Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5
Finns det någon skyltning på plats som säger att vägen är privat eller på annat sätt har begränsad tillgång? Om inte bör väl inte osm ha det heller? fre 14 juni 2024 kl. 22:43 skrev Micke : > Någon hemfridszon lär inte finnas i en stugby då man definitivt kan räkna > med att mer eller mindre okända personer går förbi på den väg/stig som > finns och som leder vidare till nästa stuga. > > > > Gällande strandskydd som normalt gäller inom 100 m från vatten: > > *Huvudregeln är att allmänheten har tillträde till de delar av fastigheten > som inte utgör tomtplats eller hemfridszon (tomtplats/hemfridszon utgörs av > ett begränsat område runt huvudbyggnaden på fastigheten). Utgångspunkten är > därför att det inte får finnas något som hindrar allmänhetens tillgång till > dessa områden eller något som gör att strandområdet upplevs som > privatiserat.* > > > > Men återigen, jag saknar lokalkännedom om det området. > > > > > > /Anders Andersson > > > > > > *Från:* John Bäckstrand > *Skickat:* den 14 juni 2024 15:48 > *Till:* OpenStreetMap Sverige mailinglista > *Kopia:* Per Geijer > *Ämne:* Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5 > > > > Ja, det är ett som jag pekade på lite knepigt fall rent OSM-mässigt, men > att allemansrätten gäller kan knappast stämma: > > " Hemfridszonen är området närmast runt ett bostads- och fritidshus där > den boende har rätt till ett privat område och att få vara ostörd. Inom > hemfridszonen har fastighetsägaren eller hyresgästen full rådighet över > marken, och ingen får vistas där utan lov av denne. Inom hemfridszonen > gäller således inte allemansrätten." > > Som jag skrev innan så har OSM egentligen inget kontrakt att på något sätt > informera om var allemansrätten gäller, Access-taggar handlar om andra > saker. Men jag är mer pragmatisk än dogmatisk dock, så om en access-tagg > råkar fungera bättre i praktiken, så varför inte? Jag har faktiskt själv > råkat ut för en väg som gick "obehagligt" nära ett hus, i princip på någons > tomt och jag hade uppskattat som användare av kartan att på något sätt > informeras om det. > > > > /John Bäckstrand > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 3:30 PM Micke wrote: > > I mitt tycke ska stigen inte ha några access eller andra > restriktionstaggar. > > Stigen finns (och är inte ett skyddsobjekt), och då ska den vara inritad > på Openstreetmap. > > Allemansrätten gäller högst troligt (jag saknar dock lokalkännedom). > Allmänheten har tillgång till strandkanter och tomma sommarstugor är inte > något som upphäver allemansrätten. Man får till och med nyttja "privata" > bryggor om de inte är någon vid sommarstugan bryggan tillhör. En stugby vid > en strand bör också vara ännu mindre privat än en sommarstuga. Det ser > dessutom ut som att det inte är speciellt ianspråktagen tomtmark utan mer > natur med mycket träd m.m.. > > > För mig får folk gärna bada nakna var dom vill, men att försöka trycka ut > påhittade restriktioner som allmänheten ska anpassa sig efter känns rätt > sunkigt. > > > /Anders Andersson > > -Ursprungligt meddelande- > Från: Per Geijer > Skickat: den 13 juni 2024 17:43 > Till: talk-se@openstreetmap.org > Ämne: Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5 > > Örjan Svane who is the person contacting us and demanding a map update is > a member of the Swedish FKK. I guess the following the path you will find > yourself surrounded by naked people. > https://www.scandinavianaturist.org/sv/node/367 > > Best rgds > //P > > > 13 juni 2024 kl. 13:00 skrev talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > > > > Send Talk-se mailing list submissions to > > talk-se@openstreetmap.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > talk-se-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Talk-se digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Edit path on private property (riiga) > > 2. Re: Edit path on private property (Christian Asker) > > 3. Re: Edit path on private property (Gustav Lindqvist) > > > > > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:02:05 +0200 > > From: riiga > > To: OpenStreetMap Sverige mailinglista &
Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5
Någon hemfridszon lär inte finnas i en stugby då man definitivt kan räkna med att mer eller mindre okända personer går förbi på den väg/stig som finns och som leder vidare till nästa stuga. Gällande strandskydd som normalt gäller inom 100 m från vatten: Huvudregeln är att allmänheten har tillträde till de delar av fastigheten som inte utgör tomtplats eller hemfridszon (tomtplats/hemfridszon utgörs av ett begränsat område runt huvudbyggnaden på fastigheten). Utgångspunkten är därför att det inte får finnas något som hindrar allmänhetens tillgång till dessa områden eller något som gör att strandområdet upplevs som privatiserat. Men återigen, jag saknar lokalkännedom om det området. /Anders Andersson Från: John Bäckstrand Skickat: den 14 juni 2024 15:48 Till: OpenStreetMap Sverige mailinglista Kopia: Per Geijer Ämne: Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5 Ja, det är ett som jag pekade på lite knepigt fall rent OSM-mässigt, men att allemansrätten gäller kan knappast stämma: " Hemfridszonen är området närmast runt ett bostads- och fritidshus där den boende har rätt till ett privat område och att få vara ostörd. Inom hemfridszonen har fastighetsägaren eller hyresgästen full rådighet över marken, och ingen får vistas där utan lov av denne. Inom hemfridszonen gäller således inte allemansrätten." Som jag skrev innan så har OSM egentligen inget kontrakt att på något sätt informera om var allemansrätten gäller, Access-taggar handlar om andra saker. Men jag är mer pragmatisk än dogmatisk dock, så om en access-tagg råkar fungera bättre i praktiken, så varför inte? Jag har faktiskt själv råkat ut för en väg som gick "obehagligt" nära ett hus, i princip på någons tomt och jag hade uppskattat som användare av kartan att på något sätt informeras om det. /John Bäckstrand On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 3:30 PM Micke mailto:mia...@hotmail.com>> wrote: I mitt tycke ska stigen inte ha några access eller andra restriktionstaggar. Stigen finns (och är inte ett skyddsobjekt), och då ska den vara inritad på Openstreetmap. Allemansrätten gäller högst troligt (jag saknar dock lokalkännedom). Allmänheten har tillgång till strandkanter och tomma sommarstugor är inte något som upphäver allemansrätten. Man får till och med nyttja "privata" bryggor om de inte är någon vid sommarstugan bryggan tillhör. En stugby vid en strand bör också vara ännu mindre privat än en sommarstuga. Det ser dessutom ut som att det inte är speciellt ianspråktagen tomtmark utan mer natur med mycket träd m.m.. För mig får folk gärna bada nakna var dom vill, men att försöka trycka ut påhittade restriktioner som allmänheten ska anpassa sig efter känns rätt sunkigt. /Anders Andersson -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: Per Geijer mailto:p...@geijer.org>> Skickat: den 13 juni 2024 17:43 Till: talk-se@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-se@openstreetmap.org> Ämne: Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5 Örjan Svane who is the person contacting us and demanding a map update is a member of the Swedish FKK. I guess the following the path you will find yourself surrounded by naked people. https://www.scandinavianaturist.org/sv/node/367 Best rgds //P > 13 juni 2024 kl. 13:00 skrev > talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org>: > > Send Talk-se mailing list submissions to > talk-se@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-se@openstreetmap.org> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-se-ow...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-se-ow...@openstreetmap.org> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-se digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Edit path on private property (riiga) > 2. Re: Edit path on private property (Christian Asker) > 3. Re: Edit path on private property (Gustav Lindqvist) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:02:05 +0200 > From: riiga mailto:ri...@lysator.liu.se>> > To: OpenStreetMap Sverige mailinglista > mailto:talk-se@openstreetmap.org>> > Subject: Re: [Talk-se] Edit path on private property > Message-ID: > <8593c7979207881b6d9bcb83b4f17...@lysator.liu.se<mailto:8593c7979207881b6d9bcb83b4f17...@lysator.liu.se>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hej! > > Det finns ingen som centralt ?r ansvarig f?r kartan, och du kan inte > kravst?lla att n?gon ska ta bort saker eller dylikt. Kartan ?r
Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5
Ja, det är ett som jag pekade på lite knepigt fall rent OSM-mässigt, men att allemansrätten gäller kan knappast stämma: " Hemfridszonen är området närmast runt ett bostads- och fritidshus där den boende har rätt till ett privat område och att få vara ostörd. Inom hemfridszonen har fastighetsägaren eller hyresgästen full rådighet över marken, och ingen får vistas där utan lov av denne. Inom hemfridszonen gäller således inte allemansrätten." Som jag skrev innan så har OSM egentligen inget kontrakt att på något sätt informera om var allemansrätten gäller, Access-taggar handlar om andra saker. Men jag är mer pragmatisk än dogmatisk dock, så om en access-tagg råkar fungera bättre i praktiken, så varför inte? Jag har faktiskt själv råkat ut för en väg som gick "obehagligt" nära ett hus, i princip på någons tomt och jag hade uppskattat som användare av kartan att på något sätt informeras om det. /John Bäckstrand On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 3:30 PM Micke wrote: > I mitt tycke ska stigen inte ha några access eller andra > restriktionstaggar. > > Stigen finns (och är inte ett skyddsobjekt), och då ska den vara inritad > på Openstreetmap. > > Allemansrätten gäller högst troligt (jag saknar dock lokalkännedom). > Allmänheten har tillgång till strandkanter och tomma sommarstugor är inte > något som upphäver allemansrätten. Man får till och med nyttja "privata" > bryggor om de inte är någon vid sommarstugan bryggan tillhör. En stugby vid > en strand bör också vara ännu mindre privat än en sommarstuga. Det ser > dessutom ut som att det inte är speciellt ianspråktagen tomtmark utan mer > natur med mycket träd m.m.. > > > För mig får folk gärna bada nakna var dom vill, men att försöka trycka ut > påhittade restriktioner som allmänheten ska anpassa sig efter känns rätt > sunkigt. > > > /Anders Andersson > > -Ursprungligt meddelande- > Från: Per Geijer > Skickat: den 13 juni 2024 17:43 > Till: talk-se@openstreetmap.org > Ämne: Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5 > > Örjan Svane who is the person contacting us and demanding a map update is > a member of the Swedish FKK. I guess the following the path you will find > yourself surrounded by naked people. > https://www.scandinavianaturist.org/sv/node/367 > > Best rgds > //P > > > 13 juni 2024 kl. 13:00 skrev talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > > > > Send Talk-se mailing list submissions to > > talk-se@openstreetmap.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > talk-se-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Talk-se digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Edit path on private property (riiga) > > 2. Re: Edit path on private property (Christian Asker) > > 3. Re: Edit path on private property (Gustav Lindqvist) > > > > > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:02:05 +0200 > > From: riiga > > To: OpenStreetMap Sverige mailinglista > > Subject: Re: [Talk-se] Edit path on private property > > Message-ID: <8593c7979207881b6d9bcb83b4f17...@lysator.liu.se> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > > > Hej! > > > > Det finns ingen som centralt ?r ansvarig f?r kartan, och du kan inte > > kravst?lla att n?gon ska ta bort saker eller dylikt. Kartan ?r fri att > > redigera f?r alla, som om du har hittat fel s? kan du sj?lv skapa en > > anv?ndare och r?tta till det. Att stigen finns med p? kartan ?r helt i > > sin ordning, det finns inget som ?r f?rbjudet att kartl?gga i > > OpenStreetMap och m?let ?r att ?terspegla vad som finns i > > verkligheten, mantrat ?r "map what's on the ground". Om det d?remot ?r > > s? att stigen g?r ?ver tydligt avgr?nsad privat mark i direkt > > anslutning till n?gons hem s? ?r det ol?mpligt att anv?nda den stigen > > i enlighet med allemansr?tten. I s? fall borde du (eller n?gon annan > > med god > > lokalk?nnedom) l?gga till ?tkomstbegr?nsningar (access=private) p? > > stigen s? att det ?r angivet att det ?r en privat stig vilket > > f?rhoppningsvis kommer att leda till att Komoot och andra som anv?nder > > OpenStreetMaps data ser till att inte visa det som en l?mplig v?g f?r > > fotg?ngare. > > &g
Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5
I mitt tycke ska stigen inte ha några access eller andra restriktionstaggar. Stigen finns (och är inte ett skyddsobjekt), och då ska den vara inritad på Openstreetmap. Allemansrätten gäller högst troligt (jag saknar dock lokalkännedom). Allmänheten har tillgång till strandkanter och tomma sommarstugor är inte något som upphäver allemansrätten. Man får till och med nyttja "privata" bryggor om de inte är någon vid sommarstugan bryggan tillhör. En stugby vid en strand bör också vara ännu mindre privat än en sommarstuga. Det ser dessutom ut som att det inte är speciellt ianspråktagen tomtmark utan mer natur med mycket träd m.m.. För mig får folk gärna bada nakna var dom vill, men att försöka trycka ut påhittade restriktioner som allmänheten ska anpassa sig efter känns rätt sunkigt. /Anders Andersson -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: Per Geijer Skickat: den 13 juni 2024 17:43 Till: talk-se@openstreetmap.org Ämne: Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5 Örjan Svane who is the person contacting us and demanding a map update is a member of the Swedish FKK. I guess the following the path you will find yourself surrounded by naked people. https://www.scandinavianaturist.org/sv/node/367 Best rgds //P > 13 juni 2024 kl. 13:00 skrev talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > > Send Talk-se mailing list submissions to > talk-se@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-se-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-se digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Edit path on private property (riiga) > 2. Re: Edit path on private property (Christian Asker) > 3. Re: Edit path on private property (Gustav Lindqvist) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:02:05 +0200 > From: riiga > To: OpenStreetMap Sverige mailinglista > Subject: Re: [Talk-se] Edit path on private property > Message-ID: <8593c7979207881b6d9bcb83b4f17...@lysator.liu.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hej! > > Det finns ingen som centralt ?r ansvarig f?r kartan, och du kan inte > kravst?lla att n?gon ska ta bort saker eller dylikt. Kartan ?r fri att > redigera f?r alla, som om du har hittat fel s? kan du sj?lv skapa en > anv?ndare och r?tta till det. Att stigen finns med p? kartan ?r helt i > sin ordning, det finns inget som ?r f?rbjudet att kartl?gga i > OpenStreetMap och m?let ?r att ?terspegla vad som finns i > verkligheten, mantrat ?r "map what's on the ground". Om det d?remot ?r > s? att stigen g?r ?ver tydligt avgr?nsad privat mark i direkt > anslutning till n?gons hem s? ?r det ol?mpligt att anv?nda den stigen > i enlighet med allemansr?tten. I s? fall borde du (eller n?gon annan > med god > lokalk?nnedom) l?gga till ?tkomstbegr?nsningar (access=private) p? > stigen s? att det ?r angivet att det ?r en privat stig vilket > f?rhoppningsvis kommer att leda till att Komoot och andra som anv?nder > OpenStreetMaps data ser till att inte visa det som en l?mplig v?g f?r > fotg?ngare. > > /riiga > > 2024-06-12 09:56 skrev ?rjan Svane via Talk-se: >> Dea open street map editors, >> your map has a serious error in a location near Stockholm, Sweden, >> which you are hereby asked to correct. More prcisely it concerns a >> path near lake ?tervallstr?sk on Ingar?, east of Stocckholm. The path >> indicated in the copy of the open street map below crosses private >> property, a "cottage village? owned by the Svenska >> Friluftsf?reningen Association (SFF). It can be seen on your map that >> the path passes very close to cottages. Therefore, it clearly >> violates even Sweden`s extensive "Everybody?s right of way?, >> allemansr?tten, which allows people to walk on private property except close >> to private houses etc. >> From your map, the same path has been included on other similar maps. >> Last summer the Association e.g. had a number of visitors claiming >> their right to use the path, referring to the ?komoot? map >> (www.komoot.com). When contacted, komoot gave your map as their source. >> They also indicated that your map is the source also for others >> besides the komoot. Therefore we sincerely ask you to take away this >> path on your map to avoid similar conflicts in the future. You should &g
Re: [Talk-se] Talk-se Digest, Vol 177, Issue 5
Örjan Svane who is the person contacting us and demanding a map update is a member of the Swedish FKK. I guess the following the path you will find yourself surrounded by naked people. https://www.scandinavianaturist.org/sv/node/367 Best rgds //P > 13 juni 2024 kl. 13:00 skrev talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > > Send Talk-se mailing list submissions to > talk-se@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-se-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-se-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-se digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Edit path on private property (riiga) > 2. Re: Edit path on private property (Christian Asker) > 3. Re: Edit path on private property (Gustav Lindqvist) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:02:05 +0200 > From: riiga > To: OpenStreetMap Sverige mailinglista > Subject: Re: [Talk-se] Edit path on private property > Message-ID: <8593c7979207881b6d9bcb83b4f17...@lysator.liu.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hej! > > Det finns ingen som centralt ?r ansvarig f?r kartan, och du kan inte > kravst?lla att n?gon ska ta bort saker eller dylikt. Kartan ?r fri att > redigera f?r alla, som om du har hittat fel s? kan du sj?lv skapa en > anv?ndare och r?tta till det. Att stigen finns med p? kartan ?r helt i > sin ordning, det finns inget som ?r f?rbjudet att kartl?gga i > OpenStreetMap och m?let ?r att ?terspegla vad som finns i verkligheten, > mantrat ?r "map what's on the ground". Om det d?remot ?r s? att stigen > g?r ?ver tydligt avgr?nsad privat mark i direkt anslutning till n?gons > hem s? ?r det ol?mpligt att anv?nda den stigen i enlighet med > allemansr?tten. I s? fall borde du (eller n?gon annan med god > lokalk?nnedom) l?gga till ?tkomstbegr?nsningar (access=private) p? > stigen s? att det ?r angivet att det ?r en privat stig vilket > f?rhoppningsvis kommer att leda till att Komoot och andra som anv?nder > OpenStreetMaps data ser till att inte visa det som en l?mplig v?g f?r > fotg?ngare. > > /riiga > > 2024-06-12 09:56 skrev ?rjan Svane via Talk-se: >> Dea open street map editors, >> your map has a serious error in a location near Stockholm, Sweden, >> which you are hereby asked to correct. More prcisely it concerns a path >> near lake ?tervallstr?sk on Ingar?, east of Stocckholm. The path >> indicated in the copy of the open street map below crosses private >> property, a "cottage village? owned by the Svenska Friluftsf?reningen >> Association (SFF). It can be seen on your map that the path passes very >> close to cottages. Therefore, it clearly violates even Sweden`s >> extensive "Everybody?s right of way?, allemansr?tten, which allows >> people to walk on private property except close to private houses etc. >> From your map, the same path has been included on other similar maps. >> Last summer the Association e.g. had a number of visitors claiming >> their right to use the path, referring to the ?komoot? map >> (www.komoot.com). When contacted, komoot gave your map as their source. >> They also indicated that your map is the source also for others besides >> the komoot. Therefore we sincerely ask you to take away this path on >> your map to avoid similar conflicts in the future. You should also in >> an appropriate manner inform users of you map of the error. >> >> Yours >> >> ?rjan Svane >> Member and former Land Manager, SFF >> +46-40-406 5326 >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-se mailing list >> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se > > > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:25:49 +0200 > From: Christian Asker > To: talk-se@openstreetmap.org, sv...@kth.se > Subject: Re: [Talk-se] Edit path on private property > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hej. En sak till ang?ende detta. Att mark ?r privat?gd betyder ju, som > du skriver,? inte i sig att allemansr?tten inte g?ller, utan det ?r > tomtmark som man inte ska klampa in p?. Vad jag kan se ?r omr?det ifr?ga > stugor i ett skogsomr?de, s? det ?r kanske inte helt
Re: [Talk-bd] Talk-bd Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2
I Voted. Tasauf.Ribin On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, 10:57 Sawan Shariar, wrote: > I voted > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, 6:03 pm , wrote: > >> Send Talk-bd mailing list submissions to >> talk-bd@openstreetmap.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> talk-bd-requ...@openstreetmap.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> talk-bd-ow...@openstreetmap.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Talk-bd digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >>1. New Election Date Announcement ? (OSM Bangladesh EC) >> >> >> ------ >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:48:04 +0600 >> From: OSM Bangladesh EC >> To: talk-bd@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: [Talk-bd] New Election Date Announcement ? >> Message-ID: >> < >> caby6vzgc_2dxqduov6ubtpd51stfkpt51t+ugpevdnd0bbu...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Dear Voting Members of OpenStreetMap Bangladesh Community, >> >> We sincerely apologize for difficulties caused by the unanticipated >> technical issue with the voting procedure on the scheduled date. We work >> through the technical issues and aim to cause no further disruptions. >> >> Rescheduled election date : 17 February 2023 (Saturday) >> >> Cast your votes on the specified date to elect the representatives who >> will >> shape the future of OpenStreetMap Bangladesh. >> >> = >> >> ? Important Dates: >> Election Day: February 17, 2024?? (Saturday) >> Results Announcement: February 17, 2024 >> >> >> ? Voting Process Overview: >> Voting process demonstrate here: >> https://www.facebook.com/share/v/tmpjyZVYTpCshyJD/?mibextid=oFDknk >> >> >> ? The Election Process: >> Visit here to know more about the election process- >> >> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c8yiPrm8gTEZUWW2SB3aqMK3dfuwO_wj?usp=sharing >> >> >> Share your vision for OpenStreetMap Bangladesh. >> >> >> Dear eligible voting members, please check your email to know in details. >> >> If you have any queries, reach the Chair of EC >> +8801713120157 (Whats app text only) >> azizulalamto...@gmail.com (Email) >> >> Best regards, >> OpenStreetMap Bangladesh Election Commission ?? >> -- next part -- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: < >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-bd/attachments/20240215/ba4297fe/attachment-0001.htm >> > >> >> ------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> ___ >> Talk-bd mailing list >> Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd >> >> >> -- >> >> End of Talk-bd Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2 >> ** >> > ___ > Talk-bd mailing list > Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd > ___ Talk-bd mailing list Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd
Re: [Talk-bd] Talk-bd Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2
I voted On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, 6:03 pm , wrote: > Send Talk-bd mailing list submissions to > talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-bd-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-bd-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-bd digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. New Election Date Announcement ? (OSM Bangladesh EC) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:48:04 +0600 > From: OSM Bangladesh EC > To: talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-bd] New Election Date Announcement ? > Message-ID: > < > caby6vzgc_2dxqduov6ubtpd51stfkpt51t+ugpevdnd0bbu...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear Voting Members of OpenStreetMap Bangladesh Community, > > We sincerely apologize for difficulties caused by the unanticipated > technical issue with the voting procedure on the scheduled date. We work > through the technical issues and aim to cause no further disruptions. > > Rescheduled election date : 17 February 2023 (Saturday) > > Cast your votes on the specified date to elect the representatives who will > shape the future of OpenStreetMap Bangladesh. > > = > > ? Important Dates: > Election Day: February 17, 2024?? (Saturday) > Results Announcement: February 17, 2024 > > > ? Voting Process Overview: > Voting process demonstrate here: > https://www.facebook.com/share/v/tmpjyZVYTpCshyJD/?mibextid=oFDknk > > > ? The Election Process: > Visit here to know more about the election process- > > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c8yiPrm8gTEZUWW2SB3aqMK3dfuwO_wj?usp=sharing > > > Share your vision for OpenStreetMap Bangladesh. > > > Dear eligible voting members, please check your email to know in details. > > If you have any queries, reach the Chair of EC > +8801713120157 (Whats app text only) > azizulalamto...@gmail.com (Email) > > Best regards, > OpenStreetMap Bangladesh Election Commission ?? > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-bd/attachments/20240215/ba4297fe/attachment-0001.htm > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Talk-bd mailing list > Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd > > > -- > > End of Talk-bd Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2 > ** > ___ Talk-bd mailing list Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd
Re: [Talk-bd] Talk-bd Digest, Vol 55, Issue 1
Absolutely amazing. Thank you Election Commission. Hope to see a very well committee soon. On Sun, 7 Jan 2024, 6:10 pm , wrote: > Send Talk-bd mailing list submissions to > talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-bd-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-bd-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-bd digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. OpenStreetMap Bangladesh Election 2024 Announcement! ?? > (MD. Aminul Islam) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2024 15:02:49 +0600 > From: "MD. Aminul Islam" > To: talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-bd] OpenStreetMap Bangladesh Election 2024 > Announcement! ?? > Message-ID: > < > cahq6tysi0_nsoctdd0uk4bwubfn0e5rtgc3qfxzp+lnbduf...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear OSMBD Voting Members, > > We are thrilled to share the exciting news about the upcoming OSM > Bangladesh Election 2024! Since the formalization of our official structure > in February 2023, we've witnessed incredible growth and collaboration > within our community. > > *? Important Dates:* > Nomination Submission Period: Jan 05-12, 2024 > Nomination Verification: January13-14, 2024 > Nomination Announcement: January 15, 2024 > Nomination Withdraw Final Date: January 17, 2024 > Candidate Campaign: January 18-25, 2024 > Manifesto Presentation and Q Session: January 20, 2024 > Election Day: January 26, 2024 > Results Announcement: January 26, 2024 > > *? Election Process Overview:* > The nomination period is now open! We invite dedicated individuals and > passionate voting members about contributing to the OpenStreetMap > Bangladesh community to submit their nominations. > > Engage in community meetings and campaigns where voting members discuss and > deliberate on candidates' contributions, visions, and goals. > > Cast your votes on the specified date to elect the representatives who will > shape the future of OpenStreetMap Bangladesh. > > Here is the Election *RULES & REGULATIONS* > < > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XyTXCkDBMkT1lCHDTfo96R4Zs6cRrSDt/view?usp=sharing > > > Eligible voter information at *HERE * > < > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkSulE5J4OZ56XfACoG9r-oxTVWmamrcPgX2GHBH7RI/edit?usp=sharing > > > > *? How to Nominate:* > Fill out the nomination form with your details. > Share your vision for OpenStreetMap Bangladesh. > > Submit your nomination through *NOMINATION SUBMIT FORM > < > https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfpG1rxmvmj-FC4_LgxU7TOlS8lYjeEjtIuH7QFRfTq9c3saQ/viewform > >* > > *? Get Involved:* > Participate actively in the upcoming election process to help shape the > future of our community. Your involvement is crucial in building a > stronger, more vibrant OpenStreetMap Bangladesh. > > Let's make this election a testament to the collaborative spirit and > dedication within our community. Together, we can continue to map a better > future for OpenStreetMap Bangladesh. > > If you have any queries, reach the *Chair of EC* > +8801713120157 (Whats app text only) > azizulalamto...@gmail.com (Email) > > > Best regards, > OpenStreetMap Bangladesh Election Commission > > ELECTION SCHEDULE-2.pdf > < > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XyTXCkDBMkT1lCHDTfo96R4Zs6cRrSDt/view?usp=drive_web > > > > OSMBD Monthly Meeting Dashboard > < > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkSulE5J4OZ56XfACoG9r-oxTVWmamrcPgX2GHBH7RI/edit?usp=drive_web > > > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-bd/attachments/20240107/949c38fa/attachment-0001.htm > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Talk-bd mailing list > Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd > > > -- > > End of Talk-bd Digest, Vol 55, Issue 1 > ** > ___ Talk-bd mailing list Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd
Re: [Talk-bd] Talk-bd Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2
