[OSM-talk] Fwd: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: ODbl concerns

Apols to Allen, the message was too large with the old stuff on the end and I forwarded it to the talk ca list by mistake. -- Forwarded message - From: john whelan Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 14:04 Subject: Re: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns To: George Boulos (DTP)

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

Hello everyone Thank you for your answers. And thanks for the supportive messages. I will give a general response, trying to cover all the points that I can extend, and trying to be clear despite my limited time and fluency in English. Above all, I would like you to become aware of the

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: User deleting many roads in Brazil

I tried but many conflicts appeared in JOSM I'm not experienced to do it. Please if someone can do it. It's not only this 3 changeset but most of that user.   >>Saturday, October 24, 2020 10:57 AM -05:00 from Erick de Oliveira Leal < >>erickdeoliveiral...@gmail.com >: >>  >>Good morning, a

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: maps/navigation data source

If maps compiled this way work well what's wrong with it? Mit freundlichen Grüßen Ben Kimdi Am 03-Sep-2020 01:31:44 +0200 schrieb mnidqb9jz...@mail.ru: > > OSM, is a fake map that is made by people 1000 of miles away from what they > are mapping based on > > satellite images. > > and no way

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Maps-l] Public API for Wikimedia map tiles to be discontinued in 45 days

Foarwarding for interest; of course WMF tiles use OSM data: -- Forwarded message - From: Erica Litrenta Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 18:33 Subject: [Maps-l] Public API for Wikimedia map tiles to be discontinued in 45 days To: Today the Wikimedia Foundation is announcing the

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

As I read your proposal, it sounds like you have a solution but haven't defined the problem. If you could focus on the problem and describe exactly what is wrong with the current arrangement, and what will happen if we do nothing, that might help. Otherwise I can not see the merits of your

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

sent from a phone > On 9. Aug 2020, at 21:16, john whelan wrote: > > And different features really are called difference things in different > countries. +1, moreover, the „same“ features are different in different countries and cultures, and it is part of our work to define when we

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

sent from a phone > On 9. Aug 2020, at 21:04, pangoSE wrote: > > E.g. permanent unique ids, talk pages if we want that for every osmid, SPARQL > support, standardization benefits "riding the current ride in open data" somehow you can have this already through the integration of wikidata:

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

"riding the current ride in open data" - I am confused what is the meaning of that "scripting support for botmakers" - as a bot operator and a bot author I am confused what is supposed to be missing "support for references and linking interactively to other data sources" - we have that, see

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

I honestly can't see any benefit. Splitting the data into two places adds the danger of it getting out of sync. Standard naming conventions would be nice but defining the standard name is practically impossible. Compare taginfo to the map features wiki page. One problem with map features is

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

Could you reply with your arguments in favor of the current one2one tag model system in the other thread where I listed the benefits as I see them? E.g. permanent unique ids, talk pages if we want that for every osmid, SPARQL support, standardization benefits "riding the current ride in open

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

It still fails to provide even a single benefit over the current situation. Aug 9, 2020, 20:11 by pang...@riseup.net: > > > > Originalmeddelande > Från: pangoSE > Skickat: 9 augusti 2020 15:40:41 CEST > Till: talk@openstreetmap.org > Ämne: Re: [OSM-talk] Roadmap for

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

Originalmeddelande Från: pangoSE Skickat: 9 augusti 2020 15:40:41 CEST Till: talk@openstreetmap.org Ämne: Re: [OSM-talk] Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM This is another good reason to abandon this suggestion in favor of our own wikibase instance. Philip Barnes

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

This was meant for the list. Originalmeddelande Från: pangoSE Skickat: 9 augusti 2020 11:09:08 CEST Till: Mateusz Konieczny Ämne: Re: [OSM-talk] Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM Hi Thanks for the response. Mateusz Konieczny via talk skrev: (9 augusti 2020

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Foundations] [DEADLINE: MAY 15] Apply for FOSS Responders Funding… NOW!

