag them private
following your examples.

In the NPP i expect NO ONE to walk there except people of the NPP with
their security background checks done, visitors to be escorted etc etc.

I'd expect my driveway to be permissive. Because i want some random
Postal Service to drive there, the Pizza Delivery, Friends, Family
and random visitors.

For me this is already included in service/driveway - nothing to do
there as its basically the same as destination in routing perspective
today. For the NPP private is perfectly valid.

> >  I dont think thats a good idea as it makes the driveway and the area
> > of the nuclear power plant indistinguishable.
>
> For access purposes this is correct, in both cases you need permission
> from owner to enter and in both cases routing into such POI
> should be capable of allowing to finish route using access=private ways
> (and warn user that it is happening).

At least thats very different in Germany. There is no such thing as
"Stand your ground" in the US legalese. As long as you dont show
clear intend of "out of bounds" e.g. fences, gates or signage
its not a federal offense to walk on private property. You may
still be sent away, ignoring THAT is a federal offense, but until
then there its no legal offense to step on private property.
(See §123 StGB - https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/123.html)

> >  So as a delivery
> > like Amazon Logistics, UPS, FedEx and Co you have to ignore
> > access=privates to be able to actually use your driveway,
> >
> Yep.

So we tag stuff people are assumed to ignore? We should fix tagging
to make it distinguishable.

> > which automatically makes them ignore the power plants service
> > as well.
> >
> And this way for routing for worker of power plant asking for a route 
> to a place of work will continue to work. Is there something missing
> that I do not see?
> 
> Is access=private supposed to be incorrect in either case?

Its indistinguishable - Thats the problem. A private on a driveway
is definitly something which is not verifyable in most cases,
whereas the gate in the NPP is. In case of the NPP its a physical
restriction, in case of the driveway its

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Colin Smale

On 2020-05-24 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

> Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?

In the UK there are many small roads signed as "Unsuitable for HGVs."
Legally you are allowed to drive your 44T truck down there, but you will
almost certainly get stuck. How do we tell the router? 

There are also many roads signed as "No HGVs except for access." It is
tempting to tag them as "hgv=destination" but that doesn't cover the
case where you are allowed to follow that route for many miles and make
several turnoffs IF you "need access". The current definition of
"access=destination" doesn't allow routers to distinguish between truly
"first/last segment only" and "its fine if you are going to/from this
general area". 
Discussion here shows the  
http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5=140446 

And then there are all the subtle differences in the semantics of the
vehicle classes, but that's a whole different can of worms...___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-se] Problem med ortnamnsimporten

2020-05-24 Per discussione Essin

Hej!

För att få en fingervisning om kvaliteten på själva datamängden som helhet
har jag gjort ett stickprov bestående av ett område där jag har god
lokalkännedom, nämligen Norbergs kommun. Kommunen omfattar ungefär 0,1 % av
Sveriges yta och 0,05 % av befolkningen. Kommunen är kanske inte helt
representativ -- det finns inga fäbodvallar eller större fritidshusområden
och inte särskilt mycket lantlig bebyggelse överhuvudtaget -- utanför
centralorten är det ärligt talat mest skog. Dessutom var i stort sett alla
byar och många mindre platser redan utsatta. Det är alltså ett ganska litet
urval (osäkert resultat) med huvudsakligen place=isolated_dwelling
(antagligen sämre data än place=hamlet) och få obebodda platser (vilket
borde dra upp kvaliteten jämfört med rikssnittet).

Med Overpass Turbo [1] sökte jag efter alla place-noder i kommunen som
redigerats de senaste fyra veckorna (för några dagar sedan, så det kanske
borde vara fem veckor nu). Sedan jämförde jag med Topografiska och
Ekonomiska kartan samt med Maxar Premium. Tyvärr är ju Ekonomiska
kartan-TMS:en otillgänglig för tillfället så jag har sökt ut kartbladen
från Lantmäteriet [2] vilket tar längre tid.

I stort sett alla noderna sitter lite vid sidan av objektet de syftar på,
vilket i många fall lätt hade kunnat justeras utifrån satellitbilder eller
Topografiska kartan själv. Topografiska kartan har ju inte riktigt samma
principer för nodplacering som OSM.

Två platser har taggats som place=hamlet: Källtorp och Sågtorpet. De verkar
vara okej enligt Topografiska och Ekonomiska (även om Sågtorpet historiskt
har hört till Örbäck).

En stor grupp är isolated_dwelling-noder som verkligen syftar på en
isolerad bostad. Det är kanske något av en smaksak om man i stället ska
sätta namnet på en farmyard- eller residential-polygon, vilket är vad jag
oftast har gjort. Ibland finns en sådan (namnlös) polygon redan, ibland
inte. Farmyard ska väl strikt taget bara användas för aktiva bondgårdar och
taggas om till residential om jordbruket har lagts ner eller arrenderats ut
-- jag har förmodligen brukat vara lite för generös med farmyard.
(Fiskarstugan, Flöarna, Hagby, Lindvreten och Rökedalen där polygon finns,
samt Fårbo, Källbo och Sjöänget där polygon ännu saknas). Två tveksamma
fall, Ekorrbo och Gruvan, ser ut att ligga mitt ute i skogen på
satellitbilder, men det är byggnader utsatta på Topografiska så det skulle
kunna vara korrekt. Sen om nån faktiskt bor där är svårt att veta...

Två isolated_dwelling-noder, Leonardsberg och Brogården, ligger inne i
samlad bebyggelse och borde ersättas med place=farm eller name= på en
residential= eller building=. I de här fallen gick det att avgöra med
Ekonomiska kartan vilken tomt som avsågs, men jag vågar inte tro att det
funkar i allmänhet.

En isolated_dwelling-nod, Kapellbacken, verkar syfta på en samling av flera
hus (som finns redan på Ekonomiska men utan namn). Jag kan inte helt
avfärda möjligheten att det är ett av husen specifikt.

Slutligen det största misstaget: Högfors bruk är taggad som place=farm.
Bruket ägde visserligen jordbruksmark men i huvudsak är det en nedlagd och
delvis bevarad industri. Bruksområdet utgör de centrala delarna av byn
Högfors (sedan tidigare taggad som place=hamlet).

Jag har inte hittat några namn som är uppenbart oanvända idag, men de
flesta ensamgårdarna känner jag inte till bättre än som namn på en karta.
Om vi antar att alla namnen används och att Ekorrbo och Gruvan kan räknas
som isolated_dwelling snarare än locality är det alltså en träffsäkerhet på
12/16 = 75 %, och även de hyfsade 75 % är slarvigt gjorda. En
överslagsräkning utifrån Andreas användaruppgifter (93 intensiva
redigeringsdagar med cirka 1000 redigeringar per dagsverke) och en
Overpass-sökning efter alla place-noder i Sverige som redigerats de senaste
fem veckorna (som tuggade länge innan den kom fram till 117 172 noder) ger
båda vid handen att ungefär 100 000 noder importerats, give or take.
Norbergs kommun har alltså, jämfört med sin andel av ytan och befolkningen,
en ovanligt liten del av importen, och man kan misstänka att "svåra fall"
var överrepresenterade i de saknade namnen. På riksnivå skulle kanske 90 %
i själva verket kunna vara någorlunda korrekta. Det innebär fortfarande att
10 000 mer eller mindre felaktiga noder tillförts på kort tid utan att
någon vill ta ansvar för dem. Även om felprocenten är jämförbar eller något
bättre än genomsnittliga nybörjare blir slutresultatet värre eftersom
redigeringstakten är så hög. Jag är verkligen inte emot att använda
Topografiska kartan som _en_ källa vid OSM-arbete, men att använda den som
_ensam_ källa utan någon form av urval och ordentlig manuell kontroll blir
inte bra. Jag förespråkar att dessa redigeringar återställs om inte
importorganisatörerna erbjuder sig att städa väldigt snart.

Vänliga hälsningar
Essin

[1] https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/U8q
[2] https://historiskakartor.lantmateriet.se/arken/s/advancedsearch.html

Den mån 18 maj 2020 kl 18:51 skrev Andreas

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Mateusz Konieczny via talk

Sorry, probably I could reduce number of edits.

But note that you can collapse multiple edits into one -
after opening specific page and clicking on "view history"
you will be taken to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:access=history

There are two columns of round radio buttons, you can select any revision
as to be the initial one using left button (for example just before I started 
editiing)
and right one to the final one (for example latest revision)
and click "compare selected revisions".

It will show you all edits between this revisions merged into one, for example
currently it will be
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess=revision=1994830=1994557

May 24, 2020, 14:39 by davefoxfa...@btinternet.com:

> As you done it over (far too) many edits, could you provide acomparison 
> list of amendments here. 
>  
>  DaveF.
>   
>  
> On 24/05/2020 11:10, Mateusz Konieczny  via talk wrote:
>
>> I just added some example at >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access>> and improved existing 
>> one.Review, and improving edits (or comments here) would be 
>> welcomed.Deliberately posting to talk to get review also from people less 
>> involved intagging discussions.Thanks to Malenki and Seventy7 for suggesting 
>> it (in 2009 and 2010 respectively).
>>
>> ___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: [Talk-se] Samordning, dokumention & olika kommunikationskanaler

2020-05-24 Per discussione Andreas Vilén

När du föreslår ett nytt system för kommunikation, gör du bara att 
kommunikationen fragmenteras alltmer är jag rädd.

Lite som den här xkcd-klassikern: https://xkcd.com/927/

/Andreas

Skickat från min iPhone

> 24 maj 2020 kl. 21:05 skrev tomasy - :
> 
> 
> Som snabb kommunikationskanal föreslår jag Riot https://about.riot.im/ Det är 
> en opensource tjänst som inte sprider personlig data. Påminner om Slack. Man 
> kan föra diskussion i trådar. Det går att dela filer och bilder. Fler och 
> fler opensource-projekt använder Riot. Kan köras i browser men det finns även 
> appar för Android (Google och F-Droid), Appstore, Windows och Linux. Mozilla 
> har flyttat från IRC till Riot och efter 4 månader har de 4-10 * mer 
> medlemmar på sina grupper .  
> https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/updates-to-chat-mozilla-org-e2e-encryption-by-default-nicer-ui-email-notifications-and-sso-fixes/60425.
>  En del openstreetmap grupper finns redan där.
> 
> Nackdelen med Riot är att man inte har samma tydliga trådar som t.ex. forumet 
> eller maillinglistan.
> 
> Varför inte...
> Facebook. Alla vill inte vara med i Facebook pga. att de samlar personlig 
> data.
> IRC. Gammalt system som fler och fler går ifrån. Ingen historik.
> Mailinglista Bra att hitta trådarna efteråt men inte bra för snabb 
> kommunikation.
> /tomasy
> 
>> On 2020-05-16 11:22, Daniel Westergren wrote:
>> Tjenare,
>> 
>> En fråga som nog bättre lämpar sig att föra i den här mailinglistan än i 
>> Facebook-gruppen, då det inte är en enkel fråga utan kräver en djupare 
>> diskussion.
>> 
>> Frågeställningen rör vilka kanaler som är lämpligast för olika typer av 
>> diskussioner med det svenska OSM-communityt och hur vi samordnar vad som 
>> finns i wikin, där ju all viktig dokumentation bör samlas.
>> 
>> Befintliga kanaler
>> Enligt kommentarer i FB-gruppen är forumet egentligen bäst att använda för 
>> diskussioner, fast det används inte. Alltså är det inte bra. Likväl skrivs 
>> det frågor där, men de får sällan svar.
>> 
>> I andra hand mailinglistan, eftersom där sparas historiken garanterat (om än 
>> i en 90-talsinsinspirerad, antik lösning). Någon har även skrivit här i 
>> mailinglistan att de föredrar det, då de inte är med i FB-gruppen.
>> 
>> Men Facebook-gruppen är bra för snabbare diskussioner som inte är lika 
>> djupa, med enkla frågor och svar.
>> 
>> Dokumentationen ska sedan ske i wikin. Men det finns ingen som ansvarar för 
>> eller har en strategi för hur den ska underhållas och uppdateras för att 
>> faktiskt vara aktuell. Dessutom oklart vad vi behöver skriva på svenska och 
>> när det räcker med att hänvisa till det som finns på engelska.
>> 
>> Och så finns det kanske nån IRC-kanal om folk fortfarande använder sådant 
>> 2020?
>> 
>> En klassisk open source-röra med andra ord...
>> 
>> Vad kan vi göra?
>> Till att börja med, kan vi inte i alla de här kanalerna hänvisa till vilka 
>> kanaler som finns och vad de lämpligast används för?
>> I beskrivningen för FB-gruppen länkar vi till wikin och mailinglistan (och 
>> skriver att forumet inte bör användas).
>> I någon slags sidfot för den här mailinglistan länkar vi till wikin och 
>> FB-gruppen (och skriver att forumet inte bör användas).
>> I wikin beskriver vi hur dessa kanaler används och var vi föredrar att olika 
>> typer av kommunikation sker, beroende på vad det handlar om.
>> Var finns kanalerna dokumenterade?
>> Det finns i viss mån beskrivet på 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sv:Beginners%27_guide_1.6 (för den som 
>> råkar hitta den sidan...). 
>> 
>> Men där står hjälp-forumet överst (som bara är på engelska), sedan det 
>> egentliga forumet (där det svenska i praktiken inte används och därför ska 
>> vi inte locka nybörjare dit), sedan IRC (som vanliga människor inte har en 
>> aning om vad det är för något och används det fortfarande?), sedan 
>> mailinglistor (men inget specifikt om den svenska), sedan om användargrupper 
>> som länkar till en sida som inte finns och FB-gruppen nämns inte alls. Inte 
>> heller står det hur olika kanaler ska användas.
>> 
>> Rörig wiki
>> Jag tycker wikin är en sagolik röra och otroligt svår att navigera. Det 
>> blandas hej vilt med länkar till svenska och engelska sidor (utan att ange 
>> om länken går till en svensk eller engelsk sida) och ingen verkar ha koll på 
>> vilken information som fortfarande är aktuell och om länkar fortfarande 
>> fungerar. Hur ska vi kunna locka fler till OSM när det är så otroligt svårt 
>> att veta hur man ska hitta hjälp och var man hittar folk som kan svara på 
>> frågor och vägleda nya användare?
>> 
>> Samordning?
>> Finns det någon som helst samordning av OSM i Sverige? Skulle vi kunna söka 
>> medel via Wikimedia Sverige för att städa upp i den svenska OSM-wikin och 
>> förbättra den med aktuella resurser?
>> 
>> Ja, lite tillspetsat. Men ska vi få fler att använda och bidra till OSM så 
>> behövs samordning och uppstädning...  
>> 
>> 
>> Ser fram emot en kreativ diskussion om hur vi

Re: [Talk-at] Abzeichnen von OpenTopoMap?

2020-05-24 Per discussione Patrick Strasser-Mikhail



Am 24.05.2020 um 22:02 schrieb Stefan Tauner via Talk-at:

On Sun, 24 May 2020 21:20:12 +0200
scubbx  wrote:


* Die SRTM Daten sind als Public Domain verfügbar. Es gibt 3 Versionen
der SRTM Daten, die sich in ihrer Nachbearbeitung unterschieden. Ich
glaube, dass vor einiger Zeit zumindest, nur die Version 1 Public Domain
war - vielleicht sind es inzwischen auch die anderen Versionen?

Wie im ursprünglichen Posting schon erwähnt, dürft das, das wahre
Problem sein. Ich hab nur kurz recherchiert, weil ich dachte, dass SRTM
PD sein müssten, weil NASA und so... aber es ist offenbar so, dass sie
für einige Varianten fremde Höhendaten dazu gemischt haben, weil einige
Bereiche nicht aufgenommen wurden. Die Quellen für diese zusätzlichen
Daten waren nicht PD. Ein paar Erklärungen finden sich z.B. hier drin:
https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/documents/13/SRTM_Quick_Guide.pdf

Es müsste also zuerst mal geklärt werden, welche SRTM-Daten von der OTM
verwendet werden, speziell in der "sehr spärlich gemappten Region der
Welt".


Zusammen mit der Antwort von scubbx sollte man wohl:

* Die Lizenzlage der Höhendaten in OpenTopoMap-Daten genauer klären.

* Die OpenTopoMap-Macher befragen bezüglich ihrer Einstellung zur 
Lizenzerweiterung in der Verwendung als OSM-Quelle.



Allerdings, obwohl IANAL, sehe ich wenig lizenzrechtliche Probleme
darin, wenn man auf Grund *irgendwelcher* Daten, Plausibilitätschecks
macht und dann z.B. die Fließrichtung eines Gewässers feststellt und
in OSM einträgt, wenn das die einzige Information ist, die diesen
Daten entnommen wurde - von der praktischen Nichtverfolgung ganz zu
schweigen.


Für mich noch offen: Was ist erlaubt, wo ist die Grenze? 
Plausibilitätscheck ist dann also Ok. Wie schaut es aus, wenn man 
Ortsnamen aus einer Karte abliest und die verwendet? Was ist das Kriterium?


Ich habe natürlich in meinen Commits brav die herangezogenen Quellen 
eingetragen. Eine "Check"-Quelle auszulassen scheint mir nicht ok, ich 
habe ja damit Entscheidungen getroffen. Es lässt sich aber ohne weiteren 
Hinweis nicht erkennen, wie viel Info aus welcher Quelle stammt. Und 
genau dort hat mein Problem angefangen.


LG Patrick/trapicki

--  Cheap - good - fast: choose any two
Patrick Strasser-Mikhail
patr...@wirklich.priv.at


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Mateusz Konieczny via talk




May 24, 2020, 20:47 by f...@zz.de:

> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:10:41PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>> I just added some example at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
>> and improved existing one.
>>
>> Review, and improving edits (or comments here) would be welcomed.
>>
>> Deliberately posting to talk to get review also from people less involved in
>> tagging discussions.
>>
>> Thanks to Malenki and Seventy7 for suggesting it (in 2009 and 2010 
>> respectively).
>>
>
> For me its missing at least 2 points:
>
> - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
>  verifyable.
>
Can you give an example of such untaggable restriction?

"visible assigned" is not limited to just traffic sign. For example driveway 
behind
a gate can be tagged as access=private (except gates that can be opened by
anybody or by all customers or something like that).

In some cases it is visibly assigned and verifiable, but sign may be a bit 
distant
- for example access restrictions in nature reserves ("leaving signed trails is
not acceptable") or zone traffic signs, with entrances signed "no access except 
residents".

>From quick review I am unable to remember any actually existing
access restriction that would not be taggable.

> - To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible.
>
Can you find a good example for that? I was unable to find one that
would not be ridiculous, so despite of desire of including something
like that I skipped it.

> For example the German forum fights (with me) for tagging all driveways
> as access=private disregarding any signs of the will of the owner. So 
> even you dont post additional signs or putting a gate on your
> driveway the proposal is to tag everything access=private.
>
At least in Poland it is 100% correct, except rare cases where
any member of public is allowed to open such gate.

>  I dont think thats a good idea as it makes the driveway and the area
> of the nuclear power plant indistinguishable.
>
For access purposes this is correct, in both cases you need permission
from owner to enter and in both cases routing into such POI
should be capable of allowing to finish route using access=private ways
(and warn user that it is happening).

>  So as a delivery
> like Amazon Logistics, UPS, FedEx and Co you have to ignore
> access=privates to be able to actually use your driveway,
>
Yep.

> which automatically makes them ignore the power plants service
> as well.
>
And this way for routing for worker of power plant asking for a route 
to a place of work will continue to work. Is there something missing
that I do not see?

Is access=private supposed to be incorrect in either case?

>  This will be prone to real errors and bad workarounds.
>
> So - people try to overload the meaning of access=private
> with something more like ownership=private.
>
> So IMHO the advice to tag EVERY driveway with access=private is a very
> bad one.
>
Yes, driveways that are open to general public (shared driveway without gate or
other restrictions) or to all customers (tourism attraction driveway) should not
be tagged like a private driveway.

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

Re: [Talk-es] Datos IET - Xunta de Galicia

2020-05-24 Per discussione Santiago Crespo

Si, se puede crear un proyecto en el gestor de tareas por cada proyecto
de importación como las parroquias. Eso sí, antes tiene que estar
definido cómo será el proceso en la wiki y que no haya más pegas sin
resolver en esta lista y en imports.

Creo recordar que tendrás que pedir a Javier Sánchez que dé permisos a
tu usuario de OSM para que puedas crear proyectos en el gestor, esto
podrías hacerlo ya. Así podrías crear un proyecto de pruebas (no
público) para que te familiarices con el gestor como administrador de
proyectos.

On 5/24/20 10:46 PM, Miguel Branco wrote:
> Gracias por las aportaciones, Santiago!
> 
> Si, me centré en crear una página donde se describa objetivo por
> conjunto de datos. Pero efectivamente, alguno de ellos llevará tiempo y,
> también por comodidad, debería tener su propia web. Intentaré irlos creando.
> 
> El gestor de tareas nos vendría fantástico para datos como los de añadir
> parroquias. Se podría abrir un proyecto allí?
> 
> O dom., 24 de maio de 2020 ás 21:55,  > escribiu:
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 17:25:07 +0200
> From: Santiago Crespo  >
> To: talk-es@openstreetmap.org 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-es] Datos IET - Xunta de Galicia
> Message-ID: <8cad392d-ecf4-303e-1c78-2f3205140...@flanera.net
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Ola Miguel,
> 
> Enhorabuena por conseguir la autorización y carta de exención firmadas,
> buen trabajo. Las he subido al wiki con las categorías
> "ES:Autorizaciones para usar fuentes de datos de España", "Documents" y
> "ES:Galicia". He cambiado los enlaces para que apunten a los documentos
> en el wiki, cambiando un poco del texto que acompaña a los enlaces.
> 
> Creo que cada proyecto de importación tendría que tener su propia
> página, en lugar de ser secciones en una página enorme. Así será más
> facil que la comunidad revise cada proyecto, de uno en uno. Si además
> están en inglés, será más fácil para imports pero esto ya es opcional.
> Recuerdo que en una de las primeras propuestas del catastro nos pusieron
> pegas en la lista de imports por intentar organizar una importación de
> varios tipos de elementos a la vez.
> 
> Quizá podrías mantener la página de IET_Import como un índice que enlace
> con las páginas individuales para cada proyecto.
> 
> Sobre la página con los estados de importación, si usamos el gestor de
> tareas creo que no haría falta ir actualizando la wiki para apuntar lo
> que está hecho o no.
> 
> Por ahora no he leído detalladamente las propuestas concretas ni he
> visto los datos originales.
> 
> Saludos!
> Santiago Crespo
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-es mailing list
> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> For me its missing at least 2 points:
> 
> - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
>   verifyable.
> - To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible.

I put these in - I rephrased the pretty strong "You dont need any
ground truth" to - "We should follow ground truth and not introduce
guesswork" which is in clear line with OSM Best Common Practices.

And i rephrased the driveway private road to make it explcitly that
not all driveways need an access=private, just if there is a clear
intent of the legal entity e.g. owner to make it out of bounds.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:50:19PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-05-24 20:47, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> > - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
> > verifyable.
> 
> It is sufficient to say "verifiable". It does not always need to be
> evidenced by a visible sign - as long as another independent mapper
> could (easily) verify its truth. The fact that (in many countries) speed
> limits and parking rules change when you enter a settlement means that
> these attributes are verifiable without there needing to be an explicit
> sign. 

But these are basically "legal rules" you may find somewhere. I am fine
with that. I am not fine with guesswork. 

"I think the owner allows bicycles but not cars" 

without any hint of this really beeing the case. You'll open up
a huge can of worms if suddenly access tags are not reliable but
some Jo mappers guesswork.

> > So - people try to overload the meaning of access=private
> > with something more like ownership=private.
> 
> Access=private always means you have no "right" of access, and must keep
> out unless you have permission from the appropriate authority (be that
> the owner of a driveway or the operator of a nuclear power station).
> That permission can be explicit (a permit or invitation) or implicit
> (delivery drivers etc). Routers frequently apply different rules for the
> first and last segments of a route, blocking routing over "private"
> roads in the body of the route but not hesitating to use them if they
> are the only way to access the start and destination locations.

I had the phrasing in our German discussion already. In routing
you are either

Allowed to use a way
Not allowed to use the way
Allowed to use the way at the tail/head of a route

What is access=private? And if you answer "it depends" - On what
does it depend and how does the software know? And how does the
software distinguish between ways in a nuclear power plant and
a driveway?

access=private is mostly excluded for everything for good reasons. 

For a driveway marking it as service/driveway is everything you need.
It has penaltys so its basically the same as destination. If you add
a private to a driveway you change the routing availability
from destination to no.

And i dont think this is what most owners of a driveway would expect.
If they dont want people on their driveway by all means the'll put up
signs or barriers which is common in some areas of the world.

I definitly would be angry if some random mapper adds a access=private
to my 1.5km driveway (Which i have) because i want people to be able
to reach my house. I had this and it caused 15km+ diverts for people
relying on OSM.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Colin Smale

On 2020-05-24 20:47, Florian Lohoff wrote:

> - The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
> verifyable.

It is sufficient to say "verifiable". It does not always need to be
evidenced by a visible sign - as long as another independent mapper
could (easily) verify its truth. The fact that (in many countries) speed
limits and parking rules change when you enter a settlement means that
these attributes are verifiable without there needing to be an explicit
sign. 

> So - people try to overload the meaning of access=private
> with something more like ownership=private.

Access=private always means you have no "right" of access, and must keep
out unless you have permission from the appropriate authority (be that
the owner of a driveway or the operator of a nuclear power station).
That permission can be explicit (a permit or invitation) or implicit
(delivery drivers etc). Routers frequently apply different rules for the
first and last segments of a route, blocking routing over "private"
roads in the body of the route but not hesitating to use them if they
are the only way to access the start and destination locations.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-es] Resumen de Talk-es, Vol 160, Envío 17

2020-05-24 Per discussione Miguel Branco

Gracias por las aportaciones, Santiago!

Si, me centré en crear una página donde se describa objetivo por conjunto
de datos. Pero efectivamente, alguno de ellos llevará tiempo y, también por
comodidad, debería tener su propia web. Intentaré irlos creando.

El gestor de tareas nos vendría fantástico para datos como los de añadir
parroquias. Se podría abrir un proyecto allí?

O dom., 24 de maio de 2020 ás 21:55, 
escribiu:

> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 17:25:07 +0200
> From: Santiago Crespo 
> To: talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-es] Datos IET - Xunta de Galicia
> Message-ID: <8cad392d-ecf4-303e-1c78-2f3205140...@flanera.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Ola Miguel,
>
> Enhorabuena por conseguir la autorización y carta de exención firmadas,
> buen trabajo. Las he subido al wiki con las categorías
> "ES:Autorizaciones para usar fuentes de datos de España", "Documents" y
> "ES:Galicia". He cambiado los enlaces para que apunten a los documentos
> en el wiki, cambiando un poco del texto que acompaña a los enlaces.
>
> Creo que cada proyecto de importación tendría que tener su propia
> página, en lugar de ser secciones en una página enorme. Así será más
> facil que la comunidad revise cada proyecto, de uno en uno. Si además
> están en inglés, será más fácil para imports pero esto ya es opcional.
> Recuerdo que en una de las primeras propuestas del catastro nos pusieron
> pegas en la lista de imports por intentar organizar una importación de
> varios tipos de elementos a la vez.
>
> Quizá podrías mantener la página de IET_Import como un índice que enlace
> con las páginas individuales para cada proyecto.
>
> Sobre la página con los estados de importación, si usamos el gestor de
> tareas creo que no haría falta ir actualizando la wiki para apuntar lo
> que está hecho o no.
>
> Por ahora no he leído detalladamente las propuestas concretas ni he
> visto los datos originales.
>
> Saludos!
> Santiago Crespo
>
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Comment cartographier une prise électrique

2020-05-24 Per discussione Jacques Lavignotte




Le 24/05/2020 à 09:14, David Crochet a écrit :

Bonjour

Cela fait également penser aux blocs de prise de courant disponible pour 
les commercants ambulants sur les marchés avec par exemple l'ajout de 
l'étiquette "location=underground" et souvent associé à une prise d'eau 
potable, ou du moins un robinet


Voilà : https://i.postimg.cc/hGNzfMLM/Prises-de-Courant.jpg

--
GnuPg : 156520BBC8F5B1E3 Because privacy matters.
« Quand est-ce qu'on mange ? » AD (c) (tm)

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Comment cartographier une prise électrique

2020-05-24 Per discussione pepilepi...@ovh.fr

Le 23/05/2020 à 23:50, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> Bonsoir,
>
> Après un périple à vélo je me suis retrouvé à recharger mes appareils
> sur une prise mural extérieur n'ayant plus de bar ouvert à disposition.
> L'électricité étant à nos appareils ce que l'eau est à l'humain
> comment tagguer ces prises de courant ?



https://www.pearl.fr/article/ZX2859/batterie-dappoint-usb-ultra-plate-2-mah-2-4-a-12-w


Bonsoir,

Sérieusement c'est sacrément pratique ces machins !

Bonne soirée,

JP

>
> Pour l'instant j'ai trouvé
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:power_supply
> pour les campings (plus pour tagguer la présence du service et le type
> de prise que la prise elle même).
>
> J'ai trouvé https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:socket pour
> décrire la prise mais je dois avouez être dubitatif j'aurais aimé
> avoir un tag générique pour "une prise électrique commune" genre
> socket=yes
> parce que tagguer socket:typee=1 c'est peut-être overkill, non ?
>
>
> -- 
> Florimond Berthoux
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr


-- 


Si ma réponse n'a pas résolu ton problème, c'est que tu n'as pas posé la
bonne question.

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

Re: [Talk-at] Abzeichnen von OpenTopoMap?

2020-05-24 Per discussione Stefan Tauner via Talk-at

On Sun, 24 May 2020 21:20:12 +0200
scubbx  wrote:

> * Die SRTM Daten sind als Public Domain verfügbar. Es gibt 3 Versionen
> der SRTM Daten, die sich in ihrer Nachbearbeitung unterschieden. Ich
> glaube, dass vor einiger Zeit zumindest, nur die Version 1 Public Domain
> war - vielleicht sind es inzwischen auch die anderen Versionen?

Wie im ursprünglichen Posting schon erwähnt, dürft das, das wahre
Problem sein. Ich hab nur kurz recherchiert, weil ich dachte, dass SRTM
PD sein müssten, weil NASA und so... aber es ist offenbar so, dass sie
für einige Varianten fremde Höhendaten dazu gemischt haben, weil einige
Bereiche nicht aufgenommen wurden. Die Quellen für diese zusätzlichen
Daten waren nicht PD. Ein paar Erklärungen finden sich z.B. hier drin:
https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/documents/13/SRTM_Quick_Guide.pdf

Es müsste also zuerst mal geklärt werden, welche SRTM-Daten von der OTM
verwendet werden, speziell in der "sehr spärlich gemappten Region der
Welt".

Allerdings, obwohl IANAL, sehe ich wenig lizenzrechtliche Probleme
darin, wenn man auf Grund *irgendwelcher* Daten, Plausibilitätschecks
macht und dann z.B. die Fließrichtung eines Gewässers feststellt und
in OSM einträgt, wenn das die einzige Information ist, die diesen
Daten entnommen wurde - von der praktischen Nichtverfolgung ganz zu
schweigen.

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

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

[Talk-es] Demarcaciones sanitarias

2020-05-24 Per discussione Diego Cruz

Hola a todos:

En el grupo de Castilla y León hemos estado hablando sobre mapear una serie
de límites territoriales y por iniciativa personal he propuesto empezar con
los distritos sanitarios. Os dejo un esquema de mi propuesta para los
usuarios de Castilla y León y por si pudiese aprovecharse en otras
autonomías.

El territorio podría dividirse utilizando la etiqueta
*boundary=healthcare_administration*, siguiendo el ejemplo de
religious_administration (y que podría copiarse para
environment_administration o agriculture_administration en otras
demarcaciones que existen a nivel local). Para los tres niveles de
organización que hay (autonomía, áreas de salud y zonas básicas de salud)
podría utilizarse *healthcare_level* al modo de admin_level. Es decir:

Área de salud de León

*name=León*
*boundary=healthcare_administration*
*healthcare_level=6* (nivel de provincia)

Zona básica de salud de Babia
*name=Babia*
*boundary=healthcare_administration*
*healthcare_level=7* (nivel de comarca)
*healthcare_ref=170304*

En cuanto a los centros médicos, propongo el siguiente esquema, a modo de
resumen de lo que probablemente ya esté mapeado:

- *Healthcare=hospital *para los grandes hospitales que hay en cada unidad
de salud (capitales de provincia, básicamente), denominados complejos
asistenciales, hospitales universitarios, etc.
- *Healthcare=clinic* para los centros de salud que hay en cada núcleo de
una zona básica de salud, denominados oficialmente centros de salud
- *Healthcare=doctor* para las consultas de los pueblos pequeños

Además, los centros que tengan puntos de atención continuada (entiendo que
eso es lo que son las urgencias en el lenguaje de la Junta) pueden marcarse
con *emergency=yes*, los centros de especialidades (ambulatorios) con
*healthcare=specialities* (este etiquetado no existe, pero no he encontrado
nada que refleje lo que son estos centros, que en Castilla y León están a
medio camino entre un centro de salud y un hospital), y *healthcare=hospice*
para los centros de cuidados paliativos.

Creo que esto es lo básico del sistema sanitario de Castilla y León. Luego
pueden añadirse las especialidades de cada hospital, los horarios de
atención o lo que se quiera. Espero vuestros comentarios por si me dejo
algo en el tintero y que uséis en otras autonomías.

Un saludo

https://www.saludcastillayleon.es/institucion/es/organizacion/ordenacion-sistema-sanitario/guia-ordenacion-sanitaria-castilla-leon/anexos.ficheros/77581-Anexo%20I.pdf
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-de] oneway = no

2020-05-24 Per discussione Markus via Talk-de

Hi Florian,

> alle default tags nochmal taggen nur damit einige wenige eine
> Vollständigkeitsstatistik führen können ist auch irgendwie missbrauch
> der osm tags oder sehe nur ich das so?

Ich habe mal gelernt, dass es da 3 Zustände gibt:
- ja
- nein
- weiss nicht

und dass Letzterer unbedingt noch geprüft werden muss
(und die anderen Beiden regelmässig auf Änderung kontrolliert werden)

Gruss, Markus


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

Re: [Talk-at] Abzeichnen von OpenTopoMap?

2020-05-24 Per discussione scubbx

Hallo!

Der Ursprung des Problems scheint mir das SA der CC-BY-SA Lizenz der
gesamten OpenTopoMap zu sein.

* Da die OpenTopoMap ein "produced work" ist, darf der Ersteller
desselben laut ODbL die Lizenz dieses Werks frei wählen, solange er die
Quelle (OSM), deren Lizenz (ODbL) und eventuelle Veränderungen der Daten
bereitstellt. Der Ersteller hat offensichtlich die CC-BY-SA Lizenz gewählt.

* Die SRTM Daten sind als Public Domain verfügbar. Es gibt 3 Versionen
der SRTM Daten, die sich in ihrer Nachbearbeitung unterschieden. Ich
glaube, dass vor einiger Zeit zumindest, nur die Version 1 Public Domain
war - vielleicht sind es inzwischen auch die anderen Versionen?

-> Der Ersteller kann seine eigene CC-BY-SA OpenTopoMap mit den Public
Domain SRTMs mischen.

Für Eintragungen in die OSM macht das "SA" (ShareAlike) ein Problem,
weil durch die ODbL ein "Share Alike" nicht garantiert werden kann.

Allerdings: ich kann mir schwer vorstellen, dass die OpenTopoMap
Hersteller etwas dagegen haben werden, dass diese als Grundlage für OSM
Mapping benutzt wird. Im Zweifelsfall kannst du bestimmt nach einer
extra Erlaubnis bei den Projektbetreibern fragen.
Aber selbst wenn nicht, würde ich davon ausgehen, dass das im Sinne
beider Projekte ist.

lg, Markus (ScubbX)


Am 24.05.20 um 20:28 schrieb Patrick Strasser-Mikhail:
> Hallo!
>
> Ich zeichne gerade in einer sehr spärlich gemappten Region der Welt
> grundlegende Dinge (Straßen, Gewässer, Wald/Farmland, Gebäude). Ich
> verwendet JOSM, mit den in JOSM vorhandenen Hintergründen.
> Normalerweise ist in der Gegend Bing die beste Quelle, manchmal ist
> OpenTopoMap hilfreich, um die Luftbilder besser zu interpretieren: in
> welche Richtung fließt das Gewässer, ist der Weg hier plausiebel, ist
> das Gelände eher sehr Steil und nicht wirklich bearbeitbar usw.
>
> Ich wurde in einem Kommentar darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass
> OpenTopoMap als Quelle wegen der SRTM-Lizenz ungeeignet ist.
>
> Für mich ist jetzt unklar:
> * Ist OpenTopoMap eine geeignete Quelle für OpenStreetmap (abzüglicher
> einer Selbsreferenz, die ich problemlos erkennen kann)?
> * Was genau ist erlaubt, wo wird es problematische? Wenn ich jetzt nur
> z.B. die Geländedaten verwende um einen Gewässerverlauf zu zeichnen,
> oder wenn ich mir die OTM als Entscheidungshilfe nehme?
> * Gibt es irgendwo eine Diskussion dazu (ja, ich habe gesucht...)
>
> LG
>
> Patrick/trapicki
>

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

Re: [Talk-at] Abzeichnen von OpenTopoMap?

2020-05-24 Per discussione various

Soweit ich das https://opentopomap.org/about hier sehen kann, steht die 
OpenTopoMap unter CC-BY-SA, wie auch OSM 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright laut der Seite (bzw. die Kartenkacheln 
selbst, nicht die OSM-Daten).
Steht auch genau so hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenTopoMap 

Auf Anhieb würde ich jetzt mal ganz vorsichtig behaupten, dass das überhaupt 
kein Problem sein sollte. Aber mal auf ein paar andere Antworten warten :)

> Patrick Strasser-Mikhail  hat am 24. Mai 2020 20:28 
> geschrieben:
> 
>  
> Hallo!
> 
> Ich zeichne gerade in einer sehr spärlich gemappten Region der Welt 
> grundlegende Dinge (Straßen, Gewässer, Wald/Farmland, Gebäude). Ich 
> verwendet JOSM, mit den in JOSM vorhandenen Hintergründen. Normalerweise 
> ist in der Gegend Bing die beste Quelle, manchmal ist OpenTopoMap 
> hilfreich, um die Luftbilder besser zu interpretieren: in welche 
> Richtung fließt das Gewässer, ist der Weg hier plausiebel, ist das 
> Gelände eher sehr Steil und nicht wirklich bearbeitbar usw.
> 
> Ich wurde in einem Kommentar darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass OpenTopoMap 
> als Quelle wegen der SRTM-Lizenz ungeeignet ist.
> 
> Für mich ist jetzt unklar:
> * Ist OpenTopoMap eine geeignete Quelle für OpenStreetmap (abzüglicher 
> einer Selbsreferenz, die ich problemlos erkennen kann)?
> * Was genau ist erlaubt, wo wird es problematische? Wenn ich jetzt nur 
> z.B. die Geländedaten verwende um einen Gewässerverlauf zu zeichnen, 
> oder wenn ich mir die OTM als Entscheidungshilfe nehme?
> * Gibt es irgendwo eine Diskussion dazu (ja, ich habe gesucht...)
> 
> LG
> 
> Patrick/trapicki
> 
> -- 
> Cheap - good - fast: choose any two
> Patrick Strasser-Mikhail
> patr...@wirklich.priv.at
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-at mailing list
> Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

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

Re: [Talk-se] Samordning, dokumention & olika kommunikationskanaler

2020-05-24 Per discussione tomasy -

Som snabb kommunikationskanal föreslår jag *Riot* https://about.riot.im/
Det är en opensource tjänst som inte sprider personlig data. Påminner om
Slack. Man kan föra diskussion i trådar. Det går att dela filer och bilder.
Fler och fler opensource-projekt använder Riot. Kan köras i browser men det
finns även appar för Android (Google och F-Droid), Appstore, Windows och
Linux. Mozilla har flyttat från IRC till Riot och efter 4 månader har de
4-10 * mer medlemmar på sina grupper .
https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/updates-to-chat-mozilla-org-e2e-encryption-by-default-nicer-ui-email-notifications-and-sso-fixes/60425.
En del openstreetmap grupper finns redan där.

Nackdelen med Riot är att man inte har samma tydliga trådar som t.ex.
forumet eller maillinglistan.

Varför inte...
*Facebook*. Alla vill inte vara med i Facebook pga. att de samlar personlig
data.
*IRC*. Gammalt system som fler och fler går ifrån. Ingen historik.
*Mailinglista* Bra att hitta trådarna efteråt men inte bra för snabb
kommunikation.
/tomasy
On 2020-05-16 11:22, Daniel Westergren wrote:

Tjenare,

En fråga som nog bättre lämpar sig att föra i den här mailinglistan än i
Facebook-gruppen, då det inte är en enkel fråga utan kräver en
djupare diskussion.

Frågeställningen rör vilka kanaler som är lämpligast för olika typer av
diskussioner med det svenska OSM-communityt och hur vi samordnar vad som
finns i wikin, där ju all viktig dokumentation bör samlas.

*Befintliga kanaler*
Enligt kommentarer i FB-gruppen är forumet
egentligen bäst att
använda för diskussioner, fast det används inte. Alltså är det inte bra.
Likväl skrivs det frågor där, men de får sällan svar.

I andra hand *mailinglistan*, eftersom där sparas historiken garanterat (om
än i en 90-talsinsinspirerad, antik lösning). Någon har även skrivit här i
mailinglistan att de föredrar det, då de inte är med i FB-gruppen.

Men *Facebook-gruppen* är bra för snabbare diskussioner som inte är lika
djupa, med enkla frågor och svar.

Dokumentationen ska sedan ske i *wikin*. Men det finns ingen som ansvarar
för eller har en strategi för hur den ska underhållas och uppdateras för
att faktiskt vara aktuell. Dessutom oklart vad vi behöver skriva på svenska
och när det räcker med att hänvisa till det som finns på engelska.

Och så finns det kanske nån *IRC-kanal* om folk fortfarande använder sådant
2020?

En klassisk open source-röra med andra ord...

*Vad kan vi göra?*
Till att börja med, *kan vi inte i alla de här kanalerna hänvisa till vilka
kanaler som finns och vad de lämpligast används för?*

- I beskrivningen för FB-gruppen länkar vi till wikin och mailinglistan
(och skriver att forumet inte bör användas).
- I någon slags sidfot för den här mailinglistan länkar vi till wikin
och FB-gruppen (och skriver att forumet inte bör användas).
- I wikin beskriver vi hur dessa kanaler används och var vi föredrar att
olika typer av kommunikation sker, beroende på vad det handlar om.

*Var finns kanalerna dokumenterade?*
Det finns i viss mån beskrivet på
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sv:Beginners%27_guide_1.6 (för den som
råkar hitta den sidan...).

Men där står hjälp-forumet överst (som
bara är på engelska), sedan det egentliga *forumet *(där det svenska i
praktiken inte används och därför ska vi inte locka nybörjare dit), sedan *IRC
*(som vanliga människor inte har en aning om vad det är för något och
används det fortfarande?), sedan *mailinglistor *(men inget specifikt om
den svenska), sedan om *användargrupper *som länkar till en sida som inte
finns och *FB-gruppen* nämns inte alls. Inte heller står det hur olika
kanaler ska användas.

*Rörig wiki*
Jag tycker wikin är en sagolik röra och otroligt svår att navigera. Det
blandas hej vilt med länkar till svenska och engelska sidor (utan att ange
om länken går till en svensk eller engelsk sida) och ingen verkar ha koll
på vilken information som fortfarande är aktuell och om länkar fortfarande
fungerar. Hur ska vi kunna locka fler till OSM när det är så otroligt svårt
att veta hur man ska hitta hjälp och var man hittar folk som kan svara på
frågor och vägleda nya användare?

*Samordning?*
Finns det någon som helst samordning av OSM i Sverige? Skulle vi kunna söka
medel via Wikimedia Sverige för att städa upp i den svenska OSM-wikin och
förbättra den med aktuella resurser?

Ja, lite tillspetsat. Men ska vi få fler att använda och bidra till OSM så
behövs samordning och uppstädning...

Ser fram emot en kreativ diskussion om hur vi kan förbättra detta utan att
det kräver alltför mycket ideella resurser (som sällan finns).

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

[Talk-lt] Street compleet užduotys

2020-05-24 Per discussione Tomas Straupis

Sveiki

  Puiku, kad vis daugiau naudojama Street complete programėlė,
leidžianti lengvai, bet ženkliai prisidėti prie OpenStreetMap pildymo.
  Šiek tiek apie tai, kad vertėtų pagalvoti, kurias užduotis vykdote
ir kokius prioritetus joms suteikiate:
  https://blog.openmap.lt/2020/05/24/street-complete/

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:10:41PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> I just added some example at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
> and improved existing one.
> 
> Review, and improving edits (or comments here) would be welcomed.
> 
> Deliberately posting to talk to get review also from people less involved in
> tagging discussions.
> 
> Thanks to Malenki and Seventy7 for suggesting it (in 2009 and 2010 
> respectively).

For me its missing at least 2 points:

- The "Ground truth" we tag restrictions only when visibly assigned and
  verifyable.
- To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible.

From my experience access restrictions are currently the most
problematic issue concerning routing. People mix in a lot
of stuff like ownership, legal, physical and "emotional" aspects
to tag access restrictions. This causes a lot of harm to reachability
of addresses.

For example the German forum fights (with me) for tagging all driveways
as access=private disregarding any signs of the will of the owner. So 
even you dont post additional signs or putting a gate on your
driveway the proposal is to tag everything access=private. I dont
think thats a good idea as it makes the driveway and the area
of the nuclear power plant indistinguishable. So as a delivery
like Amazon Logistics, UPS, FedEx and Co you have to ignore
access=privates to be able to actually use your driveway,
which automatically makes them ignore the power plants service
as well. This will be prone to real errors and bad workarounds.

So - people try to overload the meaning of access=private
with something more like ownership=private.

So IMHO the advice to tag EVERY driveway with access=private is a very
bad one.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-de] oneway = no

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 07:04:07PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Aus welchem Grund siehst du das bei Radwegen anders als bei Strassen?
> Das Problem ist genau das gleiche.
> Dummerweise gibt es keinen tag value "positivly yes".im Gegensatz zu dem
> Ansatz missing tag fehlt = tag with default value.
> 
> Ich wuerde dich dringend bitten, wenigstens  in Zukunft keine Loeschungen
> von "vollkommen redundanten" tags mehr vorzunehmen. Danke im Voraus.

Aeh - Das ist ein großer unterschied. Straßen sind zu 99% und mehr 
keine Einbahnstraßen. Also macht es keinen Sinn die 99% zu taggen
sondern die 1%

ALLE Straßenbegleitenden Radwege sind aber oneways. D.h. da sind wir
vermutlich bei 70-80% die ein oneway sind - daher macht es bei denen 
die es nicht sind Sinn diese explizit zu taggen. Hier tagge ich 
die 20% abweichenden zusätzlich zu den 70% die ich eh taggen muss.

Einfach Statistik.

Und alle default tags nochmal taggen nur damit einige wenige eine
Vollständigkeitsstatistik führen können ist auch irgendwie missbrauch
der osm tags oder sehe nur ich das so?

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away

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

Re: [Talk-de] highway=crossing -> highway=traffic_signals

Hi,

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 04:48:17PM +0200, Volker via Talk-de wrote:
> Hat das vielleicht etwas hiermit
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=69290
>  zu tun? Das Proposal ist allerdings
> rejected.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/traffic_signals%3Dcrossing_only
> 

Das will ich nicht ausschliessen. Kann es sein das irgendein validator
oder QA tool das als Fehler raus wirft und änderungen Analog des
proposals empfiehlt?

Ich sehe halt Änderungen im routing weil natürlich eine Ampelkreuzung
anders als Fußgängerampeln bewertet werden. D.h. bestimmte routen 
werden "länger" bzw langsamer.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away

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

[Talk-at] Abzeichnen von OpenTopoMap?

2020-05-24 Per discussione Patrick Strasser-Mikhail


Hallo!

Ich zeichne gerade in einer sehr spärlich gemappten Region der Welt 
grundlegende Dinge (Straßen, Gewässer, Wald/Farmland, Gebäude). Ich 
verwendet JOSM, mit den in JOSM vorhandenen Hintergründen. Normalerweise 
ist in der Gegend Bing die beste Quelle, manchmal ist OpenTopoMap 
hilfreich, um die Luftbilder besser zu interpretieren: in welche 
Richtung fließt das Gewässer, ist der Weg hier plausiebel, ist das 
Gelände eher sehr Steil und nicht wirklich bearbeitbar usw.


Ich wurde in einem Kommentar darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass OpenTopoMap 
als Quelle wegen der SRTM-Lizenz ungeeignet ist.


Für mich ist jetzt unklar:
* Ist OpenTopoMap eine geeignete Quelle für OpenStreetmap (abzüglicher 
einer Selbsreferenz, die ich problemlos erkennen kann)?
* Was genau ist erlaubt, wo wird es problematische? Wenn ich jetzt nur 
z.B. die Geländedaten verwende um einen Gewässerverlauf zu zeichnen, 
oder wenn ich mir die OTM als Entscheidungshilfe nehme?

* Gibt es irgendwo eine Diskussion dazu (ja, ich habe gesucht...)

LG

Patrick/trapicki

--
Cheap - good - fast: choose any two
Patrick Strasser-Mikhail
patr...@wirklich.priv.at


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Martin Koppenhoefer

sent from a phone

> On 24. May 2020, at 12:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> I just added some example at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
> and improved existing one.
> 
> Review, and improving edits (or comments here) would be welcomed.

it’s a lot of text, are you sure it improves the page to add extensive prose 
examples? I have for example noted you write about “private road” as if it 
would imply access controlled road, while the same term is commonly used also 
for roads in private ownership (but with public access rights). The  example in 
this case  seems to add more to the confusion than it removes.

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Comment cartographier une prise électrique

2020-05-24 Per discussione Florimond Berthoux

Bah la prise électrique qu'on rencontre 95% du temps dans les foyers, et
qu'on utilise 95% du temps, bref une pauvre et simple prise électrique.
Oui il y a deux types général en France.

Reste que tagguer "il y a une prise électrique de type habituel" c'est
beaucoup plus simple que de devoir chercher le type de la prise habituel
dans un tableau à mille entrée...
Donc si, c'est plus difficile, c'est plus précis mais c'est plus difficile.
Et à consommer c'est plus difficile, je pense que je vais devoir écrire une
requête à base de socket:typeA ou socket:typeB ou ... ou socket:typeZ, youpi

C'est un peu comme si on devait obligatoirement indiqué si une eau est une
eau de ville ou de source.

Bref, socket=x ça aurait très bien marché 95% du temps, et probable que son
utilisation se développe.


Le dim. 24 mai 2020 à 14:15,  a écrit :

> Et je ne sais ce qu'est une prise standard en France. Si tu me dit que
> c'est une prise E, je vois ce que c'est. Ça aurait pu être une C
> (l'installation n'est pas forcément récente).
>
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prise_%C3%A9lectrique
>
> socket:typee=1 ou pas c'est la différence entre une information
> utilisable et une autre.
>
> Et les prises extérieures (pas forcément enterrées, souvent aussi dans
> des boîtiers) des marchés seront facilement des prises "de force".
>
> Donc autant taguer proprement, ce n'est pas plus difficile.
>
> Jean-Yvon
>
> Le 24/05/2020 à 03:17, Marc M. - marc_marc_...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> > Bonsoir,
> >
> > Le 23.05.20 à 23:50, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> >> comment tagguer ces prises de courant ?
> > amenity=power_supply dont la proposition a été abandonné par manque
> > de temps de son auteur mais qui pourrait probablement passer avec
> > quelques efforts (entre autre ne pas se prendre le tapis de la
> > coexistence de charging_station)
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/amenity=power_supply
> >
> >> parce que tagguer socket:typee=1 c'est peut-être overkill, non ?
> > Si le type de prise n'est pas renseigné, on peux supposer que
> > c'est la prise standard du lieu mais ce n'est qu'une supposition.
> > Dans un camping cela restera ambigu vu les 3 sortes très courantes.
> >
> > Cordialement,
> > Marc
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>


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

Re: [Talk-es] Datos IET - Xunta de Galicia

2020-05-24 Per discussione Santiago Crespo

Ola Miguel,

Enhorabuena por conseguir la autorización y carta de exención firmadas,
buen trabajo. Las he subido al wiki con las categorías
"ES:Autorizaciones para usar fuentes de datos de España", "Documents" y
"ES:Galicia". He cambiado los enlaces para que apunten a los documentos
en el wiki, cambiando un poco del texto que acompaña a los enlaces.

Creo que cada proyecto de importación tendría que tener su propia
página, en lugar de ser secciones en una página enorme. Así será más
facil que la comunidad revise cada proyecto, de uno en uno. Si además
están en inglés, será más fácil para imports pero esto ya es opcional.
Recuerdo que en una de las primeras propuestas del catastro nos pusieron
pegas en la lista de imports por intentar organizar una importación de
varios tipos de elementos a la vez.

Quizá podrías mantener la página de IET_Import como un índice que enlace
con las páginas individuales para cada proyecto.

Sobre la página con los estados de importación, si usamos el gestor de
tareas creo que no haría falta ir actualizando la wiki para apuntar lo
que está hecho o no.

Por ahora no he leído detalladamente las propuestas concretas ni he
visto los datos originales.

Saludos!
Santiago Crespo

On 5/24/20 1:24 PM, Miguel Branco wrote:
> Boas tardes,
> 
> Os comento que he elaborado un proyecto de importación en la wiki y he
> hecho la solicitud de importación en esa lista.
> El objetivo, tipos de datos y proceso de importación lo he redactado
> aquí: IET Import  (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IET_Import)
> La idea es registrar los detalles de avance y personas dedicadas a ello
> en esta otra sección: Datos IET Xunta de Galicia (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gl:WikiProject_Cesi%C3%B3n_dos_datos_da_Xunta_de_Galicia)
> 
> Cualquier ayuda, más que bienvenida.
> 
> Saúdos!
> 
> O dom., 3 de maio de 2020 ás 11:32, Miguel Branco ( >) escribiu:
> 
> Bos días,
> 
> Os comento los avances con respecto al permiso por parte del IET -
> Xunta de Galicia para usar los datos que tienen alojados.
> En los enlaces compartidos vereis:
> - (1) la carta abierta indicando la compatibilidade de la licencia
> de sus datos con la CC-BY 4.0 (ya compartida), y
> - (2) un permiso explícito para incorporar datos CC-BY a OSM.
> 
> (1)
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_GWMibZX0pwjr6jKyAokEhZhE5oPXQhy/view?usp=sharing
> 
> (2)
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h5580MNt8fFRS_BKTD1eaEdhJNq0wGEJ/view?usp=sharing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> En el primer documento dicen explícitamente que "therefore the
> mentioned information can be integrated in OpenStreetMap cartography
> without any limitation of restriction, with the only condictions of
> attributing the authorship of IET. Xunta de Galicia...".
> 
> En el segundo, " indican explícitamente que es sufuciente que se le
> citen por parte de OSM en
> "http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors; usando "IET".
> 
> En el primero -ellos- (el IET) indican que la licencia de sus datos
> es "compatible con la CC BY 4.0". En el segundo, que nos autorizan
> expresamente para su libre uso, siempre que los citemos en la web.
> 
> A mayores quiero citar aquí otro punto. Los derechos de uso de los
> datos del IET se pueden comprobar en
> "http://mapas.xunta.gal/aviso-legal;. Indican puntos como el siguiente:
> 
> "A información dispoñible neste Portal, salvo indicación expresa en
> contrario, é susceptible de reutilización, quedando autorizada a súa
> reprodución total ou parcial, modificación, distribución e
> comunicación, para usos comerciais e non comerciais, con suxeición
> ás seguintes condicións: - Queda prohibida en calquera circunstancia
> a desnaturalización do contido da información. -O usuario queda
> obrigado a citar a fonte dos documentos obxecto da reutilización.
> [...]".
> 
> Es decir, sus datos "son susceptibles de ser reutilizados" siempre
> que se los cite. Y ademas, los datos del IET se pueden usar
> libremente excepto si se deturpan gravemente (p.ej. modificando los
> topónimos o los nombres de espacios naturales). [Lo comento de cara
> a una importación]
> 
> Así que, ahora entiendo que ya podríamos iniciar un proceso de
> importación de los datos del IET. Si aún no os parecen correctos los
> dos documentos otorgando los permisos, por favor, indicadme
> claramente cuál es el problema, justificadlo y proponedme qué y cómo
> resolverlo.
> 
> Finalmente, perdonad que haya tardado tanto en completar esta
> solicitud.
> 
> Id comentando, graciñas!
> 
> O mar., 7 de maio de 2019 ás 10:03, Miguel Branco
> (mailto:mgl.bra...@gmail.com>>) escribiu:
> 
> 
> Buenos días,
> 
>

Re: [Talk-GB] Road closures/changes during Covid19

2020-05-24 Per discussione Tony OSM


Hi

Yes a very good idea.

I'm in  North West England - the main driver in this area is Manchester. 
I have seen social media  and news outlets showing photos of Deansgate, 
Manchester with expanded pedestrian areas and expanded cycle lanes; 
motor vehicles removed - but I don't know if there are delivery 
exceptions. This has been an aspiration for several years so it may 
become permanent.


I can't travel to survey this.

I have seen no mentions of expanded bicycle /pedestrian areas in Chorley 
or Preston.


If a table in a wiki page was created iy region/alphabetic town - we 
could pool our knowledge and plan survey trips. Information saying no 
change is also helpful.


Regards

Tony

On 24/05/2020 14:34, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

How are you reflecting current road changes in OpenStreetMap? I am 
aware that some cities are closing a few roads to motor traffic and 
installing additional cycle infrastructure. I'm not sure how permanent 
this is going to be, but it certainly feels like it will last a few 
months.


Is it worth setting up a coordinated approach to mapping these 
changes? We can set up a wiki page with a table of who is contributing 
in each city, where data is available, and what tags we want to use.


Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
*Rob*

___
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

[Talk-es] Día & Go, ¿supermarket or convenience?

2020-05-24 Per discussione Crashillo

Supongo que gran parte de la comunidad OSM de españa ya estaréis al tanto de
la /polémica/ pero hago un resumen rápido:

- El objetivo es poder controlar los brands /Dia & Go/
- Se ha propuesto una incorporación al registro oficial, se puede seguir en
este enlace https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/3876
- El sondeo de opinión en el telegram es 44% a favor de *convenience* VS.
54% a favor de *supermarket*
- Los que llevan el repositorio en Github se muestran reticentes a aceptar
*supermarket*

Pido opinión de la comunidad, ¿qué hacemos?
- Se puede aceptar lo que sugieren
- Se pueden insistir en *supermarket* (ruego ayuda en este tema)
- Se puede desestimar la incorporación, no incluirlo en el registro.

La no-actuación conlleva que desestimen ese elemento, por tanto no se
incluya.

Saludos



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Spain-f5409873.html

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Candidature au CA OSM France

2020-05-24 Per discussione François Lacombe

Bonjour à tous,

Dans la droite ligne des communications de Donat et Tony, je présente ma
candidature pour continuer de porter la parole d'OSM France au CA de
l'association.

On se retrouve bientôt pour la rétrospective de cette année avant l'AG du
13/06 prochain.

Bonne fin de weekend

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

[Talk-GB] Road closures/changes during Covid19

2020-05-24 Per discussione Rob Nickerson

Hi all,

How are you reflecting current road changes in OpenStreetMap? I am aware
that some cities are closing a few roads to motor traffic and installing
additional cycle infrastructure. I'm not sure how permanent this is going
to be, but it certainly feels like it will last a few months.

Is it worth setting up a coordinated approach to mapping these changes? We
can set up a wiki page with a table of who is contributing in each city,
where data is available, and what tags we want to use.

Let me know what you think.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Alexey Zakharenkov

24.05.2020, 15:42, "Dave F via talk" :As you done it over (far too) many edits, could you provide a comparison list of amendments here.DaveF. DaveF,simply compare latest article versions (about 13 edits by Mateusz made on may 24) :https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess=revision=1994688=1994557 It looks pretty like a comparison list of amendments. BR, Alexey On 24/05/2020 11:10, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:I just added some example at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
and improved existing one.

Review, and improving edits (or comments here) would be welcomed.

Deliberately posting to talk to get review also from people less involved in
tagging discussions.

Thanks to Malenki and Seventy7 for suggesting it (in 2009 and 2010 respectively).

 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
,___talk mailing listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Andrew Harvey

More examples are very helpful, so than you, but in my opinion the examples
should go near the end, at least after the specification (so list of
transport modes and possible values)

1. Introduction (as exists)
2. Full list of transport modes
3. List of possible values
4. Examples

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 20:16, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I just added some example at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
> and improved existing one.
>
> Review, and improving edits (or comments here) would be welcomed.
>
> Deliberately posting to talk to get review also from people less involved
> in
> tagging discussions.
>
> Thanks to Malenki and Seventy7 for suggesting it (in 2009 and 2010
> respectively).
> ___
> 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] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-24 Per discussione Dave F via talk

As you done it over (far too) many edits, could you provide a comparison 
list of amendments here.


DaveF.

On 24/05/2020 11:10, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

I just added some example at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
and improved existing one.

Review, and improving edits (or comments here) would be welcomed.

Deliberately posting to talk to get review also from people less involved in
tagging discussions.

Thanks to Malenki and Seventy7 for suggesting it (in 2009 and 2010 
respectively).


___
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-fr] Comment cartographier une prise électrique

2020-05-24 Per discussione osm . sanspourriel


Et je ne sais ce qu'est une prise standard en France. Si tu me dit que
c'est une prise E, je vois ce que c'est. Ça aurait pu être une C
(l'installation n'est pas forcément récente).

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prise_%C3%A9lectrique

socket:typee=1 ou pas c'est la différence entre une information
utilisable et une autre.

Et les prises extérieures (pas forcément enterrées, souvent aussi dans
des boîtiers) des marchés seront facilement des prises "de force".

Donc autant taguer proprement, ce n'est pas plus difficile.

Jean-Yvon

Le 24/05/2020 à 03:17, Marc M. - marc_marc_...@hotmail.com a écrit :

Bonsoir,

Le 23.05.20 à 23:50, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :

comment tagguer ces prises de courant ?

amenity=power_supply dont la proposition a été abandonné par manque
de temps de son auteur mais qui pourrait probablement passer avec
quelques efforts (entre autre ne pas se prendre le tapis de la
coexistence de charging_station)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/amenity=power_supply


parce que tagguer socket:typee=1 c'est peut-être overkill, non ?

Si le type de prise n'est pas renseigné, on peux supposer que
c'est la prise standard du lieu mais ce n'est qu'une supposition.
Dans un camping cela restera ambigu vu les 3 sortes très courantes.

Cordialement,
Marc

___
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: [Talk-it] Negozio di vendita e affilatura coltelli

2020-05-24 Per discussione Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 23. May 2020, at 14:57, Francesco Ansanelli  wrote:
> 
> shop=cutlery


sì, utilizzerei però solo per negozi che vendono posate complete, se vendessero 
solo coltelli non sarebbe la stessa categoria 

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

Re: [Talk-es] Datos IET - Xunta de Galicia

2020-05-24 Per discussione Miguel Branco

Boas tardes,

Os comento que he elaborado un proyecto de importación en la wiki y he
hecho la solicitud de importación en esa lista.
El objetivo, tipos de datos y proceso de importación lo he redactado aquí:
IET Import  (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IET_Import)
La idea es registrar los detalles de avance y personas dedicadas a ello en
esta otra sección: Datos IET Xunta de Galicia (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gl:WikiProject_Cesi%C3%B3n_dos_datos_da_Xunta_de_Galicia
)

Cualquier ayuda, más que bienvenida.

Saúdos!

O dom., 3 de maio de 2020 ás 11:32, Miguel Branco ()
escribiu:

> Bos días,
>
> Os comento los avances con respecto al permiso por parte del IET - Xunta
> de Galicia para usar los datos que tienen alojados.
> En los enlaces compartidos vereis:
> - (1) la carta abierta indicando la compatibilidade de la licencia de sus
> datos con la CC-BY 4.0 (ya compartida), y
> - (2) un permiso explícito para incorporar datos CC-BY a OSM.
>
> (1) 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_GWMibZX0pwjr6jKyAokEhZhE5oPXQhy/view?usp=sharing
>
> (2) 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h5580MNt8fFRS_BKTD1eaEdhJNq0wGEJ/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> 
> En el primer documento dicen explícitamente que "therefore the mentioned
> information can be integrated in OpenStreetMap cartography without any
> limitation of restriction, with the only condictions of attributing the
> authorship of IET. Xunta de Galicia...".
>
> En el segundo, " indican explícitamente que es sufuciente que se le citen
> por parte de OSM en "http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors;
> usando "IET".
>
> En el primero -ellos- (el IET) indican que la licencia de sus datos es
> "compatible con la CC BY 4.0". En el segundo, que nos autorizan
> expresamente para su libre uso, siempre que los citemos en la web.
>
> A mayores quiero citar aquí otro punto. Los derechos de uso de los datos
> del IET se pueden comprobar en "http://mapas.xunta.gal/aviso-legal;.
> Indican puntos como el siguiente:
>
> "A información dispoñible neste Portal, salvo indicación expresa en
> contrario, é susceptible de reutilización, quedando autorizada a súa
> reprodución total ou parcial, modificación, distribución e comunicación,
> para usos comerciais e non comerciais, con suxeición ás seguintes
> condicións: - Queda prohibida en calquera circunstancia a desnaturalización
> do contido da información. -O usuario queda obrigado a citar a fonte dos
> documentos obxecto da reutilización. [...]".
>
> Es decir, sus datos "son susceptibles de ser reutilizados" siempre que se
> los cite. Y ademas, los datos del IET se pueden usar libremente excepto si
> se deturpan gravemente (p.ej. modificando los topónimos o los nombres de
> espacios naturales). [Lo comento de cara a una importación]
>
> Así que, ahora entiendo que ya podríamos iniciar un proceso de importación
> de los datos del IET. Si aún no os parecen correctos los dos documentos
> otorgando los permisos, por favor, indicadme claramente cuál es el
> problema, justificadlo y proponedme qué y cómo resolverlo.
>
> Finalmente, perdonad que haya tardado tanto en completar esta solicitud.
>
> Id comentando, graciñas!
>
> O mar., 7 de maio de 2019 ás 10:03, Miguel Branco ()
> escribiu:
>
>>
>> Buenos días,
>>
>> Sobre la licencia, resalto que citan:
>> - es "compatible" con la CC BY 4.0, no dice explícitamente que sean datos
>> con esa licencia, y
>> - en el último párrafo dan permisos de uso de sus datos alojados en
>> mapas.xunta.gal "sin restricciones" para ser usados siempre que se cite la
>> fuente, el IET.
>>
>> Yo entiendo que es suficiente -- pero no hay problema por pedir que
>> especifiquen más. Para escribirles con lo que necesitamos ahora, sugerís
>> que indiquen:
>>
>> "With respect to all IET data products available in its portal
>> http://mapas.xunta.gal, Instituto de Estudos do Territorio agrees that
>> attribution by OpenStreetMap and its users through
>> http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors with the formula "Cartografía
>> cedida por © Instituto de Estudos do Territorio. Xunta de Galicia" is
>> sufficient to provide attribution to IET."
>>
>> ¿Llega con el párrafo anterior o les remito igualmente la carta que está
>> preparada para las CC BY 4.0? ¿Quedaría algo más? Comentad y les envío la
>> petición de nuevo.
>>
>> Rafa, gracias, de momento lo puedo tramitar yo. Es solo comentárselo y
>> realizar una solicitud por la sede electrónica da Xunta. Si surge algo a
>> mayores te pido ayuda. Eso si, para comentar en imports y la wiki
>> necesitaré revisores ;)
>>
>> Saúdos!
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 15:15:40 +0200
>> From: Rafael Avila Coya 
>> To: talk-es@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-es] Datos IET - Xunta de Galicia
>> Message-ID: <827f279d-655a-1bc7-319a-15cc51727...@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8;

[Talk-it] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Il settimanale di notizie su OSM, numero # 513, è ora disponibile online in 
italiano, 
fornendo come sempre un riassunto di molte cose che accadono nel mondo 
OpenStreetMap: 

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/it/archives/13163/

Buona lettura! 

Sai che possono anche inviare messaggi per il weeklyOSM? Basta effettuare il 
login 
su https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con il tuo account OSM. 

Per saperne di più su come scrivere un messaggio, leggi qui: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 
weeklyOSM? 

chi: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
dove?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-de] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Die Wochennotiz Ausgabe Nr. # 513, ist nun verfügbar - 
wie immer mit vielen Nachrichten aus dem OSM-Universium:

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/de/archives/13163/

Viel Spaß beim Lesen.  

Euer Wochennotizteam

Wusstet ihr, dass ihr auch selbst Meldungen für die Wochennotiz
einreichen könnt? Einfach auf https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/ 
mit eurem OSM-Benutzerkonto anmelden und dann den Gastzugang benutzen. 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Comment cartographier une prise électrique

2020-05-24 Per discussione Jacques Lavignotte




Le 24/05/2020 à 12:32, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :

J'avais oublié la photo https://drive.google.com/f 



Arf.

J.

--
GnuPg : 156520BBC8F5B1E3 Because privacy matters.
« Quand est-ce qu'on mange ? » AD (c) (tm)

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

[Talk-es] semanarioOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Hola, el semanario Nº 513, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/13163/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

[OSM-co] semanarioOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Hola, el semanario Nº 513, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/13163/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-co mailing list
Talk-co@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co

[Talk-cl] semanarioOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Hola, el semanario Nº 513, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/13163/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-cl mailing list
Talk-cl@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cl

[Talk-cu] semanarioOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Hola, el semanario Nº 513, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/13163/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-cu mailing list
Talk-cu@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cu

[talk-latam] semanarioOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Hola, el semanario Nº 513, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/13163/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
talk-latam mailing list
talk-latam@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-latam

[Talk-bo] semanarioOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Hola, el semanario Nº 513, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/13163/

¡Disfruta!

¿Sabías que también puedes enviar mensajes para la nota semanal sin ser 
miembro? Simplemente ingresa a https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login con tu 
cuenta de OSM. Lee más sobre cómo escribir una publicación aquí: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-bo mailing list
Talk-bo@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bo

[Talk-br] semanárioOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Bom dia,

O semanárioOSM Nº 513, o resumo de tudo o que acontece no mundo OpenStreetMap, 
está publicado *em português* : 

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/pb/archives/13163/

Aproveite!

Você sabia que também pode enviar mensagens para o OSM semanal/semanárioOSMſ 
sem ser membro? Basta fazer login em https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login com 
sua conta OSM e usar a conta de convidado. Leia mais sobre como escrever um 
post aqui: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

semanarioOSM? 
Quem?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Onde?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-br mailing list
Talk-br@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br

[OSM-talk-fr] hebdoOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 513 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/13163/

Bonne lecture !

Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note 
hebdomadaire sans être membre ? Il vous suffit de vous connecter sur 
https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login avec votre compte OSM. Pour en savoir plus 
sur la rédaction d'un article, cliquez ici: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[Talk-pt] semanárioOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Bom dia,

O semanárioOSM Nº 513, o resumo de tudo o que acontece no mundo OpenStreetMap, 
está publicado *em português* : 

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/pb/archives/13163/

Aproveite!

Você sabia que também pode enviar mensagens para o OSM semanal/semanárioOSMſ 
sem ser membro? Basta fazer login em https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login com 
sua conta OSM e usar a conta de convidado. Leia mais sobre como escrever um 
post aqui: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

semanarioOSM? 
Quem?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Onde?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-pt mailing list
Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt

[Talk-ca] hebdoOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 513 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/13163/

Bonne lecture !

Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note 
hebdomadaire sans être membre ? Il vous suffit de vous connecter sur 
https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login avec votre compte OSM. Pour en savoir plus 
sur la rédaction d'un article, cliquez ici: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ht] hebdoOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 513 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/13163/

Bonne lecture !

Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note 
hebdomadaire sans être membre ? Il vous suffit de vous connecter sur 
https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login avec votre compte OSM. Pour en savoir plus 
sur la rédaction d'un article, cliquez ici: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ht mailing list
Talk-ht@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ht
Notez! Vous pouvez utiliser Google Translate (http://translate.google.com) pour 
traduire les messages.

[Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 513,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13163/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-africa] hebdoOSM Nº 513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 513 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

https://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/13163/

Bonne lecture !

Saviez-vous que vous pouvez vous aussi soumettre des messages pour la note 
hebdomadaire sans être membre ? Il vous suffit de vous connecter sur 
https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login avec votre compte OSM. Pour en savoir plus 
sur la rédaction d'un article, cliquez ici: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-africa mailing list
Talk-africa@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-africa

[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 513,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13163/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 513,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13163/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[OSM-talk-ie] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 513,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13163/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

[talk-ph] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 513,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13163/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[Talk-in] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 513,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13163/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

[Talk-africa] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 513,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13163/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-africa mailing list
Talk-africa@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-africa

[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #513 2020-05-12-2020-05-18