Hello Mahtab Uddin, Thank you for reaching us. Could you please share it in details with the map link? We will take care of it as soon as possible. Thanks Sawan On Fri, 26 May 2023, 3:56 am , wrote: > Send Talk-bd mailing list submissions to > talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-bd-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-bd-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-bd digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Requested for Place name Correction (Mahtab Uddin) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 11:06:25 +0600 > From: Mahtab Uddin > To: "talk-bd@openstreetmap.org" > Subject: [Talk-bd] Requested for Place name Correction > Message-ID: > gtpv+ahr-3q6dffvwc-dh...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi All, > Good morning, Can you correct this wrong information? Please have a look at > the attachment thanks. > > Best Regards > Mahtab > Contract- 01818852575 > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-bd/attachments/20230523/783a1c5a/attachment.htm > > > -- next part -- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Map.jpg > Type: image/jpeg > Size: 144580 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-bd/attachments/20230523/783a1c5a/attachment.jpg > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Talk-bd mailing list > Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd > > > -- > > End of Talk-bd Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2 > ** > ___ Talk-bd mailing list Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-ie] Mapping of footpaths and cycleways
Personally I’m against separate mapping for the following reasons: 1. A highway/road shouldn’t be considered only for motor vehicles by default. 2. I don’t see any routing advantages to mapping it separately. If anything it makes the better cycleways, like the Dun Laoghaire coastal route, harder to find. 3. The area in question was around Adamstown - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.33068/-6.45455, it was hard to see other features with three bridges, when in reality there is only one. With a Garmin device it was worse. 4. Some of the paths and cycleways tagged as part of the highway precede the individual paths. On a different point the other user said he checked with the OSM Telegram account and people said it was ok to map separately. I don’t think it’s great to have two different places to discuss issues, or at the very least publish what was decided on the wiki so that people know what decisions were made. Dafo Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows From: Colm Moore Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 4:18:12 PM To: Donal Hunt ; davefo...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Mapping of footpaths and cycleways Hi, This is off-list again. I'm preparing some notes. Can just the two of you send me some reasons to map / not map sidewalks? Thank you Colm --- Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead From: Colm Moore Sent: 10 February 2023 14:10 To: Donal Hunt ; davefo...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Mapping of footpaths and cycleways Hi, This is off-list. It happens in places. Sometimes it is messy, sometimes it is trying to solve complicated situations. I'll come back with a fuller answer later. Colm --- Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead From: Donal Hunt Sent: 10 February 2023 13:28 To: Discussion of OpenStreetMap in Ireland ; colmmoor...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Mapping of footpaths and cycleways Hi Dave! Thanks for raising this. These are the type of quality issues we are hoping for the Quality Working Group (yet to be formally launched) to take a role in. I've CCed Colm who has worked on lots of quality issues over time and may be able to contribute to this discussion. Do we know how widespread the issue is? There have been a few academic efforts in small geographic areas to map paths separately to capture access data. In relation to how to proceed from here: with the increased funding for walking and cycling during the current government, there is a lot of interest in capturing data of completed projects, etc. I personally think that separate mapping makes sense if there are people willing to put the work in to capture and maintain it. There are lots of corner cases involving infrastructure being installed in a manner which results in separate mapping making sense. I would suggest the following next steps: - Discussion on best practice / community consensus on how to map (this email thread) - Update of wiki documentation - Data analysis to understand where these issues exist - Cleanup tasks (via task manager) Thoughts? Comments? Donal On Fri 10 Feb 2023, 13:07 Dave Foley, mailto:davefo...@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi, An issue came up with the mapping of paths next to roads. If recall correctly it was on the wiki (or possibly somewhere else) that it was agreed to only map paths that were not beside a road or where there was cycleway running counter-flow to traffic. At some point people started mapping paths individually and now we have a mix of where the ‘sidewalk’ is mapped in the highway tag and some individual paths. Admittedly the wiki allows for both, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FSidewalks=05%7C01%7C%7C6452d2b5f8cd4a9275a108db0b6ac19d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638116325354180695%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=NdALtON3TrvZGAATeT2iwJCmyobuu6pP%2BclPXBn6pco%3D=0> , but I don’t remember a discussion on changing to individual path mapping. So if it was discussed and a decision was made can the Ireland wiki page be updated with this? If there is no consensus currently then I think it would better to reach one now. Dafo Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986<https://emea01.safelink
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 188, Issue 6
RE:Tagging Culverts on Roads Hi Andrew, I answer your questions from my personal deep knowledge of the source system within DOT. Your questions: 1. All caps, for the VIC:DOT:SN suffix? Yes the prefixes are all CAPS 2. Sure there is no "GOV" in there? ref:AU:*GOV:*VIC:DOT:SN = ??? I would not have "SN=" as there are other relevant prefixes, there is a restriction of 4 numbers and we have exceeded 10,000 across the state eg SZ, SB, SC 3. If we had to tag both the structure number and the "structure type" would this change the convention? Giving something like 1. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:N=SN12345 2. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:TYPE=Culvert Yep that looks fine, except the 5 digits, although I might suggest ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:ID=SN1234 the use of ID instead of N, would be inline with the source I might take this opportunity to inform the community that the Vic DOT, is now DTP, Department of Transport and Planning, which has a significant impact on ex-DOT as we are now going to have the Land Use Victoria as part of our department and for those who don't know LUV is the state mapping authority. So whether you want to change those codes above??? The important announcement, relevant to this community, is that both areas, DOT & LUV, are actively investigating the use of OSM as the foundation for the geometry making up the state mapping base. We recognise that we will need to contribute back to the base and such datasets as the above will ultimately be populated and maintained by the department. Department of Transport and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Department_of_Transport_and_Planning_(Victoria,_Australia)> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 9:02 PM wrote: > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Tagging Culverts on Roads (Andrew Hughes) >2. Re: Tagging Trucks (hgv) "Use low gears" (Warin) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 16:16:48 +1000 > From: Andrew Hughes > To: Talk Au > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads > Message-ID: > < > camvyc1v3xd-wz+sfeujpvats3kz79m2uge87bf8mdz8s-xn...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Phil and Everyone else, > > For the structure number, I like the look of... > > ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=SN12345 > > Questions... > >1. All caps, for the VIC:DOT:SN suffix? >2. Sure there is no "GOV" in there? ref:AU:*GOV:*VIC:DOT:SN = ??? >3. If we had to tag both the structure number and the "structure type" >would this change the convention? Giving something like > 1. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:N=SN12345 > 2. ref:AU:VIC:DOT:STRUCTURE:TYPE=Culvert > > Many thanks, as always! > AH > > > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 13:49, Phil Wyatt wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > > > One way would be by using a ref key > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref > > > > > > > > Maybe even something as long as > > > > > > > > ref:AU:VIC:DOT:SN=2252 or maybe > > > > > > > > ref:AU:VIC:DOT=SN2252 > > > > > > > > On the culvert makes sense to me but given you seem to want it related to > > the way I will let others chime in on whether it could go on a node on > the > > way (similar to the signs we have recently been discussing). Its not > > something I remember having seen in the past (but I have never looked for > > any such points) > > > > > > > > Either way it would be beneficial to at least describe this in the Ozzie > > roads wiki when its settled, maybe under an infrastructure heading. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads > > > > > > > > Cheers - Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Andrew Hughes > > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 February 2023 1:25 PM > > *To:* Talk Au > > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads > > > > > > > >
Re: [talk-au] [Talk-nz] Oceania Discourse Community open
Great - thanks for your work getting that going Dian! On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 12:03, Dian Ågesson wrote: > > Hello all, > > I'm pleased to report that the Oceania community on the OpenStreetMap > Discourse server is open and operational! > > https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73 > > If you've never used discourse, check out this How-To guide for all the tips > and tricks. For those who prefer email notifications, the how-to guide also > explains how to configure email notifications similar to a mailing list! > > Don't be shy! See you there. > > Dian > > _______ > Talk-nz mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-hr] Talk-hr Digest, Broj 129, Izdanje 1
Hello, Hrvoje! Thanks for your answer. Whenever possible, we always use only local satellite images as they show the most up to date information. Best regards, Sergey On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:03 PM wrote: > Talk-hr posaljite mailing list poruke na > talk-hr@openstreetmap.org > > Da biste se pretplatili ili odjavili preko Weba, posjetite > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr > ili, koristeci mail, posaljite poruku sa naslovom ili sadrzajem 'help' > na > talk-hr-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > Osobi koja odrzava listu mozete se obratiti na > talk-hr-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > Kada odgovarate, uredite Vasu Subject: liniju tako da je malo > detaljnja od "Re: Sadrzaj Talk-hr digesta..." > > > Današnje Teme: > >1. Re: Mapbox mapping activity (Hrvoje Bogner) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 15:12:27 +0200 > From: Hrvoje Bogner > To: talk-hr@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-hr] Mapbox mapping activity > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hi Mapbox team > > Thx for participating in Croatia. > > After the first message I checked wiki page and wanted to inform you > that we have better imagery, but in the meantime you found out about > better imagery provided by the state administration. > > Always use local imagery because it is aerial imagery with better > positioning than satellite imagery. > > I see we have to update wiki page with newer stuff :) > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Croatia > > Regards, Hrvoje > > On 26. 04. 2022. 15:41, Sergey Beliamei via Talk-hr wrote: > > Hello from the Mapbox Team! > > > > At the end of April 2022 our team is going to start a mapping project in > > Croatia. > > > > The project was created to review logical errors with OSM road data and > fix > > it where there?s possibility for improving the road network and enough > > ground truth sources. We?re concentrating on road mistakes to improve map > > condition. > > > > Our team is planning to review a subset of the detections, which is > divided > > by categories: > > > > - > > > > Crossing_highways - roads with no common point > > - > > > > Island_highways - roads not connected to road network > > - > > > > Impossible angle - roads with too narrow angles > > - > > > > Mixed layer - connected roads with different layers > > - > > > > Missing role - turn restriction where 1 role is missed > > - > > > > Excessive role - turn restriction where we have more then 3 roles > > (e.g.two role ?to?) > > - > > > > Invalid role - all roles are represented but doesn?t connected > > - > > > > Missing type restriction - all roles are fine but the type of > > restriction is missed > > > > We?re using the automatic process for getting the detections which is > based > > on osmium and osmLint (link <https://github.com/osmlab/osmlint>). The > data > > with OSM errors which we?re going to review is located in the github > ticket > > (link <https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/412>) in json files, > you can > > watch them through geojson.io <http://geojson.io/#map=2/20.0/0.0>. After > > that, we will review new errors in Croatia on a permanent basis once a > week > > to support the quality of the road network. > > > > In cases of lack of up to date satellite or imagery the team doesn?t make > > any edits. And always taking care about local sources, which are the most > > relevant and unique for each country. > > > > On our wiki page and ticket (osm wiki > > < > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/resolve_linting_issues_in_Croatia > > > > /ticket <https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/412>) there is > detailed > > information about the background, satellite imageries, timeframes, > contact > > mails. Also, for more clear understanding we have osm wiki pages with > more > > detailed info about types of issues, how we get them and how we deal with > > feedback (link > > < > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_Mapbox_Data_RAVE_team_work_on_receiving_feedback_from_OSM_users > > > > ). > > > > We would really appreciate your feedback, any questions you have about > this > > project, as well as local insights that you think will help u
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32
He is actively clicking buttons right now, leave me alone while I take a look at what he is doing From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:32 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30 (Luke Stewart) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 14:35:55 +1000 From: Luke Stewart To: Anthony Panozzo Cc: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Point is, the restrictions that you added in the case of the motorway on/offramp was incorrect, it was broken by you at some point. In addition to being broken, there was also a duplicate no_u_turn that was added by you (which was in fact valid). So there is no problem in deleting something invalid as long as you can ascertain what it is meant to be. This can very easily be achieved by looking at object history for many times where iD has broken the relation. Do you seriously think that TheSwavu (and many other people for that matter) have been blinding looking at objects without imagery, object history, or other sources to confirm? There is no universe where keeping that invalid relation was a good idea, and it was doing nothing for routing whatsoever. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220503/ef2cc90a/attachment-0001.htm> -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30
Point is, the restrictions that you added in the case of the motorway on/offramp was incorrect, it was broken by you at some point. In addition to being broken, there was also a duplicate no_u_turn that was added by you (which was in fact valid). So there is no problem in deleting something invalid as long as you can ascertain what it is meant to be. This can very easily be achieved by looking at object history for many times where iD has broken the relation. Do you seriously think that TheSwavu (and many other people for that matter) have been blinding looking at objects without imagery, object history, or other sources to confirm? There is no universe where keeping that invalid relation was a good idea, and it was doing nothing for routing whatsoever. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30
Bottom line is if someone wants to blindly and randomly click buttons then if the user knows the intersection and rules, then its okish maybe, but if the user is solely relying on a single node validator and has no knowledge of the intersection or rules the user should not be permitted to blindly makes edits to it. Especially when the user is deleting other peoples work in the process to simply flex is validator tool From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:36 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 30 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28 (Luke Stewart) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 11:03:59 +1000 From: Luke Stewart To: Anthony Panozzo Cc: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The diagram posted by Dian clearly shows that this type of movement is permitted, again: https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h. If you disagree I suggest handing in your license. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:57, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > No it would not because its a one way road lmao > > > > > > > > *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:12 AM > *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28 > > > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:40:53 +1000 > From: Luke Stewart > To: Anthony Panozzo > Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" > > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > Message-ID: > buu-h9c3zb9bqrktmvhe...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > It would still meet the criteria of an "intersection" under rules 40 and 41 > hence making it legal > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:34, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > > That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Dian ?gesson > > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM > > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > > *Cc: *Luke Stewart ; > > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > > > > > Hi Anthony, > > > > > > > > Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the > > correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of > > view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road. > > > > https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h > > > > As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a > > moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of > rapid > > fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient. > > > > Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is > > being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers > that > > may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected. > > > > > > > > Dian > > > > > > > > On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > > > No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road > > which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit > > going the wrong way
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28
The diagram posted by Dian clearly shows that this type of movement is permitted, again: https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h. If you disagree I suggest handing in your license. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:57, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > No it would not because its a one way road lmao > > > > > > > > *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:12 AM > *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28 > > > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:40:53 +1000 > From: Luke Stewart > To: Anthony Panozzo > Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" > > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > Message-ID: > buu-h9c3zb9bqrktmvhe...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > It would still meet the criteria of an "intersection" under rules 40 and 41 > hence making it legal > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:34, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > > That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Dian ?gesson > > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM > > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > > *Cc: *Luke Stewart ; > > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > > > > > Hi Anthony, > > > > > > > > Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the > > correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of > > view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road. > > > > https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h > > > > As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a > > moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of > rapid > > fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient. > > > > Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is > > being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers > that > > may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected. > > > > > > > > Dian > > > > > > > > On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > > > No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road > > which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit > > going the wrong way lmao. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM > > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > > *Cc: *Dian ?gesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > > > > > It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in > > the Road Rules. > > > > > > > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > > > Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that > > picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point > of > > view of that picture and back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM > > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > > *Cc: *Dian ?gesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > > > > > The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights > > > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo > > would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the > > mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns > in > > median breaks. > > > > > > > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo wrote
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28
No it would not because its a one way road lmao From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 10:12 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 28 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:40:53 +1000 From: Luke Stewart To: Anthony Panozzo Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" It would still meet the criteria of an "intersection" under rules 40 and 41 hence making it legal On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:34, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao > > > > > > > > *From: *Dian ?gesson > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *Luke Stewart ; > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Hi Anthony, > > > > Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the > correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of > view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road. > > https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h > > As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a > moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of rapid > fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient. > > Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is > being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers that > may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected. > > > > Dian > > > > On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road > which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit > going the wrong way lmao. > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *Dian ?gesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in > the Road Rules. > > > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that > picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of > view of that picture and back > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *Dian ?gesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo > would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the > mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in > median breaks. > > > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road > > > > > > > > *From: *Dian ?gesson > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Anthony, > > This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to > be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons > without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits > > Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as > I have not reviewed them all. > > However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being > "wrong" hasn't had any issues. We've covered: > > - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) > >
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
It would still meet the criteria of an "intersection" under rules 40 and 41 hence making it legal On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:34, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao > > > > > > > > *From: *Dian Ågesson > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *Luke Stewart ; > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Hi Anthony, > > > > Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the > correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of > view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road. > > https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h > > As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a > moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of rapid > fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient. > > Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is > being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers that > may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected. > > > > Dian > > > > On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road > which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit > going the wrong way lmao. > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *Dian Ågesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in > the Road Rules. > > > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that > picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of > view of that picture and back > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *Dian Ågesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo > would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the > mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in > median breaks. > > > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road > > > > > > > > *From: *Dian Ågesson > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Anthony, > > This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to > be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons > without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits > > Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as > I have not reviewed them all. > > However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being > "wrong" hasn't had any issues. We've covered: > > - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) > > - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) > > - adding a u turn using a way as a "via" member (valid) > > And you have now raised a different type of problem, > > - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. > > On the latter point, I quote > > > https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf > > A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights *if > there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection*" > > Note 2— > U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there > is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the > driver must or may turn right—see rule 92. > > this is now the fourth type of error which isn't actually wrong. > > If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am > unable to identify a problem in the edits you've raised. > > Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before > responding with another flurry of emails. > > dian > > > On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
That picture is about an intersection not a T-intersection lmao From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:59 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>; talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Hi Anthony, Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road. https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of rapid fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient. Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers that may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected. Dian On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote: No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit going the wrong way lmao. From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in the Road Rules. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote: Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of that picture and back From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in median breaks. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote: You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Anthony, This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I have not reviewed them all. However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being "wrong" hasn't had any issues. We've covered: - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) - adding a u turn using a way as a "via" member (valid) And you have now raised a different type of problem, - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. On the latter point, I quote https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection" Note 2— U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must or may turn right—see rule 92. this is now the fourth type of error which isn't actually wrong. If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable to identify a problem in the edits you've raised. Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before responding with another flurry of emails. dian On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote: This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-a