Hi folks, I hope you and yours are safe and resting Maybe for one of your open source projects Heather -- Forwarded message - From: Alyssa Wright Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 at 02:11 Subject: [Foundations] [DEADLINE: MAY 15] Apply for FOSS Responders Funding… NOW! To: FLOSS

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: trace and signs

>As to a mapping rule, do we node, (the point symbol in ID edit)  put signs on >the map, >  >and under what authority do we not put signs on the map. >  >>Saturday, April 25, 2020 7:02 AM -05:00 from Warin < 61sundow...@gmail.com >: >>  >>On 25/4/20 8:35 pm, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: >>> Here are

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: trace and signs

sent from a phone > On 25. Apr 2020, at 14:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is a place that I know of that had a sign and it attracted tourist. there are many famous signs, but they are of course just a tiny fraction of all signs that are set up.

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: trace and signs

On 25/4/20 8:35 pm, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: Here are some more examples demonstrating that signs could be of interest to travelers. - in this video the popular British travel video-blogger goes to great lengths to get to the specific sign to record his video:

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: trace and signs

Here are some more examples demonstrating that signs could be of interest to travelers. - in this video the popular British travel video-blogger goes to great lengths to get to the specific sign to record his video: https://youtu.be/6RQlQDp1uiU?t=90 - it is customary during long distance

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: trace and signs

It is a very good question. I always search in a park the sign which bears its name. Some parks have such a sign and some don't. It takes sometimes a lot of time to find the sign with the park's name. First of all, you do not know if it exists at all. So you have to walk several times around,

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: trace and signs

On 24/4/20 7:29 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: 1. how do you close out the trace on the map after edit ? I have no idea what this means. "Close out"? 1. how do you tag a sign, mall, park, forest, that is name of the place, place name. If a mall, park, forest have a name then

[OSM-talk] Fwd: trace and signs

* how do you close out the trace on the map after edit ?  * how do you tag a sign, mall, park, forest, that is name of the place, place name.         --      ___ talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re[2]: Tag:manhole=telecom

Given problem is you argue with pictures showing what is under the cap. On the tag page picture - and on the ground - we can't say what is under and if a man can't get down a ladder into a room. I think all this stuff would require a formal proposal to discuss about vocabulary and have opinions

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re[2]: Tag:manhole=telecom

I am trying to say the tag page is wrong, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:manhole=telecom the picture is a fiber optics splice enclosure not a manhole https://www.multicominc.com/product/pencell-pem-2436-24x36x24-buried-cable-enclosure/

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re[2]: Tag:manhole=telecom

To me, manhole applies in the two situations. We should make a distinction between the "cap" visible from the surface and the facility underground. Same shape of "cap" (I call it the manhole actually) can hide really different kind of stuff underground you won't be able to define without removing

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re[2]: Tag:manhole=telecom

 this is an enclosure  just put in the ground, level 3 fiber. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/mapillary.private.images/4KIBU1qe2CfjtcKtPHegeg/uploaded.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAR47SN3BMII5SHG7V=1587328637=8%2FzNiW16zbU9FjWy0JD17cNwIns%3D

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Tagging] Tagging the local language

> a change in the urban structure (urban confuguration, architectural style, > living standards, socially / ownerstructure, etc.). can mark a border very > strongly in some instances Right, that's why we can map landuse=residential, landuse=industrial, landuse=commercial and landuse=retail as

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Tagging] Tagging the local language

Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 2:49 AM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> or to use tricks like the “place=neighbourhood” one (which is based on >> POIs rather than polygons)? >> >> It is certainly wrong to do

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Tagging] Tagging the local language

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 2:49 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > or to use tricks like the “place=neighbourhood” one (which is based on > POIs rather than polygons)? > > It is certainly wrong to do this. > I think the “trick” here is referring to the stand at practice of mapping all place= features

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: bus stop

Ok !   it is “hail and ride” but i am in the USA, we do not say it that way, as it say’s you put it on the way, road line   i have been using the point, and putting it on the side of the road.   but our signs have numbers on it.   the fields are wrong for our standards, and the only field that