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
Hi Anthony, Below is a picture from the South Australian Road Rules. It shows the correct procedure for a u-turn there would be exactly from that point of view and back, including a small section of a "one-way" road. https://imgur.com/a/Wn6jx8h As the others earlier have mentioned, I would encourage you to take a moment to take a step back and consider these points, as this type of rapid fire back-and-forth is not particularly efficient. Would you also be able to provide some details about how the routing is being tested? It would really help identify down-stream data consumers that may be interpreting OSM data differently than expected. Dian On 2022-05-03 10:28, Anthony Panozzo wrote: No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit going the wrong way lmao. From: Luke Stewart Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM To: Anthony Panozzo Cc: Dian Ågesson; talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in the Road Rules. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of that picture and back From: Luke Stewart Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM To: Anthony Panozzo Cc: Dian Ågesson; talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in median breaks. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo wrote: You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road From: Dian Ågesson Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM To: Anthony Panozzo Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Anthony, This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I have not reviewed them all. However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being "wrong" hasn't had any issues. We've covered: - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) - adding a u turn using a way as a "via" member (valid) And you have now raised a different type of problem, - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. On the latter point, I quote https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection" Note 2-- U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must or may turn right--see rule 92. this is now the fourth type of error which isn't actually wrong. If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable to identify a problem in the edits you've raised. Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before responding with another flurry of emails. dian On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote: This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au [1] or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 + From: Anthony Panozzo To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, I
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
No it is not because the road in front of the POV car in a one way road which is not allowed, it would even need you to drive for a little bit going the wrong way lmao. From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:52 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in the Road Rules. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote: Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of that picture and back From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in median breaks. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote: You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Anthony, This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I have not reviewed them all. However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being “wrong” hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered: - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) - adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid) And you have now raised a different type of problem, - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. On the latter point, I quote https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection" Note 2— U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must or may turn right—see rule 92. this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong. If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised. Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before responding with another flurry of emails. dian On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote: This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 + From: Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org<m
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
It is also acceptable from the point of view of the camera as stated in the Road Rules. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 10:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that > picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of > view of that picture and back > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *Dian Ågesson ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo > would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the > mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in > median breaks. > > > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road > > > > > > > > *From: *Dian Ågesson > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Anthony, > > This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to > be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons > without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits > > Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as > I have not reviewed them all. > > However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being > “wrong” hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered: > > - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) > > - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) > > - adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid) > > And you have now raised a different type of problem, > > - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. > > On the latter point, I quote > > > https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf > > A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights *if > there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection*" > > Note 2— > U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there > is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the > driver must or may turn right—see rule 92. > > this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong. > > If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am > unable to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised. > > Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before > responding with another flurry of emails. > > dian > > > On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to > be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons > without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits > > > > > > > > *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM > *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 + > From: Anthony Panozzo > To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 > Message-ID: > < > pr3p192mb092730c19a6c808662675473cc...@pr3p192mb0927.eurp192.prod.outlook.com > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is > with this edit. The > road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a > median at an
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 21
Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of that picture and back From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:31 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 21 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 (Luke Stewart) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 09:58:28 +1000 From: Luke Stewart To: Anthony Panozzo Cc: Dian ?gesson , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in median breaks. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road > > > > > > > > *From: *Dian ?gesson > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Anthony, > > This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to > be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons > without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits > > Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as > I have not reviewed them all. > > However, every edit that you?ve referred to in this mail chain as being > ?wrong? hasn?t had any issues. We?ve covered: > > - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) > > - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) > > - adding a u turn using a way as a ?via? member (valid) > > And you have now raised a different type of problem, > > - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. > > On the latter point, I quote > > > https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf > > A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights *if > there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection*" > > Note 2? > U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there > is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the > driver must or may turn right?see rule 92. > > this is now the fourth type of error which isn?t actually wrong. > > If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am > unable to identify a problem in the edits you?ve raised. > > Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before > responding with another flurry of emails. > > dian > > > On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to > be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons > without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits > > > > > > > > *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM > *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (A
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
Yes at the median is fine, but not from where the point of view of that picture is. TheSwavu has allowed u-turns starting from exactly the point of view of that picture and back From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 9:28 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz>; talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in median breaks. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote: You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Anthony, This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I have not reviewed them all. However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being “wrong” hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered: - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) - adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid) And you have now raised a different type of problem, - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. On the latter point, I quote https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection" Note 2— U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must or may turn right—see rule 92. this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong. If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised. Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before responding with another flurry of emails. dian On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote: This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 + From: Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>" mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 Message-ID: mailto:pr3p192mb092730c19a6c808662675473cc...@pr3p192mb0927.eurp192.prod.outlook.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to bl
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
The intersection shown in mapillary without traffic lights https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=764585334231385=-34.72009104=138.66975917=17=photo would be one where performing a u-turn is allowed. As you go along the mapillary trace, you can even see two different vehicles making u-turns in median breaks. On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 09:52, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road > > > > > > > > *From: *Dian Ågesson > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo > *Cc: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Anthony, > > This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to > be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons > without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits > > Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as > I have not reviewed them all. > > However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being > “wrong” hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered: > > - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) > > - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) > > - adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid) > > And you have now raised a different type of problem, > > - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. > > On the latter point, I quote > > > https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf > > A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights *if > there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection*" > > Note 2— > U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there > is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the > driver must or may turn right—see rule 92. > > this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong. > > If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am > unable to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised. > > Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before > responding with another flurry of emails. > > dian > > > On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to > be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons > without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits > > > > > > > > *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM > *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 + > From: Anthony Panozzo > To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 > Message-ID: > < > pr3p192mb092730c19a6c808662675473cc...@pr3p192mb0927.eurp192.prod.outlook.com > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is > with this edit. The > road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a > median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or > traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if > there is a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding > to be able to blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet > people will come to your defence lmao > > > > From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to >
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
You are wrong, you can not do u-turns at t-intersections on a one way road From: Dian Ågesson<mailto:m...@diacritic.xyz> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:39 AM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com> Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Anthony, This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I have not reviewed them all. However, every edit that you’ve referred to in this mail chain as being “wrong” hasn’t had any issues. We’ve covered: - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) - adding a u turn using a way as a “via” member (valid) And you have now raised a different type of problem, - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. On the latter point, I quote https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection" Note 2— U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must or may turn right—see rule 92. this is now the fourth type of error which isn’t actually wrong. If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable to identify a problem in the edits you’ve raised. Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before responding with another flurry of emails. dian On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote: This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 + From: Anthony Panozzo To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to your defence lmao From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson) 2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000 From: Andrew Davidson To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-a
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 8:49 AM Anthony Panozzo wrote: > traffic lights:” which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there > is a sign permitting you to do so. That rule only applies at intersections with traffic lights: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s40.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
Anthony, This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits Speaking personally, I am not defending every single one of his edits, as I have not reviewed them all. However, every edit that you've referred to in this mail chain as being "wrong" hasn't had any issues. We've covered: - Deleting a restriction which does not contain a from/to way (valid) - remodelling intersections to remove crosses (valid) - adding a u turn using a way as a "via" member (valid) And you have now raised a different type of problem, - Removing a u turn restriction at an intersection with no traffic lights. On the latter point, I quote https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/australian%20road%20rules/current/2014.205.auth.pdf A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection" Note 2-- U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights unless there is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must or may turn right--see rule 92. this is now the fourth type of error which isn't actually wrong. If there is a valid issue, then obviously it should be fixed. But I am unable to identify a problem in the edits you've raised. Please, take a deep breath and consider some of the points raised before responding with another flurry of emails. dian On 2022-05-02 22:49, Anthony Panozzo wrote: This user is telling me I don't even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 +0000 From: Anthony Panozzo To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to your defence lmao From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson) 2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000 From: Andrew Davidson To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in the CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice? By th
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
"Note 2— *U-turns are permitted at intersections without traffic lights* unless there is a no U-turn sign, even though traffic lane arrows indicate that the driver must or may turn right—see rule 92" On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 08:59, Luke Stewart wrote: > From *legislation.sa.gov.au <http://legislation.sa.gov.au>*: > > 40: " A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection with traffic > lights unless there is a U-turn permitted sign at the intersection." > > 41: " A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic > lights *if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection*" > > In this case, it would be the same as NSW where you can make a U-turn at a > median break provided there is no sign against it, and there is a right > turn arrow (or no arrow) on the ground. > > You'll also find that the way you are replying to emails is incorrect, and > has created several different threads: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-May/thread.html > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 08:52, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > >> This user is telling me I don’t even know the road rules LMAO, and just >> to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the >> buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of >> his edits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org >> *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM >> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 >> >> >> >> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to >> talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) >> >> >> -- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 + >> From: Anthony Panozzo >> To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" >> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 >> Message-ID: >> < >> pr3p192mb092730c19a6c808662675473cc...@pr3p192mb0927.eurp192.prod.outlook.com >> > >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >> >> You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is >> with this edit. The >> road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a >> median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or >> traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if >> there is a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding >> to be able to blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet >> people will come to your defence lmao >> >> >> >> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM >> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 >> >> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to >> talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >>1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, >> Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson) >>2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo) >> >> >> -- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000 >> From: Andrew Davidson >> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was R
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
>From *legislation.sa.gov.au <http://legislation.sa.gov.au>*: 40: " A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection with traffic lights unless there is a U-turn permitted sign at the intersection." 41: " A driver must not make a U-turn at an intersection without traffic lights *if there is a no U-turn sign at the intersection*" In this case, it would be the same as NSW where you can make a U-turn at a median break provided there is no sign against it, and there is a right turn arrow (or no arrow) on the ground. You'll also find that the way you are replying to emails is incorrect, and has created several different threads: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-May/thread.html On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 08:52, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > This user is telling me I don’t even know the road rules LMAO, and just to > be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons > without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits > > > > > > > > *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > *Sent: *Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM > *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 > > > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 + > From: Anthony Panozzo > To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 > Message-ID: > < > pr3p192mb092730c19a6c808662675473cc...@pr3p192mb0927.eurp192.prod.outlook.com > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is > with this edit. The > road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a > median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or > traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if > there is a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding > to be able to blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet > people will come to your defence lmao > > > > From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, > Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson) >2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000 > From: Andrew Davidson > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: > Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) > Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me > > it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections > > Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender > by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in the > CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice? > > By the way, the link you sent me off-list: > > https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/ > > says exactly the same thing I was tryi
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13
This user is telling me I don’t even know the road rules LMAO, and just to be clear again... you are arguing this guy is free to click all the buttons without question and you are happy to defend every single one of his edits From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:16 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 13 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:44:40 + From: Anthony Panozzo To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" You said this ?I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or traffic lights:? which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is a sign permitting you to do so. You don?t have the understanding to be able to blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to your defence lmao From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson) 2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000 From: Andrew Davidson To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me > it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in the CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice? By the way, the link you sent me off-list: https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/ says exactly the same thing I was trying to explain to you. Perhaps this video might make it clearer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SzfStP1nE -- Message: 2 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:38:42 + From: Anthony Panozzo To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: [talk-au] TheSwavu Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" By directly emailing me he trying to mess up the way au-talk is formatting, no one here gets to see what he is emailing me, he has no clue about the laws/rules or the areas, this is a joke From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:04 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 11 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topi
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12
You said this “I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is with this edit. The road rules in South Australia allow you to do a u-turn around the end of a median at an intersection provided that there is no sign prohibiting it or traffic lights:” which is 100% incorrect, you can only do a u-turn if there is a sign permitting you to do so. You don’t have the understanding to be able to blindly click buttons from this state,ent alone, and yet people will come to your defence lmao From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:10 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 12 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson) 2. TheSwavu (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:33:00 +1000 From: Andrew Davidson To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) Message-ID: <80784b78-0628-85f3-f104-1f10b652d...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 3/5/22 08:18, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > Well this is the situation, TheSwavu is directly emailing me telling me > it is perfectly legal to do u-turns at intersections Gmail will send an email to both the mail list and the original sender by default on reply. You will have noticed the list email address in the CC:. Or maybe you didn't notice? By the way, the link you sent me off-list: https://samotor.raa.com.au/do-you-know-the-u-turn-road-rules/ says exactly the same thing I was trying to explain to you. Perhaps this video might make it clearer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SzfStP1nE -- Message: 2 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:38:42 +0000 From: Anthony Panozzo To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: [talk-au] TheSwavu Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" By directly emailing me he trying to mess up the way au-talk is formatting, no one here gets to see what he is emailing me, he has no clue about the laws/rules or the areas, this is a joke From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 8:04 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 11 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Andy Townsend) 2. U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) (Andrew Davidson) 3. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo) 4. Re: U-turn rules in South Australia (Was Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6) (Anthony Panozzo) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 22:50:24 +0100 From: Andy Townsend To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 02/05/2022 22:36, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > How do we get a category we can interact with through email? I haven't > used Discource enough to picture how it works. > If you enable mailing list mode in your profile, you will get emailed all messages and can reply to them by email too.? What you can't yet do is to create a new thread by email - to do that you'll need to go to e.g. https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7 and click "new topic". Best Regards, Andy -- Message: 2 Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 08:00:50 +1000 From: Andrew Davidson To: Anthony Panozzo Cc: OpenStreetMap Subject: [talk-
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7
I am going to go through every single edit in Adelaide from this guy and report
each one individually here and his user page, the small vocal group that backs
this guy congrats your screwing the map!
From:
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 May 2022 2:30 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 7
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6 (Anthony Panozzo)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 16:58:34 +
From: Anthony Panozzo
To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
So how would you feel if someone had the full support of a small but vocal
group on discord and given pretty much free rein to revert every single one of
your edits because he got call out, well it's happening to me. I would like to
report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 |
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road.
This community seems to be all about winning a argument than giving a shit
about the map. I will be reporting him on his user page for this edit too.
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 13:37:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo
To: Dean Scott , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Yes martins road/waterloo corner road/bagster theswavu and randomly clicked
buttons again and allowed u-turns from 2 nodes away, I think his little
validator tool only works from 1 node or something, either way he has no local
knowledge of this area
From: Dean Scott<mailto:deanscott...@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 11:03 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>;
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn?s are correctly tagged. If
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand
Regards,
Scottie0001
From: Anthony Panozzo
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Reporting user TheSwavu |
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 |
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
he has allowed u-turns
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re:
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6
So how would you feel if someone had the full support of a small but vocal
group on discord and given pretty much free rein to revert every single one of
your edits because he got call out, well it's happening to me. I would like to
report theswavu for this edit Relation History: 13736691 |
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13736691/history> he
deleted a restriction I put there to prevent u-turning from the service road.
This community seems to be all about winning a argument than giving a shit
about the map. I will be reporting him on his user page for this edit too.
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54:34 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 6
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 13:37:42 +
From: Anthony Panozzo
To: Dean Scott , "talk-au@openstreetmap.org"
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Yes martins road/waterloo corner road/bagster theswavu and randomly clicked
buttons again and allowed u-turns from 2 nodes away, I think his little
validator tool only works from 1 node or something, either way he has no local
knowledge of this area
From: Dean Scott<mailto:deanscott...@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 11:03 PM
To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>;
talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to
the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn?s are correctly tagged. If
not, please point it out to us so we can better understand
Regards,
Scottie0001
From: Anthony Panozzo
Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Reporting user TheSwavu |
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu>
2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 |
OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155>
he has allowed u-turns
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800
From: Sam Wilson
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick
Cc: OSM-Au
Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org
Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion).
It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I
think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being
discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that
benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people
know how one place is doing things.
I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I
think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large
at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part.
?Sam
On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> So how's it going after this first month?
>
> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson wrote:
>
> The new c
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
And also, if you really look hard enough into it, you will realise those crosses at intersections do not break any OSM rules or policys. The no physical divide argument is not valid because they do not represent two different roads, this person is reverting edits he really knows nothing about. From: Dean Scott Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:03:51 PM To: Anthony Panozzo ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn’s are correctly tagged. If not, please point it out to us so we can better understand Regards, Scottie0001 From: Anthony Panozzo Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Reporting user TheSwavu | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu> 2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155> he has allowed u-turns From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800 From: Sam Wilson To: Graeme Fitzpatrick Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion). It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people know how one place is doing things. I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part. ?Sam On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > So how's it going after this first month? > > Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list? > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson wrote: > > The new community.openstreetmap.org > <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running. > > It's going to replace the old forum, including the users: > Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24> > subforum. > > I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be > created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some > amount of content relating to Australia. > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/dda3550a/attachment-0001.htm> -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 *** ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Yes martins road/waterloo corner road/bagster theswavu and randomly clicked buttons again and allowed u-turns from 2 nodes away, I think his little validator tool only works from 1 node or something, either way he has no local knowledge of this area From: Dean Scott<mailto:deanscott...@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 11:03 PM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn’s are correctly tagged. If not, please point it out to us so we can better understand Regards, Scottie0001 From: Anthony Panozzo Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Reporting user TheSwavu | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu> 2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155> he has allowed u-turns From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800 From: Sam Wilson To: Graeme Fitzpatrick Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion). It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people know how one place is doing things. I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part. ?Sam On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > So how's it going after this first month? > > Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list? > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson wrote: > > The new community.openstreetmap.org > <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running. > > It's going to replace the old forum, including the users: > Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24> > subforum. > > I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be > created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some > amount of content relating to Australia. > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/dda3550a/attachment-0001.htm> -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 *** ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Hi, what section of road has TheSwavu allowed u-turns? If you are referring to the intersection with traffic lights, the u-turn’s are correctly tagged. If not, please point it out to us so we can better understand Regards, Scottie0001 From: Anthony Panozzo Date: Monday, 2 May 2022 at 10:57 pm To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Reporting user TheSwavu | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu> 2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155> he has allowed u-turns ____ From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800 From: Sam Wilson To: Graeme Fitzpatrick Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion). It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people know how one place is doing things. I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part. ?Sam On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > So how's it going after this first month? > > Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list? > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson wrote: > > The new community.openstreetmap.org > <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running. > > It's going to replace the old forum, including the users: > Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24> > subforum. > > I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be > created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some > amount of content relating to Australia. > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/dda3550a/attachment-0001.htm> -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 *** ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 4
The u-turn restriction are only valid from 1 nodes at 2 nodes it allows u-turns, I built waterloo corner road from one end the the other, this guy just goes around clicking buttons lol. From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:53:54 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 4 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Simon Poole) 2. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Anthony Panozzo) 3. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 (Luke Stewart) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 14:36:03 +0200 From: Simon Poole To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org Message-ID: <7e60be24-a50c-ee05-2fdb-64f0c34df...@poole.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" I wouldn't expect much traffic till the existing forum content has been migrated, currently scheduled for the end of the month. That should then give some slightly more definite structure to things than there is now. Simon Am 02.05.2022 um 05:01 schrieb Sam Wilson: > > It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion). > > It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and > I think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being > discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that > benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other > people know how one place is doing things. > > I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I > think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large > at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part. > > ?Sam > > > On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> So how's it going after this first month? >> >> Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list? >> >> Thanks >> >> Graeme >> >> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson wrote: >> >> The new community.openstreetmap.org >> <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running. >> >> It's going to replace the old forum, including the users: >> Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24> >> subforum. >> >> I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be >> created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some >> amount of content relating to Australia. >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/0b536e95/attachment-0001.htm> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/0b536e95/attachment-0001.sig> -- Message: 2 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 12:54:35 + From: Anthony Panozzo To: "talk-au@openstreetmap.org" Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Reporting user TheSwavu | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu> 2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155> he has allowed u-turns From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Wo
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Hi, if you look at the intersection you will see that there are 4 valid no_u_turn restrictions in place. Modelling the intersection with diagonals like that is contrary to established practice, but modelling it correctly rendered 45 of the restrictions redundant. Cheers, Luke On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 22:57, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > Reporting user TheSwavu | OpenStreetMap > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu> > > 2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | OpenStreetMap > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155> > he has allowed u-turns > > > > > > > -- > *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org < > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > *Sent:* Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM > *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800 > From: Sam Wilson > To: Graeme Fitzpatrick > Cc: OSM-Au > Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org > Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion). > > It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I > think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being > discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that > benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people > know how one place is doing things. > > I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I > think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large > at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part. > > ?Sam > > > On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > So how's it going after this first month? > > > > Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list? > > > > Thanks > > > > Graeme > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson wrote: > > > > The new community.openstreetmap.org > > <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running. > > > > It's going to replace the old forum, including the users: > > Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24> > > subforum. > > > > I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be > > created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some > > amount of content relating to Australia. > > > > > > ___ > > Talk-au mailing list > > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/dda3550a/attachment-0001.htm > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > -- > > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 > *** > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3
Reporting user TheSwavu | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu> 2 hours ago he made this changeset Changeset: 120456255 | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120456255#map=17/-34.75536/138.63155> he has allowed u-turns ____ From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:30:24 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org (Sam Wilson) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:01:40 +0800 From: Sam Wilson To: Graeme Fitzpatrick Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org Message-ID: <2f617c9d-0456-971b-233c-90d2e54ea...@samwilson.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" It's growing in use, I think (not with Australia-specific discussion). It feels like a pretty good site, I check the headlines most days, and I think one advantage is being able to get a feel for what's being discussed elsewhere. Also to have location-specific discussions that benefit either from the input of people elsewhere or to let other people know how one place is doing things. I don't like the notification system that much, but part of that is I think that the ratio of meta posts to real topical ones is quite large at the moment. It is decreasing though, as more people take part. ?Sam On 1/5/22 06:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > So how's it going after this first month? > > Any marked advantages / disadvantages over the existing mailing list? > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 12:52, Sam Wilson wrote: > > The new community.openstreetmap.org > <https://community.openstreetmap.org> site is up and running. > > It's going to replace the old forum, including the users: > Australia <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=24> > subforum. > > I'm not sure if we should ask for an Australia category to be > created on the new site. Probably not worth it until there's some > amount of content relating to Australia. > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220502/dda3550a/attachment-0001.htm> -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 179, Issue 3 *** ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 57
What that luke person was talking about was a bus stop node upgrade which took place a few months ago, the kids on discord argued that there might be a 1 in million “edge case” which will ruin the map, so my mass edit was reverted and they have to be edited individually, now the same people came out of nowhere because they see me posting here and argue that this guy is free to go about clicking buttons based on the validator and there will never ever be an edge case scenario. With these kids it’s personal they don’t make any sense and that’s why that kids decided to come in here and bring up bus stops lmao. From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 10:55 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 57 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55 (Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com)) -- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:21:34 +0100 From: "Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com)" Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I suspect that no-one is taking the piss - depending on the mail client "reply all" will very often go to the sender cc the list. Perhaps a bit more discussion about what problems have been created might have helped (and "source=knowledge") isn't a great description of why something was changed, but to an outsider it does look like a couple of rounds of polite questions were mossing before the "wtf is going on" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373#map=19/-34.76638/138.58995 . Where there are turn restrictions missing something vital like "from" or "to" sometimes it's obvious what needs to be re-added, and sometimes actually deleting it is just fine because other tags (such as oneway) are doing the same job. Where you think a turn restriction has been deleted in error, perhaps it would help to comment why that was in error? On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 13:18 Anthony Panozzo, wrote: > Im not it?s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this > conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when > the matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly > > > > > > > > *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM > *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55 > > > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 (Luke Stewart) > > > ------ > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000 > From: Luke Stewart > To: Anthony Panozzo > Cc: OSM Australian Talk List > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > Message-ID: > 3+dc4uvt_k62zz...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss? > > Cheers, > Luke > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > > I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you > > from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM > > *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List > > > > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > > > > > > > "TheSw
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
I suspect that no-one is taking the piss - depending on the mail client "reply all" will very often go to the sender cc the list. Perhaps a bit more discussion about what problems have been created might have helped (and "source=knowledge") isn't a great description of why something was changed, but to an outsider it does look like a couple of rounds of polite questions were mossing before the "wtf is going on" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373#map=19/-34.76638/138.58995 . Where there are turn restrictions missing something vital like "from" or "to" sometimes it's obvious what needs to be re-added, and sometimes actually deleting it is just fine because other tags (such as oneway) are doing the same job. Where you think a turn restriction has been deleted in error, perhaps it would help to comment why that was in error? On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 13:18 Anthony Panozzo, wrote: > Im not it’s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this > conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when > the matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly > > > > > > > > *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM > *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55 > > > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 (Luke Stewart) > > > ------ > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000 > From: Luke Stewart > To: Anthony Panozzo > Cc: OSM Australian Talk List > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > Message-ID: > 3+dc4uvt_k62zz...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss? > > Cheers, > Luke > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > > I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you > > from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM > > *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List > > > > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > > > > > > > "TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him > > to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that > was > > incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it > > could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional > and > > that is obvious given the single member > > > > "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag > > yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area > > that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has > > been discussed ad nauseam > > > > "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a > word > > im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a > > contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what > > we are saying or why you are incorrect > > > > > > > > So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, > then > > go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am > > yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely > > would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then > provides > > a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it. > > > > > > > > Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a > > way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that > > deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was > > the wrong decision. However, it is also the ca
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
Im not it’s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when the matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 (Luke Stewart) -- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000 From: Luke Stewart To: Anthony Panozzo Cc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss? Cheers, Luke On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you > from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List > > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > > > "TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him > to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was > incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it > could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and > that is obvious given the single member > > "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag > yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area > that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has > been discussed ad nauseam > > "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word > im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a > contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what > we are saying or why you are incorrect > > > > So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then > go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am > yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely > would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides > a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it. > > > > Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a > way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that > deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was > the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke > the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first > adding it. > > > > P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted > to talk-au. > > > Cheers, > > Luke > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > Luke, > > > > TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him > to, it wasn?t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you > figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you > now understand the whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first > place? OMG it?s like Im speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same > opinion and wont listen to a word im saying. > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM > *To: *Graeme Fitzpatrick > *Cc: *Anthony Panozzo ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > > > This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see > the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you > familiarise yourself with the documentation: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples > > Version #2 > fixed intersection routing > > Edited about 2 months ago by
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss? Cheers, Luke On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > I didn’t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you > from doing so in the future, it’s against OSM au-talk policy > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM > *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List > > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > > > "TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him > to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was > incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it > could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and > that is obvious given the single member > > "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag > yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area > that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has > been discussed ad nauseam > > "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word > im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a > contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what > we are saying or why you are incorrect > > > > So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then > go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am > yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely > would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides > a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it. > > > > Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a > way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that > deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was > the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke > the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first > adding it. > > > > P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted > to talk-au. > > > Cheers, > > Luke > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > Luke, > > > > TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him > to, it wasn’t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you > figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you > now understand the whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first > place? OMG it’s like Im speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same > opinion and wont listen to a word im saying. > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM > *To: *Graeme Fitzpatrick > *Cc: *Anthony Panozzo ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > > > This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see > the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you > familiarise yourself with the documentation: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples > > Version #2 > fixed intersection routing > > Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 · Changeset #118293106 > > Tags > restriction no_u_turn > type restriction > > > *Members 1 member Node 6357628400 as via* > > > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart > wrote: > > I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the > community, or attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I > guarantee I am not the only one who has this opinion. Several other > mappers, including TheSwavu himself, have already provided in-depth > explanations of their (correct) reasoning on this talking list. > > > > iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you > commented on was broken *by you* within a day of you adding it (aka, it > lost two of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the > validators are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of > presets or a GUI, and it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not > have at least 3 members (from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, > unusable for routers, and requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case. > > > > OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote > edits, particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the > case o
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
I didn’t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you from doing so in the future, it’s against OSM au-talk policy From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM To: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; OSM Australian Talk List<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 "TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and that is obvious given the single member "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has been discussed ad nauseam "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what we are saying or why you are incorrect So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it. Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first adding it. P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted to talk-au. Cheers, Luke On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo mailto:pan...@outlook.com>> wrote: Luke, TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him to, it wasn’t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you now understand the whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first place? OMG it’s like Im speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word im saying. From: Luke Stewart<mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM To: Graeme Fitzpatrick<mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> Cc: Anthony Panozzo<mailto:pan...@outlook.com>; talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you familiarise yourself with the documentation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples Version #2 fixed intersection routing Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 · Changeset #118293106 Tags restriction no_u_turn type restriction Members 1 member Node 6357628400 as via On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart mailto:suburbansilvervl...@gmail.com>> wrote: I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the community, or attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I guarantee I am not the only one who has this opinion. Several other mappers, including TheSwavu himself, have already provided in-depth explanations of their (correct) reasoning on this talking list. iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you commented on was broken by you within a day of you adding it (aka, it lost two of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the validators are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of presets or a GUI, and it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not have at least 3 members (from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, unusable for routers, and requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case. OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote edits, particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the case of these edits. There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple platforms with the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very similar situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose of OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with it. OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and devices, not a single router or renderer. W
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
"TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that was incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional and that is obvious given the single member "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has been discussed ad nauseam "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a word im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what we are saying or why you are incorrect So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp, then go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then provides a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it. Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first adding it. P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted to talk-au. Cheers, Luke On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > Luke, > > > > TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him > to, it wasn’t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have you > figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you > now understand the whole bus stop thing was about routing in the first > place? OMG it’s like Im speaking to a bunch of people who all have the same > opinion and wont listen to a word im saying. > > > > > > > > *From: *Luke Stewart > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 7:59 PM > *To: *Graeme Fitzpatrick > *Cc: *Anthony Panozzo ; talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > > > This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see > the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you > familiarise yourself with the documentation: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples > > Version #2 > fixed intersection routing > > Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 · Changeset #118293106 > > Tags > restriction no_u_turn > type restriction > > > *Members 1 member Node 6357628400 as via* > > > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart > wrote: > > I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the > community, or attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I > guarantee I am not the only one who has this opinion. Several other > mappers, including TheSwavu himself, have already provided in-depth > explanations of their (correct) reasoning on this talking list. > > > > iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you > commented on was broken *by you* within a day of you adding it (aka, it > lost two of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the > validators are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of > presets or a GUI, and it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not > have at least 3 members (from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, > unusable for routers, and requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case. > > > > OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote > edits, particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the > case of these edits. > > > > There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple platforms > with the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very > similar situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose of > OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with > it. OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and > devices, not a single router or renderer. > > > > Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of > intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which > apparently has 69 turn restriction relations: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Pe
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
This is taken directly from the OpenStreetMap website. If you can not see the problem with it, and why TheSwavu deleted it, then I suggest you familiarise yourself with the documentation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples Version #2 fixed intersection routing Edited about 2 months ago by slice0 · Changeset #118293106 Tags restriction no_u_turn type restriction *Members1 memberNode 6357628400 as via* On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 20:25, Luke Stewart wrote: > I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the > community, or attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I > guarantee I am not the only one who has this opinion. Several other > mappers, including TheSwavu himself, have already provided in-depth > explanations of their (correct) reasoning on this talking list. > > iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you > commented on was broken *by you* within a day of you adding it (aka, it > lost two of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the > validators are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of > presets or a GUI, and it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not > have at least 3 members (from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, > unusable for routers, and requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case. > > OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote > edits, particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the > case of these edits. > > There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple platforms > with the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very > similar situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose of > OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with > it. OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and > devices, not a single router or renderer. > > Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of > intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which > apparently has 69 turn restriction relations: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Perhaps the > community can also agree that this is clearly incorrect > > I suggest that you attempt to interact with fellow mappers in an > appropriate and constructive manner, particularly given this is not the > first situation like this. We are all working on a community project with > good intentions, and this sort of interaction isn't helpful to anyone. > > Cheers, > Luke > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > >> Anthony >> >> Could I suggest that you check keepright for your area: >> https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14=-33.87613=151.17154 >> (Defaults to Sydney) & look at the "Restrictions" & "Geometry Glitches" >> reports. >> >> These will show spots that the system considers are in error, & will also >> allow you to advise that the error is a false positive, if you consider >> that what is shown is OK. >> >> Thanks >> >> Graeme >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 15:42, Anthony Panozzo wrote: >> >>> Diaz, i’m sorry I can’t sympathise with these excuses “it’s not me it >>> the validator” the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine >>> routing all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the >>> back because it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and >>> deserves no credit for simply saying the validator told me so, it’s >>> basically bot editing using that excuse, I will be watching all edits this >>> guy makes from now on and will be reporting every single edit he makes that >>> breaks routing to the DWG and by the report button itself on the user page, >>> then he can explain himself there >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org < >>> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM >>> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 >>> >>> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to >>> talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org >>> >
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
I genuinely can't tell if you are being straightforward with the community, or attempting to rouse trouble because it is amusing to you. I guarantee I am not the only one who has this opinion. Several other mappers, including TheSwavu himself, have already provided in-depth explanations of their (correct) reasoning on this talking list. iD has a habit of breaking relations. One of the u-turn relations that you commented on was broken *by you* within a day of you adding it (aka, it lost two of its members), making it unusable for routing. Fundamentally the validators are looking at the OSM data verbatim, without the lens of presets or a GUI, and it is quite simple: if a turn restriction does not have at least 3 members (from, via, to), then it is definitionally invalid, unusable for routers, and requires correction as TheSwavu did in this case. OpenStreetMap, whilst it does favour local knowledge, also values remote edits, particularly when it is (generally) simple to solve, like in the case of these edits. There was a long, drawn out community discussion across multiple platforms with the mass edit of Australian bus stops. To me, this feels like a very similar situation. It seems like you don't quite understand the purpose of OpenStreetMap, or how validators, tools, and other programs interact with it. OpenStreetMap is designed to work across a myriad of platforms and devices, not a single router or renderer. Whilst on this point, concerns have been raised about your mapping of intersections, by adding diagonal ways (see this as an example, which apparently has 69 turn restriction relations: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.77083/138.63419). Perhaps the community can also agree that this is clearly incorrect I suggest that you attempt to interact with fellow mappers in an appropriate and constructive manner, particularly given this is not the first situation like this. We are all working on a community project with good intentions, and this sort of interaction isn't helpful to anyone. Cheers, Luke On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Anthony > > Could I suggest that you check keepright for your area: > https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14=-33.87613=151.17154 > (Defaults to Sydney) & look at the "Restrictions" & "Geometry Glitches" > reports. > > These will show spots that the system considers are in error, & will also > allow you to advise that the error is a false positive, if you consider > that what is shown is OK. > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 15:42, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > >> Diaz, i’m sorry I can’t sympathise with these excuses “it’s not me it the >> validator” the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine >> routing all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the >> back because it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and >> deserves no credit for simply saying the validator told me so, it’s >> basically bot editing using that excuse, I will be watching all edits this >> guy makes from now on and will be reporting every single edit he makes that >> breaks routing to the DWG and by the report button itself on the user page, >> then he can explain himself there >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org < >> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM >> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 >> >> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to >> talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 (Dian ?gesson) >> >> >> -- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:05 +1000 >> From: Dian ?gesson >> To: OSM Australian Talk List >> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 >> Message-ID: <06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e3...@diacritic.xyz> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" >> >> >> >> Hi Anthony,
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Anthony Could I suggest that you check keepright for your area: https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14=-33.87613=151.17154 (Defaults to Sydney) & look at the "Restrictions" & "Geometry Glitches" reports. These will show spots that the system considers are in error, & will also allow you to advise that the error is a false positive, if you consider that what is shown is OK. Thanks Graeme On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 15:42, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > Diaz, i’m sorry I can’t sympathise with these excuses “it’s not me it the > validator” the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine > routing all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the > back because it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and > deserves no credit for simply saying the validator told me so, it’s > basically bot editing using that excuse, I will be watching all edits this > guy makes from now on and will be reporting every single edit he makes that > breaks routing to the DWG and by the report button itself on the user page, > then he can explain himself there > > > > > > > ------ > *From:* talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org < > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM > *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 (Dian ?gesson) > > > ------ > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:05 +1000 > From: Dian ?gesson > To: OSM Australian Talk List > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 > Message-ID: <06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e3...@diacritic.xyz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" > > > > Hi Anthony, > > I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating > when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know > I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find > the same errors get reintroduced. > > I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If > validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will > eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other > editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to > stop other editors from making changes in an area. > > In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the > iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in > routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the > changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors. > > I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't > until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more > powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these > restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try. > > Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map, > and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better > to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time > doing the fun stuff. :) > > Dian > > On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > > Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your > validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some > routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take > to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the > intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was > functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns, > you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but > what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture > either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which > are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive > ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it ta
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Diaz, i'm sorry I can't sympathise with these excuses "it's not me it the
validator" the bottom line is that this user is breaking perfectly fine routing
all for the sake of some crappy validator gives him a pat on the back because
it says so, that is irresponsible and foolish editing and deserves no credit
for simply saying the validator told me so, it's basically bot editing using
that excuse, I will be watching all edits this guy makes from now on and will
be reporting every single edit he makes that breaks routing to the DWG and by
the report button itself on the user page, then he can explain himself there
____
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 2:35:26 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 (Dian ?gesson)
--
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:04:05 +1000
From: Dian ?gesson
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Message-ID: <06b0964db149a5343954af20fe2e3...@diacritic.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Hi Anthony,
I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating
when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know
I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find
the same errors get reintroduced.
I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If
validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will
eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other
editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to
stop other editors from making changes in an area.
In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the
iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in
routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the
changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors.
I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't
until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more
powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these
restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try.
Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map,
and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better
to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time
doing the fun stuff. :)
Dian
On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your
validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some
routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take
to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the
intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was
functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns,
you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but
what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture
either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which
are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive
ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more
knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't
know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing
engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people
with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do
including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do
not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it.
I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors!
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Hi Anthony,
I can sympathise with your sense of frustration. It does feel irritating
when you feel as though your work is being undermined or broken. I know
I've spent a lot of time making changes for better routing, only to find
the same errors get reintroduced.
I think your frustration is misdirected at Andrew here, though. If
validation tools are detecting issues with some data, someone will
eventually notice and try to fix it; whether it be Andrew or some other
editor. In a collaborative, decentralised community it isn't possible to
stop other editors from making changes in an area.
In this specific case, these errors are a result of problems using the
iD editor which create "orphaned" relations that would not be used in
routing anyway. Andrew has indicated that he isn't trying to undo the
changes that have been added, rather to resolve the validation errors.
I've created a few of these errors myself inadvertently, and it wasn't
until I started to use JOSM that I realised how much easier and more
powerful that tool can be. If you are spending hours trying to get these
restrictions perfect, I'd strongly recommend giving that a try.
Both Andrew and yourself are trying to improve the quality of the map,
and no one benefits when frustrations boil over in this way. It's better
to try and work together constructively so we can all spend more time
doing the fun stuff. :)
Dian
On 2022-04-30 14:20, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your
validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some
routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take
to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the
intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was
functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns,
you're pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but
what you don't realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture
either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which
are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive
ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more
knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than
for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don't
know the intended routing and can't see any errors using the routing
engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people
with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do
including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do
not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it.
I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors!
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178,
Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol
178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson)
3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol
178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt)
4. FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt)
--
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000
From: Andrew Davidson
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest,
Vol 178, Issue 44)
Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote:
This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know
more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing
correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge?
Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction
relation needs to have:
1. A way with the role "from"
2. A way with the role "to"
3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways
4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel
When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I
say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be.
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46
Let me put it this way, it very easy for you to come along with your validator toll and get on your high horse and point out how trash some routing edits are... but you have no clue at all how much effort it take to get some intersections functioning as intended as per the rule of the intersection, the one you pointed out was pretty simple and was functioning 100% correctly before you touched it now it allows u-turns, you’re pointing out the tiny issue that your validator points out but what you don’t realize is that the validator doe not see the big picture either, its pretty much just pointing out conflicting restrictions which are even sometimes left in intentionally, this is not the first time ive ran into your edits but I have had enough of it, it takes a lot more knowledge and effort to get them working as intended per the rules than for you to come along with your little tool, if you personally don’t know the intended routing and can’t see any errors using the routing engine itself LEAVE IT ALONE, OSM is only meant to be edited by people with local knowledge of the areas, I put a lot of time into what I do including random routing on my gps to see what it will throw at me, I do not need to be worry about you and your tool coming along to destroy it. I am not proff reading this so sorry if there are spelling errors! From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 1:33 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 46 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson) 2. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) (Andrew Davidson) 3. Re: iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) (Phil Wyatt) 4. FW: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 (Phil Wyatt) -- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:53:53 +1000 From: Andrew Davidson To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] iD and turn restrictions (Was:Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44) Message-ID: <9d7c85e4-257e-f7b0-bd48-bf425c9c3...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 30/4/22 00:45, Anthony Panozzo wrote: > This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know > more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing > correction this account comes along and ?fixes? it based on ?knowledge? Some terminology before we start. To be valid a turn restriction relation needs to have: 1. A way with the role "from" 2. A way with the role "to" 3. One or more "via" s that can be either a node or one or more ways 4. The members must connect in a way that you can travel When I say "broken" I mean that one of the rules is broken and when I say "knowledge" I mean I know what a valid turn restriction should be. > from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this > account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: > 120344373 | OpenStreetMap This changeset deleted this turn restriction: https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13905961 which you added in changeset 118257827 and then broke in 118293106 (it only had a node via member). When I reviewed this one I decided to delete it because it would only duplicate this turn restriction: https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/14044389 which you added in changeset 119769921, if I fixed it. > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: > 120198383 | OpenStreetMap This intersection had 15 broken turn restriction relation in it: https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477255 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477256 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477257 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477258 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477260 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477261 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477263 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477268 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13477269 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13557714 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761157 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/13761161 https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/1
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
Hi Anthony (slice0), Can I suggest the best way to get some resolution is to actually spell out in a changeset comment why you think the change made by Swavu is incorrect. That way everyone gets to learn from 'conflicts'. I also suggest you restrain your language or you may also face the wrath of the DWG. PS Swavu is not a bot. Cheers - Phil (tastrax) From: Anthony Panozzo Sent: Saturday, 30 April 2022 12:46 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 User TheSwavu This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing correction this account comes along and "fixes" it based on "knowledge" from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 | OpenStreetMap <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: 120198383 | OpenStreetMap <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.5930 1> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask DWG to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be banned from any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44
User TheSwavu This account is either a bot account or someone that thinks they know more than they actually do, every single time anybody does a routing correction this account comes along and “fixes” it based on “knowledge” from the notes, let me just say I looked over some of the edit this account does and it breaks the routing for the most part, Changeset: 120344373 | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373> and Changeset: 120198383 | OpenStreetMap<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120198383#map=17/-34.76452/138.59301> are two examples of this account breaking routing, ive been wasting my time spending hours and hours fixing routing just for this shitty bot to come along and fuck it all up over and over again, I would like to ask DWG to take a real close look at this account and see if it can be banned from any further edits under the bot edit policy or straight out vandalism! From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Friday, 29 April 2022 8:32 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page ready for review (Dian ?gesson) -- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:03:27 +1000 From: Dian ?gesson To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: [talk-au] OSM Wiki Update - Fourth Tagging Guidelines Page ready for review Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Hello, Thank you for the feedback for the subpages that have been completed so far. The fourth subpage of the Australian Tagging Guidelines: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Land_and_boundaries is ready for review. Of particular importance in this subpage, the changes to the administration levels that was discussed earlier has been incorporated into this new subpage. Please, as always, don't be shy about providing feedback or raising concerns. Dian -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220429/23823d18/attachment-0001.htm> -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 44 **** ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-bd] Talk-bd Digest, Vol 46, Issue 1
Great initiative. On Fri, 22 Apr 2022, 5:04 pm , wrote: > Send Talk-bd mailing list submissions to > talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-bd-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-bd-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-bd digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Earth Day 2022 Map-A-Thon: You Map, We Plant! (Fazle Rabbi) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:35:48 +0600 > From: Fazle Rabbi > To: talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-bd] Earth Day 2022 Map-A-Thon: You Map, We Plant! > Message-ID: > < > caajwmtu-660d7mmrbqwyagby2zmwmt90tgsh1+bkgvn2ad3...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > FYI > > For each 100 unique map features by remote tracing/ 20 unique PoI by > ground-truthing in Bangladesh added to the OSM platform, we will plant a > tree! So, the more you map, the healthier our earth will become. > > This initiative only focused on the geographical region of Bangladesh for > mapping, but people from any part of the globe can contribute. The input > can either be through remote sensing or field mapping/ground-truthing. > > Join Us and #MaketheMapGreenAgain! > > Register Now: https://forms.gle/JTqzGMAJvcNVztk16 > > Make sure you have added hashtags #EarthDayBD22 and #BoilingGreen22 to > ensure your contribution is counted. > > Event Details: https://fb.me/e/1HL5NmwLa > > To learn how to contribute on OpenStreetMap: > https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/start-osm > > This event is a part of the observance of ?World Earth Day 2022? Bangladesh > Open Innovation Lab (BOIL) in association with the Humanitarian > OpenStreetMap Team (#HOTOSM), Open Mapping Hub Asia Pacific (#OMHAP), > #YouthMappers, and #OSMBD initiate a week-long Map-A-Thon. This is an > online crowd-sourced mapping event using the OpenStreetMap platform > focusing on the science of where blending with community-based > afforestation. > > source: https://www.facebook.com/BoiledBhoot > > Thank you! > > Regards > > Fazle Rabbi > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-bd/attachments/20220421/b02a236d/attachment-0001.htm > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Talk-bd mailing list > Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd > > > -- > > End of Talk-bd Digest, Vol 46, Issue 1 > ** > ___ Talk-bd mailing list Talk-bd@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-bd
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22
Anthony wrote "Creating new Bus Stop nodes Is the consensus to remove the plaform tags from new nodes?" I'm not sure I understand. If you are creating a new bus stop node, then there won't be any tags to remove, platform or otherwise. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22
Creating new Bus Stop nodes Is the consensus to remove the plaform tags from new nodes? From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:30:11 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: How to properly add address tags when multiple buildings share a housenumber? (Peter leGras) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 01:27:57 +1100 From: Peter leGras To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] How to properly add address tags when multiple buildings share a housenumber? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Peter, If you are tagging unit addresses in Orange NSW, I see a lot (but not all) of strata complexes actually have the address with unit number in the NSW spatial services addressing theme, despite not being displayed in the DCS NSW Base Map layer. This is a useful data source where there is restricted access, especially in strata. We have a waiver to use spatial services data such as this. https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1=d3cf7c7edef14ca18248c6dc5fcaff96 Hope you find it useful. I am mapping in the Blue Mountains and have done a bit of work in Orange. A few nearby mappers are active in the OSM World discord server that was mentioned recently in the talk-au list if you'd like to join us for casual discussion. Cheers other Peter (2hu4u) On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 at 23:20, Peter leGras wrote: > Hi Peter, > The tag addr:housenumber does not render on non-building areas, but it is > still useful to include on the complex lot bounds to assist geocoding. You > can read more about this at > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1746 > Note that adding a node tagged with addr:housenumber at the centre of the > complex will render on osm.org. > If there are multiple dwellings on the complex with the same housenumber, > you could add the addr:housenumber to every dwelling in the lot and > consider adding addr:unit or addr:flats to each as necessary. > Cheers > 2hu4u > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220118/c0f59645/attachment-0001.htm> -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 22 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 15
My User name is Slice0 and I was the one who made the mass edit to Upgrade the
Bus Stop nodes to current standards.
I did not bring it up for discussion here because it has already been discussed
and approved validator could consider a `public_transport=platform` way as
routable · Issue #8760 · openstreetmap/iD ·
GitHub<https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8760#issuecomment-948196855>
and voted on , my thought process was why do I need to discuss it here when it
has already been discussed, the DWG user who reverted my changed never fully
looked into this. He acted purely on the advice from Ds5rUy and should have
this ability taken away and given to someone who is more objective, if that
vote and discussion I linked out weighs and talk here then he is 100% wrong
and made 54700 wrong edits
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:30:07 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 175, Issue 15
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
Australia. (osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au)
2. Re: Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
Australia. (Andrew Harvey)
3. Re: New blogs on unsealed roads in Victoria
(fors...@ozonline.com.au)
--
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 18:01:18 +1000
From:
To: "'OSM-Au'"
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all
of Australia.
Message-ID: <055401d80853$c0830770$41891650$@thorsten.engler.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Warin,
nobody says that the tagging isn't correct for cases where the bus_stop node
is the only thing there is.
But please look at:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931072496403370014
/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931073576893825064
/unknown.png
This is a relatively normal bus stop. It clearly DOES have a distinct
platform. In which case the platform should be tagged on the area.
Even if someone decides that's too much work and decides to only to map the
bus_stop node and throw the platform tag onto that, that's fine as long as
it happens on a case by case basis.
The issue is that this is an automated mass edit, where the user loaded all
highway=bus_stop nodes in Australia into JOSM via an overpass query, then
unconditionally added the platform tag to all of them (even ones that might
have already tagged a platform on an area close by), and committed these
changes.
Furthermore, the user in question was specifically pointed to the Automated
Edit Code of Conduct before making that change and wilfully ignored the
process:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/471231032645910529/931094389407768607
/unknown.png
Cheers,
Thorsten
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 13 January 2022 17:38
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of
Australia.
On 13/1/22 5:47 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au
<mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116091398
To quote my changeset comment:
This undiscussed, undocumented mass edit that didn't follow the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is
introducing a huge amount of incorrect data to the database and should be
reverted.
public_transport=platform doesn't automatically go onto every
highway=bus_stop, only in cases where that's the only thing that's mapped.
If there is an actual waiting area of any kind, the
public_transport=platform belongs on that instead.
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Buses
Umm from the above page
"If there is no real platform and you will only find a simple sign for the
passengers .
Add a node node at the location of the bus stop sign. It gets following
tags:
public_transport=platform
highway=bus_stop
name= or ref=
optional: additional tags like shelter=yes/no, bench=yes/no, bin=yes/no,
etc."
In most instances in Australia all there is is a 'bus stop sign' and shelter
with bench if your lucky. So in the majority of cases the tagging would be
correct.
---
I think this came about from 'public transport version 2'. I don't know if
Re: [talk-ph] [Talk-ca] Fwd: Revisiting exits with “names” in Ontario and Quebec
The issue with what that clique has been doing with Ontario and Quebec highway exits is not only tagging for the renderer, but also not following best tagging practices followed elsewhere. For exits, most of Canada generally observing the practices documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info. Also there is a note about the use of name=* for highway=motorway_junction, which I quote here: - name=* for the name of the junction or interchange. Do not confuse the *name of a junction* with the *destination(s) the junction *leads to. In most cases worldwide, sign information describes destinations, not the name of the junction or interchange itself. If a signpost or indication displays destinations exclusively, this data belongs to destination=* tags, *not* the name=* of the highway=motorway_junction node. In this case, the names in the exits are not an innocent mistake, but a problematic tagging practice perpetuated by a small group of mappers. Add to the problem is that name=* is rendered at the main map layer, further encouraging some mappers to tag destinations as “names” just for the render result. On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 6:48 PM john whelan wrote: > It is normally politeness to ask someone if they are happy if emails sent > between two people is to be shared more generally. My comments might have > been slightly different in view of the different audience. > > To recap we have determined that you are not local to Ontario or Quebec. > The local mappers who have commented are not in agreement with your > thoughts. > > In OSM the authority is the consensus of the local mappers. > > and to recap your problem is? > > Thanks John > > On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 20:34, Jherome Miguel > wrote: > >> Ngah, should have replied to all. Not just you. >> >> talk...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> > ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
Am 01.06.21 um 21:25 schrieb Jarek Piórkowski: Yes, and some people would like to use this free (Free), computer-readable dataset to find out whether you should take the train from Windsor and Eton Central or Riverside. While other are giving advice on whether it is wise to even try to do this. Doing timetabling software development for a living, I can tell you that train operators and infrastructure managers are paying hordes of planners using very complex and specialized tools to manage their schedules. This is far beyond the scope and intent of OSM. OSM is a mapping tool, not a scheduling tool. If you want intermodal routing, a combination of OSM with any reliable schedule data source is the way to go. Hälsningar David OpenPGP_0x93A7B015199383B9.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
On 01/06/2021 19:37, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: Why bother with OSM at all then? Just look at a Ordnance Survey map and use your sentience to find what you're looking for. OSM is free. OSM is not a database sink. DaveF ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 13:34, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:07 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit < > > talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote: > > > > On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: > > > > > What's wrong with consulting a timetable? > > > > > > > > To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use. > > > > > > Then map the stations! > > > > So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and > > Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult > > to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer to > > Paddington as the bird flies. > > Traveline https://www.traveline.info/ > > Uses OSM and includes walking and buses, so will calculate the best > station to walk to for the quickest journey. Other options are > available. Well the question was about knowing which timetable to consult off of station(s) ref/ID tagged in OSM, based off a claim that all that's needed in OSM are the refs. If we're going to just use Traveline, why bother mapping any transport at all? ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 14:15 Dave F via Talk-transit < talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > On 01/06/2021 18:07, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit < > talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote: >> > >> > On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: >> >> What's wrong with consulting a timetable? >> > >> > To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use. >> >> Then map the stations! >> > > > So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and Eton > Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult to find > out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer to Paddington > as the bird flies. > > > > You use a 'timetable' https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ a make a sentient > decision based on what you discover. > Why bother with OSM at all then? Just look at a Ordnance Survey map and use your sentience to find what you're looking for. You appear to assume OSM should contain all the data in the world and make > you tea & toast each morning. It doesn't, & can't. > Sorry, what's the tag for toast, is it highway=toast_shop? ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 19:16 +0100, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: > > > On 01/06/2021 18:32, Philip Barnes wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:07 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit < > > > talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote: > > > > > On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: > > > > > > What's wrong with consulting a timetable? > > > > > To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use. > > > > Then map the stations! > > > > > > So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor > > > and > > > Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to > > > consult > > > to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally > > > closer to > > > Paddington as the bird flies. > > Traveline https://www.traveline.info/ > > > > Uses OSM > > Database or just tiles? > Many things look slightly offset in Traveline. Database I believe, used to come across their mappers adding to OSM. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
On 01/06/2021 18:32, Philip Barnes wrote: On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:07 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit < talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote: On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote: On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: What's wrong with consulting a timetable? To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use. Then map the stations! So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer to Paddington as the bird flies. Traveline https://www.traveline.info/ Uses OSM Database or just tiles? Many things look slightly offset in Traveline. DaveF ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
On 01/06/2021 18:07, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit <mailto:talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote: > > On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: >> What's wrong with consulting a timetable? > > To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use. Then map the stations! So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer to Paddington as the bird flies. You use a 'timetable' https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ a make a sentient decision based on what you discover. You appear to assume OSM should contain all the data in the world and make you tea & toast each morning. It doesn't, & can't. DaveF ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:07 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit < > talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote: > > > > > > On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: > > > > What's wrong with consulting a timetable? > > > > > > To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use. > > > > Then map the stations! > > > So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and > Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult > to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer to > Paddington as the bird flies. Traveline https://www.traveline.info/ Uses OSM and includes walking and buses, so will calculate the best station to walk to for the quickest journey. Other options are available. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
Which is why OSM has route relations. Michael's wanting to add services
& timetables to route relations. The data is too transient & time
consuming to maintain for OSM. Sort the basics out. Learn to walk before
running.
DaveF
On 01/06/2021 15:59, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
Without route relations, OSM shows where you can get on the
train/vehicle, but not where you can go
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 10:58 Dave F via Talk-transit
<mailto:talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
What's wrong with consulting a timetable?
Maps show you where you can go, timetables tell you when .
DaveF
On 01/06/2021 01:18, Michael Tsang wrote:
> I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city.
> Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In
London tube trains simply stop at every station.
> This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations,
and what
we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every
trains
at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day.
Other European countries are doing it much better. The routes are
numbered. There are designated express services with stops only
in big cities. The rural stations have only local stopping
services which call at every stop en-route.
We don't even have a useful route map from train companies that
can work out which train I should take without consulting the
timetable.
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit>
_______
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit>
_______
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
_______
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
One problem I had when living in the UK was deciding which station to use to travel up to London. Mother who worked as a midwife had been told one station by the nurses at the hospital. Fine except it was a 20 minute drive to get there and the fairly high frequency but stopping tube would get you into the city fairly quickly. Later I used the station that was ten minutes walk away. That saved the 20 minute drive and has fewer stops at stations. Years later I found another station 15 minutes walk away that ran into Liverpool street with only one stop. Much the fastest but I'd been living there more than ten years before I uncovered it. There was another line I used occasionally that ran into Kings Cross and occasionally that would best depending on where you were going to. So it is a mixture sometimes of which station to use and how that gets you to your destination. Don't get me started on tickets and which to use. The route planners make it much easier than obtaining the old paper timetables and pouring through them. Does all this complexity belong in OSM? Probably not our strength I think is in the mapping of stations etc and let someone else sort the rest out. Cheerio John On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 11:29 Dave F via Talk-transit < talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > What's wrong with consulting a timetable? > > Maps show you where you can go, timetables tell you when . > > DaveF > > On 01/06/2021 01:18, Michael Tsang wrote: > > > I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city. > > > Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In > London tube trains simply stop at every station. > > > This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what > we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains > at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day. > > Other European countries are doing it much better. The routes are > numbered. There are designated express services with stops only in big > cities. The rural stations have only local stopping services which call at > every stop en-route. > > We don't even have a useful route map from train companies that can work > out which train I should take without consulting the timetable. > > > ___ > Talk-transit mailing > listTalk-transit@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > > > ___ > Talk-transit mailing list > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: What's wrong with consulting a timetable? To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use. This is currently a problem in open railway map. You can search the map based on the name of the train station, but not based on actual towns or other locations. It is even more of an annoying problem in north America where large swaths of the railway network have no passenger service and therefor no stations. If you want to look at railways in Tennessee, for example, the closest you can get is Memphis, which is a long way and a lot of scrolling from Nashville, Johnson City or Bristol (a days drive). [Of course the real problem here is the US passenger rail network, but we aren't going to fix that here.] Christopher ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
Without route relations, OSM shows where you can get on the train/vehicle, but not where you can go On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 10:58 Dave F via Talk-transit < talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > What's wrong with consulting a timetable? > > Maps show you where you can go, timetables tell you when . > > DaveF > > On 01/06/2021 01:18, Michael Tsang wrote: > > > I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city. > > > Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In > London tube trains simply stop at every station. > > > This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what > we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains > at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day. > > Other European countries are doing it much better. The routes are > numbered. There are designated express services with stops only in big > cities. The rural stations have only local stopping services which call at > every stop en-route. > > We don't even have a useful route map from train companies that can work > out which train I should take without consulting the timetable. > > > ___ > Talk-transit mailing > listTalk-transit@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > > > ___ > Talk-transit mailing list > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
What's wrong with consulting a timetable? Maps show you where you can go, timetables tell you when . DaveF On 01/06/2021 01:18, Michael Tsang wrote: > I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city. > Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In London tube trains simply stop at every station. > This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day. Other European countries are doing it much better. The routes are numbered. There are designated express services with stops only in big cities. The rural stations have only local stopping services which call at every stop en-route. We don't even have a useful route map from train companies that can work out which train I should take without consulting the timetable. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
For the last few years I've added/deleted & maintained Britain's railway stations. All National Rail stations (currently 2571) have the Station's 3 digit CRS code (ref:crs=*). This is the public facing code which allows routing developers to link to NR webpages which provide more *accurate* detail than can be in the OSM database. https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/SFD/details.html https://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/SFD I took a brief look at railway NapTAN/ATCO codes. It appears some got confused between StopPoints/StopAreas and codes for the station itself & all its various entrances. A right pig's ear. I gave up. DaveF On 31/05/2021 23:14, 10992 via Talk-GB wrote: And I would have thought that the best way forward is surely to ensure that bus stops / train stations etc are properly mapped and tagged (NaPTAN/ATCO/3-alpha/TIPLOC etc), so that they can be linked to the appropriate data for routing engines to use, rather than attempting to duplicate data in OSM. For most purposes, as long as all stops are mapped, the route a train/bus takes is irrelevant (thought there may well be some cases where it is useful). It may well be that some open data that is available could facilitate automatic maintenance of route relations in OSM, but if it were to be so easily transferable, that would negate the point to an extent, since routing engines could do it themselves. 10992 ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, 31 May 2021 22:54, Philip Barnes wrote: On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 22:18 +0100, Michael Tsang wrote: On Monday, 31 May 2021 16:14:47 BST Roger Slevin wrote: and one in which I agree with Tony, Mark and Peter in saying that public transport services and timetables don’t appear to me to have a valid place in OSM We have already mapped the complete bus networks in certain cities. In OSM terms, a public transport route is defined as "the order where the service stops to carry passengers, and the path where it transverse on". It does not include the timetable data. I have also mapped a lot of bus and train routes in different cities as well, and it is very useful for OSM to have bus and train routes. When I travel to a new city I use OsmAnd a lot to find which bus I need to take to go to a certain direction, and where it will stop. I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city. Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In London tube trains simply stop at every station. This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day. The problem with GB railways is that each departure serves completely different stops, which means, if we strictly follow the "one variant = one relation" model as in current PTv2 schema, we have to map each departure as distinct relations on the map, because each departure serves different stops, which mean they are different variants. You also have to remember that the timetables and hence services are seasonal to reflect different passenger demands. Many of us have thought about train routes but concluded on a country level they are too complex and require a huge amount of mainatainance. The timetable changes every 6 months, and as a minimum needs to be checked. I started thinking about my local station, to the North trains can go to Crewe, Chester or Manchester Piccadilly. To the south trains can go to Shrewsbury, Birmingham International, Cardiff Central, Swansea, Carmathen, Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and Fishguard. That is all before to start considering which of the dozens of stations each service calls, or may call at if it is a request stop. As other have said, this is not something that belongs in OSM. If you need to work out how to get somewhere then the train companies apps and websites work very well. If you want to include buses as well the traveline is excellent. Phil (trigpoint) Talk-GB mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
As others have said, this data doesn't really belong in OSM. It's too transient, too complicated to maintain. GB timetables are officially updated every 6 months, but services vary on an ad-hoc basis. This previous year being a good example. How detailed would your system be? Would you adjust it to the level of maintenance closures & rail replacement services? We don't even a valid database for buses. The Naptan import was poorly executed & even more poorly maintained. There are currently over 15000 without highway=bus_stop tags. The bus route relations are so poor Traveline/Travel West don't use them Maybe it's best using your OSM time to improve & complete what is already in the OSM database. DaveF On 31/05/2021 22:18, Michael Tsang wrote: On Monday, 31 May 2021 16:14:47 BST Roger Slevin wrote: and one in which I agree with Tony, Mark and Peter in saying that public transport services and timetables don’t appear to me to have a valid place in OSM We have already mapped the complete bus networks in certain cities. In OSM terms, a public transport route is defined as "the order where the service stops to carry passengers, and the path where it transverse on". It does not include the timetable data. I have also mapped a lot of bus and train routes in different cities as well, and it is very useful for OSM to have bus and train routes. When I travel to a new city I use OsmAnd a lot to find which bus I need to take to go to a certain direction, and where it will stop. The problem with GB railways is that each departure serves completely different stops, which means, if we strictly follow the "one variant = one relation" model as in current PTv2 schema, we have to map each departure as distinct relations on the map, because each departure serves different stops, which mean they are different variants. Michael ___ Talk-GB mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
gt; new city I use OsmAnd a lot to find which bus I need to take to go to > a certain > direction, and where it will stop. > I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city. Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In London tube trains simply stop at every station. This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day. > The problem with GB railways is that each departure serves completely > different > stops, which means, if we strictly follow the "one variant = one > relation" > model as in current PTv2 schema, we have to map each departure as > distinct > relations on the map, because each departure serves different stops, > which mean > they are different variants. You also have to remember that the timetables and hence services are seasonal to reflect different passenger demands. Many of us have thought about train routes but concluded on a country level they are too complex and require a huge amount of mainatainance. The timetable changes every 6 months, and as a minimum needs to be checked. I started thinking about my local station, to the North trains can go to Crewe, Chester or Manchester Piccadilly. To the south trains can go to Shrewsbury, Birmingham International, Cardiff Central, Swansea, Carmathen, Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and Fishguard. That is all before to start considering which of the dozens of stations each service calls, or may call at if it is a request stop. As other have said, this is not something that belongs in OSM. If you need to work out how to get somewhere then the train companies apps and websites work very well. If you want to include buses as well the traveline is excellent. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain
On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 22:18 +0100, Michael Tsang wrote: > On Monday, 31 May 2021 16:14:47 BST Roger Slevin wrote: > > and one in which I agree with Tony, Mark and Peter in saying that > > public > > transport services and timetables don’t appear to me to have a > > valid place > > in OSM > > We have already mapped the complete bus networks in certain cities. > In OSM > terms, a public transport route is defined as "the order where the > service > stops to carry passengers, and the path where it transverse on". It > does not > include the timetable data. > > I have also mapped a lot of bus and train routes in different cities > as well, > and it is very useful for OSM to have bus and train routes. When I > travel to a > new city I use OsmAnd a lot to find which bus I need to take to go to > a certain > direction, and where it will stop. > I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city. Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In London tube trains simply stop at every station. This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day. > The problem with GB railways is that each departure serves completely > different > stops, which means, if we strictly follow the "one variant = one > relation" > model as in current PTv2 schema, we have to map each departure as > distinct > relations on the map, because each departure serves different stops, > which mean > they are different variants. You also have to remember that the timetables and hence services are seasonal to reflect different passenger demands. Many of us have thought about train routes but concluded on a country level they are too complex and require a huge amount of mainatainance. The timetable changes every 6 months, and as a minimum needs to be checked. I started thinking about my local station, to the North trains can go to Crewe, Chester or Manchester Piccadilly. To the south trains can go to Shrewsbury, Birmingham International, Cardiff Central, Swansea, Carmathen, Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and Fishguard. That is all before to start considering which of the dozens of stations each service calls, or may call at if it is a request stop. As other have said, this is not something that belongs in OSM. If you need to work out how to get somewhere then the train companies apps and websites work very well. If you want to include buses as well the traveline is excellent. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 171, Issue 52
Apologies, I assumed this was a ongoing project that started last month, c.f. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94154740#map=8/51.900/-1.599 I'm definitely not keen on seeing welly-boot mapping remapped by armchair mappers -- there are too many real-world issues that don't map easily (sorry!) to more abstract ontologies. I do think it would be great quarterly project (if the stile's wrong -- a lot else might be too). And if this is a key issue for you, then perhaps asking OSM editor developers to give a gentle warning for "stile" on "bridleway" might be a great idea -- and help reduce inadvertant problems. -- and stop them coming back. (I think "block" should be ok though -- probably just there to stop cars) Cheers, Neil P.S. I only raised it on talk-gb as it covered a large area -- I have no problem reverting smaller changesets in my locality that are incorrect. From: Richard Fairhurst To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways Neil Matthews wrote: Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways Um, no there hasn't? The changeset you've pointed to (which is one of mine) has a single stile moved to the side of a bridleway. I've done this a handful of times in the past, too, usually where the stile is clearly misplaced at a footpath/bridleway junction node rather than off to the side on a footpath, but occasionally at an isolated bridleway location like this. A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this. You will sometimes see a stile placed to the side of a gate: in OSM this is usually mapped as a highway=footway through the stile and highway=bridleway through the gate, though of course there's no distinct public footpath PRoW in this case. OSM is an iterative process of fixup and improvement, and shouting "mechanical edit!" every time someone makes a change that hasn't been surveyed in walking boots and then manually etched onto the hard disc platters of a server somewhere in Amsterdam is not hugely helpful. I mean, just change it back and say "put back pending survey" if you feel that strongly, it doesn't need an entire mailing list thread. Richard -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201214/1e3ca890/attachment-0001.htm> -- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] OSM Uganda Local Chapter application
I wasn't initially going to comment on this except to say that there are brilliant Ugandan mappers (317 contributed yesterday!). This community has been super active for several years now, and those folks deserve to have a chapter to strengthen their organisational efforts. Nevertheless, chapters should have strong governance arrangements - and those arrangements should include open membership, community control, recall of Directors, and transparent ways of knowing that the Directors are acting in the interests of the community. I can only assume that the Ugandan community are happy to engage around these issues. In late 2018 the Ireland OSM community applied for local chapter status with me as Ireland's liaison on the applicant side. Within that there were three junctures of 3-5 week email reply delays, and partial replies that fell short of providing Ireland's community any clear sense of what was driving the deliberation process in the background. As liaison I was given the task or guessing at what was in fact happening for reports back (including the 2019 AGM) Our application didn't appear on osmf meeting agendas for example. It took from December 2018 to August 2019 to get through the application process. I would hope that people commenting here would have the good sense to recognise that a chapter is never frustrated by substantive engagement on clearly advertised criteria, but it certainly will be frustrated by poor communication and inexplicable delays. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