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Mapping disputed boundaries

As promised, I have opened the Mapping Disputed Boundaries proposal for voting. Voting will be open until Feb. 10. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries#Voting The main discussion has been on the Tagging list: John

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-asia] Grab’s GlobalLogic OSM team edits in Thailand

Hi All, Thank you everyone for your emails and comments so far both on and off list. Here is more information for your consideration prepared by @GOwin and some mappers from Talk-Asia https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-asia/2019-January/15.html Best regards Mishari

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On 23/10/18 03:24, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 22. Oct 2018 16:59 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl : On 2018-10-22 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I strongly disagree, we map reality. There is no one true reality, only perceptions. There is both a true

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

sent from a phone > On 29. Oct 2018, at 11:11, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I would consider it as a tagging for renderer, and it would be preferable to > avoid it (tagging > > access on gate should be sufficient). On the other hand it is one of the > least harmful ones > It should be

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

29. Oct 2018 11:43 by davefoxfa...@btinternet.com : >  It's the gate which is the restriction. The problem is the gate > doesn't have any subtags to indicate access. > I am using access=*, vehicle=*, bicycle=*, foot=*, opening_hours=*  At least

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

Hi I've had similar in my area, also by Amazon Logistics *, where they added a short section around a gate like one you've indicated with access=private. I removed it as you can drive right up to the gate. This is tagging incorrectly for the router.  It's the gate which is the restriction.

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

Your assumptions are spot-on. Thanks for the advice. On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 20:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 29. Oct 2018 04:08 by jem.maw...@gmail.com: > > > Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 and several more like it > in the area. > > It seems that new, short ways have been

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

29. Oct 2018 04:08 by jem.maw...@gmail.com : > > Re: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 > > and several more like it in > the area. > It seems that new, short ways have been introduced to replicate the

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 and several more like it in the area. It seems that new, short ways have been introduced to replicate the purpose of the existing barrier nodes. i.e. to prevent routing for vehicular traffic. I believe it is incorrect and just adds complexity. I

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

sent from a phone > On 23. Oct 2018, at 11:06, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I think that would not be verifiable. Different political fractions > often even have different opinions on the extent of their country. OSM > is not a place to record a spectrum of opinions on political goals and

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

This thread has strayed rather far afield from the original question, which was whether the OSM depiction of Crimea corresponds to the OSMF policy. It seems clear to me that it does not. I would suggest that the depiction of Northern Cyprus does not correspond to the policy either. The actual

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Paul Johnson writes: > Not to mention that the situation of a country claiming territory that it > physically controls, but only it recognizes, is also a relatively rare > thing this decade. Playing it conservatively in the "Russia claims Crimea > and controls it, but unilaterally and by force

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On Tuesday 23 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Agreed. I would be tempted to say, however, that if a country > requires a certain boundary depiction by law, like e.g. India and > China do, then that's the same level of verifiability like that > country's internal boundaries for which we also

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Hi, On 23.10.2018 11:06, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I think that would not be verifiable. Different political fractions > often even have different opinions on the extent of their country. OSM > is not a place to record a spectrum of opinions Agreed. I would be tempted to say, however, that

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

23. Oct 2018 08:57 by frede...@remote.org : > It would however be interesting to develop a tagging scheme that lets us > not only record "this border is disputed" but also "this is the extent > of country X according to country Y", which we currently don't have. >

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On Tuesday 23 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > It would however be interesting to develop a tagging scheme that lets > us not only record "this border is disputed" but also "this is the > extent of country X according to country Y", which we currently don't > have. I think that would not be

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Hi, the Crimea issue is currently being discussed in DWG. Regarding the wider question of boundaries, here is our policy on disputed boundaries https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf This policy is not likely to change any time soon. It would however

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:29 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Yuri Astrakhan writes: > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country > think > >> of its borders. So if two

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Yuri Astrakhan writes: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think >> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two >> relations will overlap. >> >> That is absurd and