I apologize if this is a duplicate, but I received notices from Google Mail that the message below sent to both osmf-talk and talk was not delivered "because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail." I am therefore retransmitting the message using my home email address. apm To the OSM and OSMF communities: I convey the following information on behalf of the Board of Directors of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. An outcome of the current controversy on the osmf-talk mailing list over misogynistic language is a decision by the Board as follows: > The Board will find partners to help instate a moderator team for > the OSMF-talk and talk mailing lists. These moderators need to > have the trust of the community subject to the moderation (consent > of the governed) by some kind of approval mechanism. This > moderator team will start to work on enforcing the current > Etiquette guidelines as soon as possible. We will also start work > on updating/replacing our Etiquette rules, which must focus on > balancing all participants' interests. We have asked the Local Chapters and Communities Working Group (LCCWG ) to take the lead on this and to work with signatories of the open letter to the Board [1] as well as members of the Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee to produce proposals for the Board to consider at its January meeting. The LCCWG has accepted this task. This issue will be on the agenda of the January meeting of the Board of Directors, exact time and date yet to be determined, though as is customary it will be posted to the Foundation's website well in advance. Members of the OSM community are, as always, welcome to share their opinions and any relevant information on this matter, either publicly via osmf-talk, or privately in direct communications to the LCCWG. I feel compelled to remind all members of the community that a Code of Etiquette [2] has existed since June 2011 and shall be observed by all community members. Very best regards to all, apm [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?ts=5fd11436#heading=h.ccgtgjykcfgh <https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?ts=5fd11436#heading=h.ccgtgjykcfgh> [2] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Etiquette <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Etiquette> --- /Allan Mustard, Chairperson/ /Board of Directors/ /OpenStreetMap Foundation/ _______ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
Thank you to the board for listening to our appeal. I look forward to collaborating on the next steps. Heather On Fri, 11 Dec 2020, 04:57 Allan Mustard, wrote: > To the OSM and OSMF communities: > > I convey the following information on behalf of the Board of Directors of > the OpenStreetMap Foundation. > > An outcome of the current controversy on the osmf-talk mailing list over > misogynistic language is a decision by the Board as follows: > > The Board will find partners to help instate a moderator team for the > OSMF-talk and talk mailing lists. These moderators need to have the trust > of the community subject to the moderation (consent of the governed) by > some kind of approval mechanism. This moderator team will start to work > on enforcing the current Etiquette guidelines as soon as possible. We will > also start work on updating/replacing our Etiquette rules, which must focus > on balancing all participants' interests. > > We have asked the Local Chapters and Communities Working Group (LCCWG ) to > take the lead on this and to work with signatories of the open letter to > the Board [1] as well as members of the Diversity and Inclusion Special > Committee to produce proposals for the Board to consider at its January > meeting. The LCCWG has accepted this task. This issue will be on the > agenda of the January meeting of the Board of Directors, exact time and > date yet to be determined, though as is customary it will be posted to the > Foundation's website well in advance. > > Members of the OSM community are, as always, welcome to share their > opinions and any relevant information on this matter, either publicly via > osmf-talk, or privately in direct communications to the LCCWG. I feel > compelled to remind all members of the community that a Code of Etiquette > [2] has existed since June 2011 and shall be observed by all community > members. > > Very best regards to all, > apm > > [1] > https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?ts=5fd11436#heading=h.ccgtgjykcfgh > [2] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Etiquette > --- > *Allan Mustard, Chairperson* > *Board of Directors* > *OpenStreetMap Foundation* > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Fwd: Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
Dec 10, 2020, 22:46 by matkoni...@tutanota.com: > (3) > If girls are from young age discouraged from being interested in > maps/geography/volunteering/etc then it is going to help > in lower participation in projects for people interested in maps. > "If girls are from young age discouraged from being interested in maps/geography/volunteering/etc then it is going to result in lower participation of women in projects for people interested in maps." would be better phrasing, I noticed too late that "help" has positive connotations. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Fwd: Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
Dec 10, 2020, 20:58 by talk@openstreetmap.org: > Underrepresentation of women and gender minorities, racial > underrepresentation, geographic underrepresentation, these are all > symptoms. If OSM did not systematically exclude these groups, these > groups would not be underrepresented. > It is not so simple. Problem may be outside OSM. (1) Significant part of geographic underrepresentation is caused by simple fact that in many places people have simply no time for such hobby and certainly no time and resources for mailing list discussions https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/water/ "2.2 billion people lack access to safely managed drinking water" - in such situations you are pretty unlikely to become involved in OSM Malaria alone kills 400 000 people every year, basically all of that is preventable or treatable (hopefully it is OK to plug here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Malaria_Foundation ) (2) OSM editing is illegal in China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China If someone is going to start going against Chinese government it is unlikely that they select mapping in OSM as the top priority or even as a symbolic protest. (3) If girls are from young age discouraged from being interested in maps/geography/volunteering/etc then it is going to help in lower participation in projects for people interested in maps. And for example "women are likely to be confused by maps" stereotype is one that I encountered and it is of a kind that is self-perpetuating. (4) Mappers from North Korea are underrepresented, and in very large part it is not fault of OSM community. --- We can try to limit damage and encourage participation, but there are external factors that we will not overcome (though hopefully we can take part in reducing them). But even with OSM being 100% ideal many of mentioned groups would be still underrepresented. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Fwd: Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
ail at one > level or another. But working to improve diversity means being open to > petitions and always improving our rank of understanding it. Criticizing the > search for diversity by demonstrating the limits of others is what I can > call: sabotaging this search for diversity. > The correct way is to always humbly re-read our own words when someone points > out an offense. > Considering the fact of not offending anyone in such a large community > utopian, would that be a way of saying that it is pointless and useless to > work to improve the inclusiveness of our modes of expression? Is there an > excuse to continue to be violent on any scale without limit? I also believe > that it's hard not to offend anyone and to understand everyone's codes, but > the secret to the recipe lies in being willing and trying, more and better > all the time, in good faith. > > - We generally, all life, "assume good faith" from people, which is a way to > normalize violence. But there are limits, and the accumulation sometimes > luckily leads us to try to improve things. I personally wonder why it is so > difficult to accept to try to improve things and improve our relationship > skills in a community project. Improving is only a positive notion. So why do > we read so much resistance? I hope this will serve to lead people to > self-questioning. > This can lead us to a wider debate: should violence be a context that we must > embrace, and develop our skills to tolerate and endure it, and to live the > traumas that it produces to us, and to reproduce the same on more people? Or > should we try to eradicate or at least reduce violence in our behavior? > > > Thanks for your patience in reading this large message. > Best > > > Céline Jacquin > > El jue, 10 de dic. de 2020 a la(s) 07:42, arnalie faye vicario > (afsvica...@gmail.com) escribió: >> >> Hello/kumusta, >> >> What an overwhelming response! >> >> This is my first time to email thru the global osm talk; it really takes >> true grit to join the conversations, huge thanks to the people who inspired >> me and sparked the flame. >> >> I will keep it short and redirect you to a (short) OSM Diary I wrote on Why >> WOMEN are pushing for a safe and inclusive space in OSM: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/arnalielsewhere/diary/395064 >> >> A slide from @mapmakerdavid states "it takes good relationships to navigate >> an ocean." >> >> =Arnalie >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 10, 2020, at 8:01 PM, James wrote: >> >> > The lack of discussion by non-men is an undeniable fact. >> >> >Right, this is true. Sadly true. Something I also know from Linux >> >Communities and other Open Source/Open Data Communities. >> >> Same in programming and IT fields, firefighters, mechanics, carpenters, >> construction workers, taxi drivers, etc etc... >> >> Now is it a simple lack of interest in the field? Gate keeping? >> Discrimination/Sexism? Is it because of tradition that is still lingering? >> >> We should work with other humans and see why as well as question ourselves >> what can we do/change? >> >> We should treat other fellow humans, despite sex, race or country of origin, >> as we would want to be treated. >> >> Would you like to be put down based on your employer, despite your >> knowledge? Probably not, then don't do it >> >> Would you like to be put down based on your genitalia, despite being quite >> knowledgeable? No? Then don't do it. >> >> On Thu., Dec. 10, 2020, 6:38 a.m. tilmanreinecke--- via talk, >> wrote: >>> >>> > The lack of discussion by non-men is an undeniable fact. >>> >>> Right, this is true. Sadly true. Something I also know from Linux >>> Communities and other Open Source/Open Data Communities. >>> >>> > The simplest explanation for this is the systematic institutional >>> > hostility towards women in the OSM community. >>> >>> I did not hear about something like that what can be called "systematic". >>> Are you sure that we have something like that in OSM? If yes, then please >>> point to where that happened. I am pretty sure that this is not something >>> systematic. I know women not feeling this way as you because OpenStreetMap >>> is an open and welcoming community. >>> >>> Greetings >>> >>> Sören >>> >>> >>> Original Message >>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Call to Take Action and
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 7:54 AM Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Blake Girardot wrote: > > I will just point out a common pattern: > > Céline posted an eloquent opening statement that talks about "this dominant > profile" and the thread has, true to form, largely descended into the same > dominant profile arguing and "just pointing out" things. > > It might therefore be incumbent on us all to shut up and let women be heard. > Their experiences do not need to be mediated through our mansplaining. > > In that spirit I'll post no more on this. That is very thoughtful of you, I appreciate your point of view. I will instead not let the demands of the loudest folks fall on the folks most affected by their impacts. I have a responsibility to speak up from my white male western position of privilege. This thread is the very definition of "systemic" issues. It is a huge time and emotional tax on people to deal with the constant questioning and demands for proof and disagreement, questioning, etc. By an onslaught of more bold, and free time and other advantaged folks and people who feel everyone should hear them on every single issue constantly. Well, hear someone else for a moment please. That is time the letter writers have to spend not doing whatever they want. I am so sorry it always falls on those affected, I do what I can to be a meaningful al. And if no one answers people do not recognize the gaslighting and discouraging tactics, intentionally used or accidentally used. I will continue to point that out to those who do not understand it. I do not need to point out a darn thing to the folks who signed the letter, they pointed it out to me and I appreciate it. Feedback from folks who signed the Call for action is welcome :) Best wishes, Blake > Richard > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Blake Girardot OSM Wiki - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bgirardot HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot skype: jblakegirardot ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
Blake Girardot wrote: > I will just point out a common pattern: Céline posted an eloquent opening statement that talks about "this dominant profile" and the thread has, true to form, largely descended into the same dominant profile arguing and "just pointing out" things. It might therefore be incumbent on us all to shut up and let women be heard. Their experiences do not need to be mediated through our mansplaining. In that spirit I'll post no more on this. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:22 AM Thomas Barris via osmf-talk wrote: > Why do you think such an OSM project as you want it is desirable for the > majority of the community? I have signed up to this project to collect and > share free geodata. I am not in favour of using OSM(F) for distributing the > questionable moral standards of a minority - and I don't mean minority in > terms of gender, religion or color. If you have issues to deal with the way > other cultures and communities express opinions, including exaggerations, > direct speech and sometimes even discuss emotionally beyond the borders, you > should not join an international project imho. Frederik's statement in > question has nothing to do with diversity. He did not imply that gender, sex, > relegion etc has something to do with the point he made. If you think his > tone wasn't appropriate, just tell him and probably many will support you in > this judgement. I will just point out a common pattern: 1. Someone speaks up about their experiences and how they and their colleagues feel we have inclusion issues and propose changes. 2. There is an unanswerable flood of emails by a few, but loud folks disagreeing and demanding proof, etc. Good for them I guess? Everyone should feel so confident sharing their very important views. 3. More folks feel drowned out, unheard, afraid to speak up, discouraged 4. The very few use the lack of other voices as proof "the community does not want this" Time to find a way to break this cycle. Best wishes, Blake _______ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
I have little new to offer that hasn't been posted in this thread before, but would like to say that singling out Frederik and his supposedly "dehumanizing message" as an offensive catalyst for a call to action? Not cool. I don't want to contribute to a cycle of outrage (though in some eyes I probably just have), so thank you if you remember: almost nobody is evil. Lukasz On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 22:00, Clay Smalley wrote: > I'm noticing a pattern here in the replies to this email: > > Only men have replied. This is, unfortunately, par for the course on the > OSM mailing lists. The lack of discussion by non-men is an undeniable fact. > The simplest explanation for this is the systematic institutional hostility > towards women in the OSM community. The replies themselves are the best > evidence of this. > > These men replying have taken it upon themselves to explain to a woman > what constitutes misogyny. News flash: you do not get to decide what > offends other people. If you are a man, misogyny will never happen to you > by definition. If you are a man, you have never been, are not, and will > never be a victim of misogyny. This isn't your area of expertise. Listen to > the experts. > > Some men replying have even mentioned how this draft letter hurts their > feelings. These men need to slow down and consider for a moment that their > temporarily hurt feelings are less important than the safety of women. > Men's feelings are irrelevant to issues where women are victims. > > As far as I know, various OSM-affiliated groups have codes of conduct, but > there isn't one governing these mailing lists. We need to adopt a code of > conduct yesterday. > > -Clay (they/them) > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:13 PM Celine Jacquin wrote: > >> Hello everybody >> I hope you are all well >> >> We, several groups, chapters, organizations and individuals, have reacted >> to the conversation in the osm-talk-list ( >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085692.html) >> considering that it is an incident symptomatic of the problem we have faced >> for many years in the community, which is one of the greatest obstacles to >> diversity at all levels of OSM. Time to make a real change. >> That is why we have developed a beginning of statement on the desirable >> mechanisms to work solidly on the rules of coexistence and improve >> diversity. >> >> We bring it to your attention and invite anyone who feels represented to >> sign it. Translations are in preparation (any help is welcome): >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> On behalf of the signatories >> Best regards >> >> Céline Jacquin >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > ___ > osmf-talk mailing list > osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk > -- pozdrawiam - kind regards - cumprimentos - mfg Łukasz Kruk http://lukaszkruk.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
Good morning As Celine mentioned, we are a coalition of people who want change in OSMF and OSM. Our statement clearly states that we are willing to work with OSMF (working groups, board, membership) and OSM (community, project and network). This means collaboration with the local chapters and community working group as well as building on the diversity statement made by the board this year. Many of you have seen a few of us state this before in all the forums. Now is the time to listen and meet us half way. You will note that many of the people who signed do not post on the OMSF mailing list for fear of targeting. So, please consider why we want change. On being a woman - every day we have to ask (demand) and show for our rights to be equal. Every day we have to worry about sexualized actions and/or comments. Some of us have been through horrible experiences and others just want to never talk about gender again. So why do we bring it up? We bring it up because we see it, we feel it and we experience it. What I ask for you all is to spend a day talking with women in your lives. We just want to 'be' too, but the reason we speak up is because being called derisive terms makes us not feel like this is a safe place. As such, we ask to, as one person stated - focus on the issues, not the people. But, we will focus on people and gender until we don't have to point out discrepancies. For Frederik - yes, you said a word that is sexualized and fairly violent for many of us. Honestly, we have been catcalled and treated like objects for years. Let's do better. I think you will too. Yes, your name is listed there but only because it was 'the this time story' - meaning, yet another reason why people leave OSM and or feel like they cannot participate. Words matter. Tone Matters. We matter. I appreciate your passion for the project, but please don't equate our passion for change as about you alone. This document was written by many people. I, for one, don't 'hate' here. We are just trying to open up this conversation, no matter how raw it is for all of us. For comments about Frederik's name in the statement. I added a comment to the statement document to consider if it should be a footnote, but to recognize the origins of this statement and coalition "There were requests on the OSMF mailing list to remove names from the statements. While this was a trigger, perhaps this could go as a footnote?" Mateusz Konieczny - your point about "citizens" is well noted. I added a comment to consider editing this. "there was a comment on the OSMF mailing list that not all people who benefit from OSM are citizens of a country .This is very true especially with migrants and displaced people." For John Whelan - "The danger in Celine's confrontational approach is we throw the baby out with the dish water." We are all here with her asking for change. We want OSM to be ok for us to read and post to the list without being asked about babies and household chores. For Clay - this is why we all jointly wrote the note to stand together and post as a group. For Jean-Marc - thank you for considering the middle way and seeking to listen and understand. We were all fairly taken aback by his comments. The point is - we cannot consistently keep saying there are issues and not do more. This was indeed a trigger point. But let's focus on the bigger picture. Let's work together to find a middle ground to be truly diverse and inclusive. I am sure there will be many iterations of the planning as we work to convert it into action. Heather Heather Leson heatherle...@gmail.com Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson Blog: textontechs.com On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 7:58 AM Darafei Praliaskouski via osmf-talk < osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:48 PM Maarten Deen wrote: > >> I have been silent about this but when a document is drafted where only >> supporters will be heard, I have to speak out in Frederiks support. >> I have seen no systemic aggressive behaviour that demotivates and >> excludes participation by women and minority groups in OSM or behaviour >> that degrades the spirit of open community culture, and damages the >> OpenStreetMap reputation from Frederik. >> > > Basically, a person (who is a board candidate) was denied to be able to > own their own will, substituted with their employer, and insulted in a way > that I cannot construct a way of self-defense from. > > That was done by a former board member, an employee/owner of a company > that has a seating board member, and if we mirror the whole thing - "done > to protect Geofabrik's investment into having a seat on the board". Of > course, such an interpretation will not be acceptable for current board > member, employee of Geofabrik and expectedly a report of Frederik. > > For some reason this aggressive
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, 4:08 PM john whelan wrote: > In the diverse collection of people we have in OSM you will be hard > pressed not to offend someone. > Really? That hasn't been a problem for me. I hadn't realised the name Kathleen was one that either gender could use > and I apologise for making an assumption about the gender of the person > using it. > I typed out my message and sent it before my mail client refreshed and showed Kathleen's reply. She's clearly a woman. Quit being obtuse. -Clay (they/them) > _______ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
In the diverse collection of people we have in OSM you will be hard pressed not to offend someone. The views held are very diverse. Traffic_signal or traffic_light tagging us an example of very diverse views. I'm sure someone will be along and give me the correct way to tag shortly. I hadn't realised the name Kathleen was one that either gender could use and I apologise for making an assumption about the gender of the person using it. Cheerio John On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, 16:00 Clay Smalley wrote: > I'm noticing a pattern here in the replies to this email: > > Only men have replied. This is, unfortunately, par for the course on the > OSM mailing lists. The lack of discussion by non-men is an undeniable fact. > The simplest explanation for this is the systematic institutional hostility > towards women in the OSM community. The replies themselves are the best > evidence of this. > > These men replying have taken it upon themselves to explain to a woman > what constitutes misogyny. News flash: you do not get to decide what > offends other people. If you are a man, misogyny will never happen to you > by definition. If you are a man, you have never been, are not, and will > never be a victim of misogyny. This isn't your area of expertise. Listen to > the experts. > > Some men replying have even mentioned how this draft letter hurts their > feelings. These men need to slow down and consider for a moment that their > temporarily hurt feelings are less important than the safety of women. > Men's feelings are irrelevant to issues where women are victims. > > As far as I know, various OSM-affiliated groups have codes of conduct, but > there isn't one governing these mailing lists. We need to adopt a code of > conduct yesterday. > > -Clay (they/them) > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:13 PM Celine Jacquin wrote: > >> Hello everybody >> I hope you are all well >> >> We, several groups, chapters, organizations and individuals, have reacted >> to the conversation in the osm-talk-list ( >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085692.html) >> considering that it is an incident symptomatic of the problem we have faced >> for many years in the community, which is one of the greatest obstacles to >> diversity at all levels of OSM. Time to make a real change. >> That is why we have developed a beginning of statement on the desirable >> mechanisms to work solidly on the rules of coexistence and improve >> diversity. >> >> We bring it to your attention and invite anyone who feels represented to >> sign it. Translations are in preparation (any help is welcome): >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> On behalf of the signatories >> Best regards >> >> Céline Jacquin >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > ___ > osmf-talk mailing list > osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
No but I am suggesting dealing with it is complex and has to be done over time. Do you ban jargon for example? The danger in Celine's confrontational approach is we throw the baby out with the dish water. You have an interesting mind and know the background. How would you approach this? And yes I admit to being white male etc. Many Thanks for your thoughts. Cheerio John On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, 15:45 Kathleen Lu wrote: > > Many females do not map using their own name but will use a male > sounding name to avoid problems. > > John, are you seriously citing this as evidence that there is not > pervasive misogyny in the OSM community? > _______ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
> Many females do not map using their own name but will use a male sounding > name to avoid problems. John, are you seriously citing this as evidence that there is not pervasive misogyny in the OSM community? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution
> Other widespread online mapping services also require this kind of > *attribution > on the map*, usually even more prominently (brand logo with much bigger > size than our textual example). I'd like to emphasize what I said in the previous messages sent to this thread - OpenStreetMap is a data provider and without data you don't have a map (in other words: a map is a visualization of a dataset). Mapbox provides a map (read: visualization of data from OSM), so why is it okay for Mapbox, which is no secret that they use OSM data, to put a giant watermark in the corner of the map, but for them it is absolutely unacceptable to add a small text on the other corner of the map crediting OSM for the data source? Without OSM, there would be no data for Mapbox to produce a map. And I would also like to say that the 2nd version of the draft proposed by the LWG is as bad as the first draft. The first version had lots of feedback from the community and it seems to me that the LWG ignored all this feedback and just went with what corporate users participating in the LWG proposed. For example, they are proposing that it would be absolutely acceptable to attribute OSM in a splash screen that disappears after 3-5 seconds when you start an application. I have pointed out this controversial idea, because in the meeting minutes the LWG says a splash screen is not acceptable, and then proceed to suggest it as an acceptable attribution because it was suggested by corporations. I honestly hope that the OSMF rejects the draft as it is right now, because the current draft provides several breaches to allow companies like Mapbox and Facebook to undermine the importance of the OpenStreetMap project. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution
To put this more into context, the facebook page does have a link to
OpenStreetMap behind the faint "i", and the majority of contributors may
eventually see this as reasonable attribution for the small map they
initially show, but it is quite clearly not suitable on the bigger popup
map to make everybody who sees the map aware that the data is from
OpenStreetMap. The license is only visible if you click a second time ("map
data legal notices"), while the "© OpenStreetMap" text could be even seen
as misleading (because the license if not presented at the same level).
Whether this is actually a copyright infringement of the license may be up
to a legal decision, although in my interpretation of 4.3 "a notice
associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make *any*
Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed
to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database,
Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and
that it is available under this License." it clearly is not making any
person that is exposed to the work aware that it is from OSM nor of the
license. But it is clear that it is not in line with the OSMF
interpretation of the requirements, we have delineated here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/
*"For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner of
the map."*
This is a very essential thing for OSM, it is the guarantee that our word
is spread, users are becoming familiar with our name and ultimately that
our community will grow.
Other widespread online mapping services also require this kind of *attribution
on the map*, usually even more prominently (brand logo with much bigger
size than our textual example).
Cheers
Martin
_______
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution
Am Mo., 27. Apr. 2020 um 19:52 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Oliveira < rockyt...@gmail.com>: > Hello! > > I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with > OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution. > > According to the wiki page[0]: > > > Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors". > > You must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open > Database Licence. This can be achieved by providing a "License" or "Terms" > link which links to www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or > www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl. > > > > This credit needs to appear in a place reasonable to the medium you are > utilising. In other words, you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the > same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map > supplier. Therefore: > >- For a browsable electronic map (e.g. embedded in a web page or > mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the > map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps. > >- For a printed map, the credit should appear beside the map if that > is where other such credits appear, and/or in the "acknowledgements" > section of the publication (often at the start of a book or magazine). > > Now, let's take a look at a few projects that use OSM and don't abide > by our own guidelines: > > Facebook: I've seen some complaints over the course of the last year > regarding lack of attribution from the company. I decided to take a > look myself this year and was surprised, they actually attribute > OpenStreetMap, but not in the way described in the wiki page. On > desktop, there's an information button on the bottom-right corner of > the map, where the attribution should be, and when you click it > there's the attribution text. Note that the icon is barely visible and > I presume most people simply ignore it because it's barely > noticeable[1]. > > You may think "well, it's fine". Except it's not. On the mobile > version of the Facebook page, there's no attribution at all, simply a > map. And worse, it redirects to Google Maps when you click on it. I > brought this issue to the IRC channel #osm on OFTC and I was shocked > at the attitude of some members that "it was fine" and that Facebook's > attribution cannot be considered a case of "no attribution". I > disagree. If this is the position of the majority of the OSM > Foundation and members of the project, we have a problem, and I'll > explain below. Honestly, it seems to me that because Facebook is a > sponsor of the project, they can do attribution in whichever way > they'd like to, or even remove attribution, something like "I pay for > this project so its rules doesn't apply to me". And from what I've > gathered by my own research, it looks like the OSMF doesn't even care > about Facebook's lack of proper attribution. I am interested in knowing about facebook's reply to the OSMF notifications, that they are not complying with the attribution requirements and that they must either attribute in a way that is compatible with the license, or cease publicly performing works based on our data. Has there been any reply? What is a reasonable response time for large scale copyright infringement? These are screenshots I just took right now, illustrating the issue: https://i.ibb.co/M2gp82H/Screenshot-2020-11-06-at-10-31-40.png https://i.ibb.co/rcSHmK3/Screenshot-2020-11-06-at-10-31-51.png Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 160, Issue 14
Please share with me John
Regards
Warren
On 21/10/2020 4:48 pm, John Bryant wrote:
Yes, agreed. At a quick look, the quality seems to be better in some
areas than others, some of the suburban areas of Perth come out pretty
well. Anyway, if it's useful to anyone, I now have a folder of ~1700
.osm files for all the suburbs in Perth, happy to share them if anyone
wants. I'll probably do some tinkering with them, as a JOSM learning
exercise.
Cheers
John
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:49, Warren <mailto:war...@specialtyfeeds.com.au>> wrote:
That was also my plan John. The Kings Park data set looks like a
perfect example. I can load that as a layer and compare the
existing OSM data in another layer. It is not that difficult to
select a number of building traces at a time and bring them in.
However the Kings Park data is already showing some
inconsistencies. For Example Fraser's Restaurant, circular
building is showing as orthogonal. Many of the other buildings
are also incorrect.
Oh well perhaps it is just another tool that can sometimes be useful.
Good effort anyway
On 21/10/2020 3:12 pm, John Bryant wrote:
Seems sensible to me, I'd personally be shying away from imports
without more knowledge of how that works. I was thinking about
biting off very small chunks (even suburbs may be too big for
this) and manually going over them, making sure to not overwrite
existing buildings, and checking them individually to make sure
they match up with relevant imagery. Is there a recommended
workflow for this?
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:02, Daniel O'Connor
mailto:daniel.ocon...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Just to flag a note of caution here - I'd recommend small
scale evaluations /only/ at this stage; or if you do bigger
test imports; in a sandbox environment.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing#Experiment_with_the_API_.28advanced.29
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing#Experiment_with_the_API_.28advanced.29>
If there is interest; later we can create a bunch of tasking
manager jobs for importing small chunks at a time; plus write
up the plan(s) as needed
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:10 PM John Bryant
mailto:johnwbry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Warren, I've split it out into .osm files for each of
the WA suburbs [1], see attached small example file for
King's Park. Does something like this work? I can drag
and drop them into JOSM, but I'm not 100% sure if they're
formatted or attributed correctly to be most useful.
Cheers
John
[1]
https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-6a0ec945-c880-4882-8a81-4dbcb85e74e5/details
<https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-6a0ec945-c880-4882-8a81-4dbcb85e74e5/details>
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 09:58, Warren
mailto:war...@specialtyfeeds.com.au>> wrote:
Hi John
I use JOSM. Any file format that I can bring in as
a layer would be fine. I can then select, copy and
paste the tracings into an active layer for upload,
checking as I go. Certainly faster than tracing by
hand.
I am not sure when JOSM get chocked by file size, but
say Perth or the South West of WA may be enough of a
reduction.
Thanks
On 21/10/2020 9:20 am, John Bryant wrote:
Hi Warren, I could probably help with this. What
would be a good size for a chunk? What would be a
useful format?
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 07:21, Warren
mailto:war...@specialtyfeeds.com.au>> wrote:
Hi
I am in the eastern suburbs of Perth where
minimal buildings have been
traced. I would be happy to check trace data in
my area, lets face it
hand tracing is not much fun and very time
consuming. I think some
inaccuracies are acceptable, they can be
modified as they become apparent.
The data at
https://github.com/microsoft/AustraliaBuildingFootprints
<https://github.com/microsoft/AustraliaBuildingFootprints>
is
much too large for me to handle.
Is someone more skillful than me able to break
this data set into bite
sized chunks?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@op
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 160, Issue 14
Yes, agreed. At a quick look, the quality seems to be better in some areas than others, some of the suburban areas of Perth come out pretty well. Anyway, if it's useful to anyone, I now have a folder of ~1700 .osm files for all the suburbs in Perth, happy to share them if anyone wants. I'll probably do some tinkering with them, as a JOSM learning exercise. Cheers John On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:49, Warren wrote: > That was also my plan John. The Kings Park data set looks like a perfect > example. I can load that as a layer and compare the existing OSM data in > another layer. It is not that difficult to select a number of building > traces at a time and bring them in. However the Kings Park data is already > showing some inconsistencies. For Example Fraser's Restaurant, circular > building is showing as orthogonal. Many of the other buildings are also > incorrect. > Oh well perhaps it is just another tool that can sometimes be useful. > Good effort anyway > > > On 21/10/2020 3:12 pm, John Bryant wrote: > > Seems sensible to me, I'd personally be shying away from imports without > more knowledge of how that works. I was thinking about biting off very > small chunks (even suburbs may be too big for this) and manually going over > them, making sure to not overwrite existing buildings, and checking them > individually to make sure they match up with relevant imagery. Is there a > recommended workflow for this? > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:02, Daniel O'Connor > wrote: > >> Just to flag a note of caution here - I'd recommend small scale >> evaluations *only* at this stage; or if you do bigger test imports; in a >> sandbox environment. >> >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing#Experiment_with_the_API_.28advanced.29 >> >> If there is interest; later we can create a bunch of tasking manager jobs >> for importing small chunks at a time; plus write up the plan(s) as needed >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:10 PM John Bryant >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Warren, I've split it out into .osm files for each of the WA suburbs >>> [1], see attached small example file for King's Park. Does something like >>> this work? I can drag and drop them into JOSM, but I'm not 100% sure if >>> they're formatted or attributed correctly to be most useful. >>> >>> Cheers >>> John >>> >>> [1] >>> https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-6a0ec945-c880-4882-8a81-4dbcb85e74e5/details >>> >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 09:58, Warren >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi John >>>> I use JOSM. Any file format that I can bring in as a layer would be >>>> fine. I can then select, copy and paste the tracings into an active layer >>>> for upload, checking as I go. Certainly faster than tracing by hand. >>>> I am not sure when JOSM get chocked by file size, but say Perth or the >>>> South West of WA may be enough of a reduction. >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> On 21/10/2020 9:20 am, John Bryant wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Warren, I could probably help with this. What would be a good size >>>> for a chunk? What would be a useful format? >>>> >>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 07:21, Warren >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> I am in the eastern suburbs of Perth where minimal buildings have been >>>>> traced. I would be happy to check trace data in my area, lets face it >>>>> hand tracing is not much fun and very time consuming. I think some >>>>> inaccuracies are acceptable, they can be modified as they become >>>>> apparent. >>>>> The data at https://github.com/microsoft/AustraliaBuildingFootprints >>>>> is >>>>> much too large for me to handle. >>>>> Is someone more skillful than me able to break this data set into >>>>> bite >>>>> sized chunks? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> Talk-au mailing list >>>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >>> Talk-au mailing list >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >> > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 160, Issue 14
That was also my plan John. The Kings Park data set looks like a
perfect example. I can load that as a layer and compare the existing
OSM data in another layer. It is not that difficult to select a number
of building traces at a time and bring them in. However the Kings Park
data is already showing some inconsistencies. For Example Fraser's
Restaurant, circular building is showing as orthogonal. Many of the
other buildings are also incorrect.
Oh well perhaps it is just another tool that can sometimes be useful.
Good effort anyway
On 21/10/2020 3:12 pm, John Bryant wrote:
Seems sensible to me, I'd personally be shying away from imports
without more knowledge of how that works. I was thinking about biting
off very small chunks (even suburbs may be too big for this) and
manually going over them, making sure to not overwrite existing
buildings, and checking them individually to make sure they match up
with relevant imagery. Is there a recommended workflow for this?
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:02, Daniel O'Connor
mailto:daniel.ocon...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Just to flag a note of caution here - I'd recommend small scale
evaluations /only/ at this stage; or if you do bigger test
imports; in a sandbox environment.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing#Experiment_with_the_API_.28advanced.29
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing#Experiment_with_the_API_.28advanced.29>
If there is interest; later we can create a bunch of tasking
manager jobs for importing small chunks at a time; plus write up
the plan(s) as needed
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:10 PM John Bryant mailto:johnwbry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Warren, I've split it out into .osm files for each of the
WA suburbs [1], see attached small example file for King's
Park. Does something like this work? I can drag and drop them
into JOSM, but I'm not 100% sure if they're formatted or
attributed correctly to be most useful.
Cheers
John
[1]
https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-6a0ec945-c880-4882-8a81-4dbcb85e74e5/details
<https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-6a0ec945-c880-4882-8a81-4dbcb85e74e5/details>
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 09:58, Warren
mailto:war...@specialtyfeeds.com.au>> wrote:
Hi John
I use JOSM. Any file format that I can bring in as a
layer would be fine. I can then select, copy and paste
the tracings into an active layer for upload, checking as
I go. Certainly faster than tracing by hand.
I am not sure when JOSM get chocked by file size, but say
Perth or the South West of WA may be enough of a reduction.
Thanks
On 21/10/2020 9:20 am, John Bryant wrote:
Hi Warren, I could probably help with this. What would be
a good size for a chunk? What would be a useful format?
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 07:21, Warren
mailto:war...@specialtyfeeds.com.au>> wrote:
Hi
I am in the eastern suburbs of Perth where minimal
buildings have been
traced. I would be happy to check trace data in my
area, lets face it
hand tracing is not much fun and very time
consuming. I think some
inaccuracies are acceptable, they can be modified as
they become apparent.
The data at
https://github.com/microsoft/AustraliaBuildingFootprints
<https://github.com/microsoft/AustraliaBuildingFootprints>
is
much too large for me to handle.
Is someone more skillful than me able to break this
data set into bite
sized chunks?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 160, Issue 14
Seems sensible to me, I'd personally be shying away from imports without more knowledge of how that works. I was thinking about biting off very small chunks (even suburbs may be too big for this) and manually going over them, making sure to not overwrite existing buildings, and checking them individually to make sure they match up with relevant imagery. Is there a recommended workflow for this? On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:02, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > Just to flag a note of caution here - I'd recommend small scale > evaluations *only* at this stage; or if you do bigger test imports; in a > sandbox environment. > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing#Experiment_with_the_API_.28advanced.29 > > If there is interest; later we can create a bunch of tasking manager jobs > for importing small chunks at a time; plus write up the plan(s) as needed > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:10 PM John Bryant wrote: > >> Hi Warren, I've split it out into .osm files for each of the WA suburbs >> [1], see attached small example file for King's Park. Does something like >> this work? I can drag and drop them into JOSM, but I'm not 100% sure if >> they're formatted or attributed correctly to be most useful. >> >> Cheers >> John >> >> [1] >> https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-6a0ec945-c880-4882-8a81-4dbcb85e74e5/details >> >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 09:58, Warren >> wrote: >> >>> Hi John >>> I use JOSM. Any file format that I can bring in as a layer would be >>> fine. I can then select, copy and paste the tracings into an active layer >>> for upload, checking as I go. Certainly faster than tracing by hand. >>> I am not sure when JOSM get chocked by file size, but say Perth or the >>> South West of WA may be enough of a reduction. >>> Thanks >>> >>> On 21/10/2020 9:20 am, John Bryant wrote: >>> >>> Hi Warren, I could probably help with this. What would be a good size >>> for a chunk? What would be a useful format? >>> >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 07:21, Warren >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I am in the eastern suburbs of Perth where minimal buildings have been >>>> traced. I would be happy to check trace data in my area, lets face it >>>> hand tracing is not much fun and very time consuming. I think some >>>> inaccuracies are acceptable, they can be modified as they become >>>> apparent. >>>> The data at https://github.com/microsoft/AustraliaBuildingFootprints >>>> is >>>> much too large for me to handle. >>>> Is someone more skillful than me able to break this data set into bite >>>> sized chunks? >>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> Talk-au mailing list >>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>>> >>> >>> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