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

The situation with Crimea is not clear-cut. It is kind of complicated. For instance, the climate in Crimea is very dry, that is why the water from the river Dnieper had been transferred to Crimea by an immense artificial North Crimean Canal [1]. Now the Dnieper water is not sold to Crimea any

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

22. Oct 2018 16:59 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl : > > On 2018-10-22 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> >> I strongly disagree, we map reality. >> > > There is no one true reality, only perceptions. > There is both a true reality and our biased interpretation of

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On 2018-10-22 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I strongly disagree, we map reality. There is no one true reality, only perceptions. Which reality takes precedence in your mind, may not be the same for everyone. Reality is subjective. What is the test to apply to decide whether a point is

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

22. Oct 2018 15:51 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com : > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> >>> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

22. Oct 2018 16:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <> > yuriastrak...@gmail.com > >: > >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <>> >> matkoni...@tutanota.com

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan < yuriastrak...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think >> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think > of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two > relations will overlap. > > That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Can you summarize parts of this article (5k+ words, in "long read" section) that are relevant totagging of Russian and Ukrainian border in the Crimea? 22. Oct 2018 00:44 by oleksiy.muzal...@bluewin.ch : > > Hi Martin, > > Before

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

21. Oct 2018 23:19 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com : > I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of > its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two > relations will overlap. That is absurd and conflict with

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Hi Martin, Before continuing this discussion further, I would advise to read the amazing article "The demise of the nation state" by Rana Dasgupta available via this link: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta The issue of national state

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two relations will overlap. While not ideal, this is preferable for many data consumers - when generating a map, one always has to consider whom it is

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

21. Oct 2018 15:12 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how > to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is > explicit here: “National borders are particularly

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

> When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199 And part of Russia: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60189#map=6/45.014/33.873=C Imre Martin Koppenhoefer ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 21., V, 15:15): >

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

, dikkeknodel Van: Martin Koppenhoefer Verzonden: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:12:03 PM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea Dear all, we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily

[OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Dear all, we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little bearing on the actual life of people). Therefore we can all be

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: 2 Great Lakes missing

On Monday 13 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > Thanks for the tip; I din't think of it. Actually my computer had > more difficulties to calculate that i had to find the errors. :-) Note checking this kind of errors on large multipolygons is not really that difficult. For each of the big

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: 2 Great Lakes missing

Yeah those great "lakes" are such a massive relations... I think I can make toast on my computer while it's calculating the errors. Thanks for fixing it Selfish Seahorse On Mon., Aug. 13, 2018, 9:12 a.m. SelfishSeahorse, < selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 14:01,

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: 2 Great Lakes missing

On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 14:01, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > > Note you can easily check if there are broken multipolygons in the OSM > inspector: > > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas=-84.14378=46.10509=8 > > If a lake multipolygon is broken the lake outline will be shown as > context

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: 2 Great Lakes missing

Hi! On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 13:50, Tom Hughes wrote: > > You should see the changes at z13+ but z0-12 are only rendered once a > month or when the style changes. Thanks for your explanation. This also explains why it was not noticed that the lakes had disappeared until about a month after the

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: 2 Great Lakes missing

Note you can easily check if there are broken multipolygons in the OSM inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas=-84.14378=46.10509=8 If a lake multipolygon is broken the lake outline will be shown as context there and the location of the error usually in red (self interaection)

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: 2 Great Lakes missing

You should see the changes at z13+ but z0-12 are only rendered once a month or when the style changes. Tom On 13/08/18 12:36, SelfishSeahorse wrote: Apparently I sent the message only to James ... So here it is for the rest of you. eanwhile the lakes are rendered): -- Forwarded

[OSM-talk] Fwd: 2 Great Lakes missing

Apparently I sent the message only to James ... So here it is for the rest of you. eanwhile the lakes are rendered): -- Forwarded message - Hi There were quite a few problems with these multipolygons (overlapping and unclosed ways, no role, inner ways belonging to wrong

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Automatically generated changeset discussion comments by OSMCha

I echo Bryan - this is a much needed feature. I started incorporating OSMCha into my review of new users in my area. That I could easily capture "good and bad" edits and post a comment to the user at the same time is nice. When I do come across a bad edit, and it doesn't happen often, I post a

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Automatically generated changeset discussion comments by OSMCha

reposting an earlier reply, which i mistakenly sent directly just to Michael -- Forwarded message - From: Erwin Olario Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Automatically generated changeset discussion comments by OSMCha To: Michael Reichert

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Job posting - GIS Librarian

Messaggio inoltrato Oggetto: [SCHOLCOMM] Job posting - GIS Librarian Data: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:23:18 + Mittente: "Lyon, Colleen E" Come join us in Austin! Cheers-Colleen GIS and Geospatial Data Coordinator - Librarian II University of Texas Libraries, the University

[OSM-talk] Fwd: FW: Open survey on participation biases in OSM

Dear OSM talk subscriber A few weeks ago I posted a diary entry introducing myself, my interests in OSM and showcasing an upcoming survey for OSM editors. I am a Research Fellow in the Nottingham Geospatial Institute at the University of Nottingham, interested in participation biases in

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Call for scholarship applications to attend State of the Map Asia 2017

Call for scholarships for SotM-Asia 2017 is now open. http://stateofthemap.asia/scholarships.html -- Forwarded message -- From: kshitiz khanal Date: Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:05 PM Subject: Call for scholarship applications to attend State of the Map Asia 2017

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Wikidata] Significant change: new data type for geoshapes

Schedule update below. Pine -- Forwarded message -- From: Léa Lacroix Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [Wikidata] Significant change: new data type for geoshapes To: wikidata-t...@lists.wikimedia.org, "Discussion list for the Wikidata

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [HOT] Call for Logos for State of the Map Asia 2017

FYI, State of the Map Asia 2017 will happen in Kathmandu Sept-Oct 2017 (dates TBD). Please help us design the logo. -- Forwarded message -- From: kshitiz khanal Date: Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:23 AM Subject: [HOT] Call for Logos for State of the Map Asia 2017

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: [Wikidata] Significant change: new data type for geoshapes

very nice. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Pine W wrote: > Forwarding. > > Pine > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Léa Lacroix > Date: Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:34 AM > Subject: [Wikidata] Significant change: new data type for

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Wikidata] Significant change: new data type for geoshapes

Forwarding. Pine -- Forwarded message -- From: Léa Lacroix Date: Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:34 AM Subject: [Wikidata] Significant change: new data type for geoshapes To: wikidata-t...@lists.wikimedia.org, "Discussion list for the Wikidata project."

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Wiki-research-l] Research Scientist position at WMF

Forwarding in case there are statisticians or scientists in OSM that would be interested in this job posting. Pine -- Forwarded message -- Hi all, The Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation has just opened a full-time research scientist position

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Analytics] February 15, 2017 Research Showcase

The first presentation mentioned below may be of interest to OSM folks, as well as Wikimedia maps people. These talks are presented by the Wikimedia Foundation and are live-streamed. Pine -- Forwarded message -- From: Sarah R Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Beware Pokemon users

I've so far simply been using a basic query like highway=footway and newer:"2016-12-22:00:00:00" This still requires a lot of manual review, of course. Too much to do in great detail over large areas. I'm sure I'm missing things, but results of this query has identified PoGo mapping problems,

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Beware Pokemon users

On 2016.12.27. 10:15, David Kewley wrote: > I thought this might be a big problem at first, but now I think it's > probably a net good thing. > > In Southern California, I saw about 40 users join in the first 24-48 > hours after the video was posted (Dec 22), who immediately started > mapping

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Beware Pokemon users

Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:40:18 +0100 From: Rod Bera To: Andy Mabbett Hi Andy, I get what you mean, and I acknowledge that though I consider OSM should be put first

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [MediaWiki-l] Maps 4.0.0-RC1 released

Forwarding in case some of the mapping experts on other mailing lists would like to look at this. Pine -- Forwarded message -- From: Jeroen De Dauw Date: Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:39 PM Subject: [MediaWiki-l] Maps 4.0.0-RC1 released To: MediaWiki

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [HOT] Geospatial devroom at FOSDEM 2017

Forwarding. -- Forwarded message -- From: "Margherita Di Leo" Date: Oct 25, 2016 02:01 Subject: [HOT] Geospatial devroom at FOSDEM 2017 To: "hot" Cc: Call for Presentations Please forward! FOSDEM is a free and non-commercial event

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Hurricane Matthew: Jérémie Post Event Imagery - from drone now available

Forwarding this to the talk mailing list, as the censors of the h...@openstreetmap.org mailing list are still in action. Message transféré Sujet : Re: Hurricane Matthew: Jérémie Post Event Imagery - from drone now available Date : Thu, 13 Oct 2016 09:18:05 +0200 De :

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Invitation: OSM Analytics Roadmap Chat

Hey fellow mappers, Some of you already know and have been using OSM Analytics since its launch in April [0], but for those who are not familiar with it, here's the direct link http://osm-analytics.org This was initially a small prototype project, but given the interest and feedback by many in

[OSM-talk] Fwd: [HOT] MapSwipe Launched!

Hi! MapSwipe is launched today. I like to think of it as a pre-processing imagery tool to curate a cleaner dataset for mappers. Imagine less blank, blurry images, or "nothing to map" tiles. This tool aims to have people microtask the tiles in a game way. We will start with Missing Maps projects

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

On 7/11/2016 11:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Il giorno 11 lug 2016, alle ore 14:01, Éric Gillet ha scritto: I agree that survey are that on-premise survey is the best review method. But then you are adressing armchair mapping as a whole

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

>yes, armchair mapping generally bears the risk of misinterpreting the actual situation, (depending on what kind of tags you use this can be more or less important). Doing it in search and replace fashion is slightly different though, as you risk falsifying information someone else has

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

sent from a phone > Il giorno 11 lug 2016, alle ore 14:01, Éric Gillet > ha scritto: > > I agree that survey are that on-premise survey is the best review method. But > then you are adressing armchair mapping as a whole and not specifically > search-and-replace

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-11 2:16 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm : > On 07/11/2016 02:02 AM, Éric Gillet wrote: > > If you do a search-and-replace on 20 elements and review manually the > > change, it is covered under the AE CoC. > > No, the document clearly states in the "Scope" section: > > "use of

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-11 11:28 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2016-07-11 2:02 GMT+02:00 Éric Gillet : > >> If you do a search-and-replace on 20 elements and review manually the >> change, it is covered under the AE CoC. I don't think of that as an >>

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-11 2:02 GMT+02:00 Éric Gillet : > If you do a search-and-replace on 20 elements and review manually the > change, it is covered under the AE CoC. I don't think of that as an > advanced or uncommon task. when you do any "search and replace" based edits I

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

Hi, On 07/11/2016 02:02 AM, Éric Gillet wrote: > If you do a search-and-replace on 20 elements and review manually the > change, it is covered under the AE CoC. No, the document clearly states in the "Scope" section: "use of find-and-replace functionality using a standard editor such as JOSM or

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Automated edits code of conduct

2016-07-10 23:56 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > On Sunday 10 July 2016, Éric Gillet wrote: > > > > In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules : > > > >- Are not shown to new contributors > >- Are not accepted by new or existing contributors > > Maybe that is

[OSM-talk] Fwd: HOT Summit: September 22 in Brussels, Belgium

Friends & colleagues in the global OSM community -- if you're attending or were thinking of attending SoTM in Brussels, I invite you to join us one day earlier for the HOT Summit http://summit.hotosm.org/ Discounts available for students and OSM community leaders who register early (over the next

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Biggest Wikimedia Commons photos dataset in Italy - Paolo Monti (BEIC)

Forwarding on request. Photos are not geotagged yet, but Paolo Monti shot many of them as part as geographic surveys hence I expect many will be valuable depictions of some rare corners of the OSM map. Soon we should have a list of (approximate) places (categories) in one of the Commons

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >