[OSM-talk] The diversity-talk@ list is back! [WAS: Re: diversity-talk: No such list]

[Rory McCann]

Hello all,

I've volunteered to do the admin/modding of the diversity-talk list, so
it has been set up again.

You need to sign up again for now. Maybe it's possible to import an old
membership list, but for now, please re-sign up.

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

Rory

On 17/02/18 20:56, Sérgio V. wrote:

Hi, I've just realized that in the

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity
at the bottom, /Resources,

there's no such link to

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

If you click there , or search for it, it returns "No such list 
diversity-talk".


Is it still alive?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs



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




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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Where to suggest/discuss the renderer?

[Glenn Plas]

Mapping for the renderer is de facto wrong and what you experience now
(in france etc.) is the endresult of that attitude.  I don't understand
why you get discouraged on OSM because of a map you don't like.   It's
like saying:  "I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore because when I
print a page out, it's not aligned the way I want it."

There are several options for anyone in your situation:

1. make your own map.  There are several sites that allow you to make
custom maps.
2. more technical: copy cartoCSS, change whatever you want, set up a
tile server and enjoy your perfectly suited map
3. try to change the consensus, lobby for universal solution, try to get
the standard cartoCSS changed to your likings (and repeat later when
someone else does the same)
4. Look for existing map alternatives  (different renderings)

You should realise that it has nothing to do with the source data. 
There are already ton's of different map rendering out there, perhaps
one will be perfect for you.

Don't stop mapping because of someone elses decision to represent a
feature in a way that doesn't appeal to you.  It's the worst reason to
stop as that might just change in an instant.

Glenn


On 19-01-18 16:43, Karel Adams wrote:
> When I first consulted maps - paper-only, at that time, of course -
> the famous Michelin 1:20 had distinct symbols for (bigger)
> airports, (smaller) airfields, and glider fields. As of 2018, the
> generic map of openstreetmap has only a single icon to represent
> anything mapped with "aeroway:aerodrome" - and all of them rendered as
> from zoomlevel=13 - and none below.
>
> This is really very bad. Why should I want to contribute to a system
> that delivers poorer info than paper maps of 50 years old?
>
> Even worse, many active and able mappers are reluctant to update the
> database properly because the correct info will be so poorly rendered.
> Especially in France and Italy, where I had endless arguments with
> people removing the "aeroway=aerodrome" tag from real proper
> aerodromes, because they didn't want their local grass runway mapped
> the same as CDG Roissy airport. Even if I don't agree, I can fully
> understand their point of view!
>
> What is the proper place to question this matter, and discuss schemes
> of improvement? Is there a discussion site for the renderer?
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be



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

Re: [Talk-at] "geocodec/Socke/Johann Haag" stummschalten

[Marcus MERIGHI]

Ich kann kompetenztechnisch inhaltlich nicht mitreden; aber ich merke,
wenn einer immer das selbe sagt, argumentativ widerlegt wird - und
wieder dasselbe sagt. 

Netiquette ist Ihm auch egal, seine E-Mails sind muehsam zu lesen. 

Wenn ich so ein Verhalten erleben will dann halte ich lieber einen
Kletterkurs fuer Jugendliche.

Er ist ja so ein armes Opfer. Alle sind gegen Ihn.
Dunning-Kruger-Effekt. Troll.

https://www.mail-list.com/how-to-deal-with-trolls-in-your-listserv/
http://www.crydee.com/raymond-feist/faq/4164/how-to-handle-trolls-on-the-mailing-list
https://kotaku.com/10-former-internet-trolls-explain-why-they-quit-being-j-1722649439

Marcus

johannh...@hxg.at (Johann Haag), 2018.02.22 (Thu) 00:45 (CET):
> Hallo Rudi,
> Meine Fragestellung zur Wiener Adress Besonderheit im osm Forum war
> rechtzeitig und klar, aber man hat mich dort links liegen gelassen,
> und mich ganz offen in einen 20k Edit hineinrennen lassen. Nicht ich
> war jener der die Diskussion verweigert hat.
> Erst als ich die Sachlage anschlie??end in Eigenregie selbst eruiert
> hatte, heisst es pl??tzlich, das haben wir doch alles l??ngst gewusst.
> Das nennt man einen f??r Dumm verkaufen.
> 
> Nun nachdem eine einfache L??sung durch Mappen vorerst wenigstens der
> Basisadressen vorliegt, wird wieder gemauert was das Zeug h??lt, und
> auch noch im GitHub Forum suggestiv geflennt.
> 
> Das ist doch alles nur noch peinlich. Es wird keine Verbesserung in
> der OSM Adress Situation gewollt. Und der Ober Guru dieser Aktion ist
> auch noch Kassier im osm Verein AT.
> Mein Misstrauensantrag an diesen.
> 
> Gre Johann
> Osm: wiki the map
> 
> > Am 22.02.2018 um 00:09 schrieb Rudolf Mayer :
> > 
> > Hallo!
> > 
> > Sorry f??r den Vollquottel unten, aber Andreas, du sprichst mir hier aus 
> > der Seele mit deiner Antwort.
> > 
> > 
> > @Johann, ich verstehe nicht, was genau Deine Motivation ist. Du 
> > unterstellst allen anderen, dass sie keine besseren Daten haben wollen.
> > 
> > Und was machst du - du f??gst unn??tige Duplikate ein (und ja, es
> > ist gut dass Deine 20.000 Adressen gel??scht wurden, da war vorher
> > von Dir keinerlei Kontrolle was du ??berschreibst / duplizierst, so
> > geht das einfach nicht), nur damit *eine* Anwendung, ??ber welche
> > die Entwickler selber sagen, dass sie kaputt ist, irgendwie
> > funktioniert? Das kann es ja wirklich nicht sein, so stur, das ist
> > schon surreal.
> > 
> > Deine Nachrichten sind teilweise sehr m??hsam zu lesen. Z.B. wenn Du
> > da proklamierst, das "Adressr??tsel" gel??st zu haben (wenn du aber
> > nur best??tigt hast, was dir andere (z.b. fkv) schon mehrmals gesagt
> > haben; wenn Du dauernd das selbe wiederholst und einen bestimmten
> > Hack in den Daten machen willst, obwohl Dir genug Kollegen
> > widersprechen, etc. Wenn du jeden beschuldigst, ein Feind von guten
> > Daten zu sein...
> > 
> > Und ich habe da von Dir auch keinerlei Vorschlag gesehen, wie ein
> > zuk??nftiger Import das besser machen w??rde, wie du Duplikate
> > filtern oder bereinigen willst.
> > 
> > Ich w??rde vorschlagen, ??ber das mal zu reflektieren, und nicht
> > gleich anzunehmen, dass hier die "b??se Wiener Gang" einen
> > schlechten Datenbestand verteidigen will..
> > Ich bin selber 1/4 Tiroler, 3/4 Steirer, aber nun mal grtenteils
> > in Wien unterwegs, und ich h??tte bis jetzt nicht das Gef??hl
> > gehabt, dass da eine generelle Abneigung zu Mappern, die nicht nur
> > Wiener Blut haben, gibt :-) Ich glaube, das liegt eher an deinem
> > unausgereiftem Vorschlag und gro??em Import, der vorher einfach
> > nicht diskutiert wurde. Und darauf hast du dann eigentlich nur
> > patzig reagiert, anstatt einen Fehler in der Vorgehensweise
> > einzusehen, und das in Ruhe zu diskutieren.
> > 
> > Also, bitte, ein paar mal tief durchatmen, und nicht gleich in den
> > Berserkermodus wechseln.
> > 
> > Lg
> > Rudi
> > 
> > 
> > P.s.: Weil du oft mal auch Google Maps als Vorbild nennst - wenn du
> > mal wirklich in so einer komplexen Wohnanlage routen willst,
> > schaffen die das auch nicht, weil einfach viele Gehwege nicht
> > bekannt sind. Das ist nicht einmal nur immer in den Wohnanlagen der
> > Fall, sondern auch oft gibt es in Wien (und nicht nur dort!) viele
> > H??userdurchl??sse, Treppen, etc. die Google nicht kennt. Also so
> > alles eitel Wonne ist dort auch nicht. Aber klar, die POI Suche, die
> > ??hnlichkeitssuche, das ist um Welten besser.
> > 
> > 
> > On 02/21/2018 09:15 PM, andreas wecer wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:55 AM  >> > wrote:
> >>Ich spreche mich gegen ein "stummschalten" aus, weil geocodec immer
> >>noch ein Mitglied der Community ist, das viel (auch
> >>kontroversielles) beigetragen hat. Die Vorwuerfe und Anschuldigungen
> >>sind entbehrlich, aber gehen aus meiner Sicht nicht so weit, dass
> >>man jetzt gleich die Konversation abdrehen muss!
> >> Ich habe nicht das Gef??hl, dass die 

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Volker Schmidt]

Ripeto quello che ho detto prima.

Noi dobbiamo tenere il nostro database inattaccabile sotto l'aspetto legale
in tutti i paesi del mondo.

Per questo motivo non possiamo utilizzare StreetView (che fa parte di
Google Maps).

Google dice nelle sue condizioni di uso [1]

*Prohibited Conduct.* When using Google Maps/Google Earth, you may not (or
allow those acting on your behalf to):
...
- use Google Maps/Google Earth to create or augment any other
mapping-related dataset (including a mapping or navigation dataset,
business listings database, mailing list, or telemarketing list) for use in
a service that is a substitute for, or a substantially similar service to,
Google Maps/Google Earth;

(Streetview is part of Google Maps)

Se utilizzassimo StreetView per OSM (che chiaramente è un "mapping-related
dataset) Google potrebbe farci problemi, cosa che avrebbe potenzialmente
ripercussioni per l'esistenza del intero progetto OSM.

[1] https://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_maps.html



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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Cascafico Giovanni]

2018-02-22 12:01 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :

> Non è importante quello che credi. Importante è essere inattaccabile come
> OSM se un avvoccato ben pagato fa causa a OSMF.
>
>
Vabbe', allora avvertite il DWG che c'è un utente che dev'essere bloccato..
andrò a far compagnia al vandalo di Trieste. Però voi che restate, state
attenti a quello che leggete nei giornali... spesso si trova "riproduzione
riservata"... sammai che riportare con una nota OSM che un camion si è
incastrato in una maxheight forse mancante possa scatenare gli avvocati del
gruppo L'Espresso.

Ci metto la faccina, valà... :-)
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Cascafico Giovanni]

>
>
> *Prohibited Conduct.* When using Google Maps/Google Earth, you may not
> (or allow those acting on your behalf to):
> ...
> - use Google Maps/Google Earth to create or augment any other
> mapping-related dataset (including a mapping or navigation dataset,
> business listings database, mailing list, or telemarketing list) for use in
> a service that is a substitute for, or a substantially similar service to,
> Google Maps/Google Earth;
>

Ancora: se io uso SV per generare una nota OSM che insinua un dubbio su
qulache elemento mappato o non mappato in OSM, non credo proprio di fare un
"create" e nemmeno un "augment".
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Jo]

2018-02-22 11:20 GMT+01:00 Paolo Monegato :

> Il 21/02/2018 11:00, Francesco Pelullo ha scritto:
>
>
> Il giorno 21 febbraio 2018 10:43, Andrea Albani  ha
> scritto:
>
>>
>> Di che cosa mi approprio guardando una foto di Streetview ?
>>
>> Vorrei solo capire.
>>
>> Acquisisci un'informazione geografica, che prima di quel momento non
> avevi (altrimenti non avresti usato SV).
> Questa informazione è rilasciata gratuitamente (non liberamente) da Google.
> Google non consente di utilizzare questa informazione per scopi diversi da
> quelli previsti.
>
>
> Metti che per lavoro sono nella città X e mi fermo a mangiare un boccone
> in un locale. Al ritorno a casa, dopo alcuni giorni, voglio mappare il
> locale inserendo le info dallo scontrino ma non mi ricordo se era nel terzo
> o nel quarto edificio dopo quella stradina laterale...
>
> Vorrei proprio vedere quanti posizionerebbero il nodo a caso, lasciando a
> eventuali mapper futuri la correzione della posizione, e quanti invece non
> darebbero una sbirciatina alle foto sì da rinfrescare la memoria e
> collocarlo subito nel punto preciso...
>
> Certo ad essere pignoli anche in questo caso stai acquisendo
> un'informazione che prima non avevi (o forse l'avevi ma l'hai
> dimenticata)...
>
> ciao
> Paolo M
>

Possiamo fare nostro propio streetview con Mapillary o OpenStreetCam.
Sempre farlo in nova zona anche aiuta a altri che volano mappare.

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Paolo Monegato]

Il 21/02/2018 11:00, Francesco Pelullo ha scritto:


Il giorno 21 febbraio 2018 10:43, Andrea Albani > ha scritto:



Di che cosa mi approprio guardando una foto di Streetview ?

Vorrei solo capire.

Acquisisci un'informazione geografica, che prima di quel momento non 
avevi (altrimenti non avresti usato SV).
Questa informazione è rilasciata gratuitamente (non liberamente) da 
Google.
Google non consente di utilizzare questa informazione per scopi 
diversi da quelli previsti.


Metti che per lavoro sono nella città X e mi fermo a mangiare un boccone 
in un locale. Al ritorno a casa, dopo alcuni giorni, voglio mappare il 
locale inserendo le info dallo scontrino ma non mi ricordo se era nel 
terzo o nel quarto edificio dopo quella stradina laterale...


Vorrei proprio vedere quanti posizionerebbero il nodo a caso, lasciando 
a eventuali mapper futuri la correzione della posizione, e quanti invece 
non darebbero una sbirciatina alle foto sì da rinfrescare la memoria e 
collocarlo subito nel punto preciso...


Certo ad essere pignoli anche in questo caso stai acquisendo 
un'informazione che prima non avevi (o forse l'avevi ma l'hai 
dimenticata)...


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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Volker Schmidt]

Non è importante quello che credi. Importante è essere inattaccabile come
OSM se un avvoccato ben pagato fa causa a OSMF.

On 22 Feb 2018 11:32 a.m., "Cascafico Giovanni"  wrote:

>
>> *Prohibited Conduct.* When using Google Maps/Google Earth, you may not
>> (or allow those acting on your behalf to):
>> ...
>> - use Google Maps/Google Earth to create or augment any other
>> mapping-related dataset (including a mapping or navigation dataset,
>> business listings database, mailing list, or telemarketing list) for use in
>> a service that is a substitute for, or a substantially similar service to,
>> Google Maps/Google Earth;
>>
>
> Ancora: se io uso SV per generare una nota OSM che insinua un dubbio su
> qulache elemento mappato o non mappato in OSM, non credo proprio di fare un
> "create" e nemmeno un "augment".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[emmexx]

On 02/22/2018 01:34 PM, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
> Qua non si tratta di alludere allo stereotipo dell'italiano maneggione,
> ma di capire cosa siano le parole "creare", "integrare" ("create",
> "augment").

Stereotipo?

> 
> Una nota in OSM è indubbiamente un'informazione, ma non crea il POI ne'
> tantomeno lo integra/completa. Cosa devo dimostrare ancora?


Una nota è parte di osm esattamente come tutto il resto.
Se tu guardi su Streetview e vedi che in un punto c'è il "Bar dello
sport", poi metti una nota in osm e ci scrivi "Verificare che qui c'è il
Bar dello Sport" stai aumentando le informazioni di OSM prendendole da
Google.

ciao
maxx

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Lorenzo "Beba" Beltrami]

Ciao a tutti,
nel leggere questa 30ina di mail ho trovato spunti e punti di vista
interessanti a 360°.
Cerchiamo di non scadere in accuse più o meno personali. O in analisi
statistiche, nel migliore dei casi, parziali.
Il tema è interessante (e infatti gli animi si scaldano!), cerchiamo di
rimanere "in topic".

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

Re: [Talk-it] [Imports] Fwd: Re: Sabbioneta buildings import

[Andrea Musuruane]

Hi Giorgio,

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Giorgio Limonta <
giorgio.limont...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why did you avoid "not residential" buildings?
>
> For example, the following building is still not correctly mapped (and it
>> is not the only one):
>> https://postimg.org/image/p3b4wmsgz/
>
>
> yes but that was a problematic one: if I creat two building parts and a
> building feature that contains them, josm validator marks them as an error.
> (perhaps for the particular shape). I solved by erasing the lower part that
> surrounded the main building.
>

It's likely because one of the two building parts must be a multi polygon.

(and it is not the only one)
>
>
> I checked again, I hope it's better now
>

It is better but I still see some issues:
* A bell tower has one tag "man_made:part=tower" which is not documented.
You should use two building:part tags.
* You should also add building=yes to bell towers.
* There is one building with only one building:part=residential tag (there
should be more than one).
* In this same building the entrance part of the house is tagged as a
separate building.
*The previous example is not the only one where a part of a single building
is tagged as different building.

Bye,

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Simone Saviolo]

Il giorno 22 febbraio 2018 13:02, emmexx  ha scritto:

> On 02/22/2018 12:18 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> > Fammi un esempio di una cosa che hai mappato senza basarti su Street
> > View. E ora smentisci un avvocato ben pagato che dice che l'hai copiato
> > da Street View.
> >
> > Puoi dimostrare che il nome di via Garibaldi non l'hai preso da Street
> > View?
>
> L'onere della prova spetta a chi accusa!
>

Provato: in Street View è chiaramente visibile il cartello con scritto "Via
Garibaldi".

Non ti sembra una prova? Allora descrivimi come dovrebbe essere una prova.

Strano come praticamente solo persone di origine straniera difendano una
> certa posizione...
>

Personalmente, non difendo l'autore del blog di cui si parla in origine di
questo thread. Il fatto stesso che lui dica "ho preso da Street View" lo
pone nel torto, senza se e senza ma.

Quello che interessa a me è dimostrare che una licenza su dati fattuali è
pressoché assurda per definizione. Infatti per farla rispettare si
introducono elementi fittizi... cioè non fattuali. Tra il dato fattuale e
una sua rappresentazione esiste una catena di comunicazioni (l'ho saputo da
X che l'ha saputo da Y che l'ha visto coi suoi occhi), ed è pressoché
impossibile ricostruirla correttamente. Inoltre, è sempre possibile
"assumere" (ma non dimostrare) che in quella catena ci sia almeno un
elemento che vieta la propagazione dell'informazione.

Ovvero: questo (dell'OP) è un caso lampante, ma tutti gli altri non sono
grigi, sono invisibili.

Ciao,

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Where to suggest/discuss the renderer?

[marc marc]

HEllo,

Since the rendering is aware of the problem and its answer is "there's a 
schema missing able to be used." :
- make a fork of rendering is useless if the data does not exist
- it is enough to make a proposed feature to fill the gap.

Regard,
Marc

Le 22. 02. 18 à 10:41, Glenn Plas a écrit :
> Mapping for the renderer is de facto wrong and what you experience now
> (in france etc.) is the endresult of that attitude.  I don't understand
> why you get discouraged on OSM because of a map you don't like.   It's
> like saying:  "I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore because when I
> print a page out, it's not aligned the way I want it."
> 
> There are several options for anyone in your situation:
> 
> 1. make your own map.  There are several sites that allow you to make
> custom maps.
> 2. more technical: copy cartoCSS, change whatever you want, set up a
> tile server and enjoy your perfectly suited map
> 3. try to change the consensus, lobby for universal solution, try to get
> the standard cartoCSS changed to your likings (and repeat later when
> someone else does the same)
> 4. Look for existing map alternatives  (different renderings)
> 
> You should realise that it has nothing to do with the source data.
> There are already ton's of different map rendering out there, perhaps
> one will be perfect for you.
> 
> Don't stop mapping because of someone elses decision to represent a
> feature in a way that doesn't appeal to you.  It's the worst reason to
> stop as that might just change in an instant.
> 
> Glenn
> 
> 
> On 19-01-18 16:43, Karel Adams wrote:
>> When I first consulted maps - paper-only, at that time, of course -
>> the famous Michelin 1:20 had distinct symbols for (bigger)
>> airports, (smaller) airfields, and glider fields. As of 2018, the
>> generic map of openstreetmap has only a single icon to represent
>> anything mapped with "aeroway:aerodrome" - and all of them rendered as
>> from zoomlevel=13 - and none below.
>>
>> This is really very bad. Why should I want to contribute to a system
>> that delivers poorer info than paper maps of 50 years old?
>>
>> Even worse, many active and able mappers are reluctant to update the
>> database properly because the correct info will be so poorly rendered.
>> Especially in France and Italy, where I had endless arguments with
>> people removing the "aeroway=aerodrome" tag from real proper
>> aerodromes, because they didn't want their local grass runway mapped
>> the same as CDG Roissy airport. Even if I don't agree, I can fully
>> understand their point of view!
>>
>> What is the proper place to question this matter, and discuss schemes
>> of improvement? Is there a discussion site for the renderer?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Simone Saviolo]

2018-02-22 12:01 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :

> Non è importante quello che credi. Importante è essere inattaccabile come
> OSM se un avvoccato ben pagato fa causa a OSMF.
>

Fammi un esempio di una cosa che hai mappato senza basarti su Street View.
E ora smentisci un avvocato ben pagato che dice che l'hai copiato da Street
View.

Puoi dimostrare che il nome di via Garibaldi non l'hai preso da Street
View?

Ciao,

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[emmexx]

On 02/22/2018 12:18 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> Fammi un esempio di una cosa che hai mappato senza basarti su Street
> View. E ora smentisci un avvocato ben pagato che dice che l'hai copiato
> da Street View. 
> 
> Puoi dimostrare che il nome di via Garibaldi non l'hai preso da Street
> View? 

L'onere della prova spetta a chi accusa!

I casi in cui Google vincerebbe facilmente una causa sono abbastanza
ovvi. Ed è cosa nota che nelle mappe (o nei dizionari) vengano inseriti
di proposito elementi errati in attesa che qualcuno li copi.

Strano come praticamente solo persone di origine straniera difendano una
certa posizione...

ciao
maxx

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Marco_T]

emmexx wrote
> L'onere della prova spetta a chi accusa!

Io inviterei zendam a leggere bene le Licenze ed a cercare di capirle
autonomamente. Chi mappa deve essere pienamente responsabile di quello che
fa.
Se poi ha dei dubbi il mio consiglio è quello di rimuovere quella dicitura
(che, a mio parere, può essere un ottimo pretesto per chi accusa).

Saluti.

-- 
Marco_T



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Qua non si tratta di alludere allo stereotipo dell'italiano maneggione, ma
di capire cosa siano le parole "creare", "integrare" ("create", "augment").

Una nota in OSM è indubbiamente un'informazione, ma non crea il POI ne'
tantomeno lo integra/completa. Cosa devo dimostrare ancora?



Il giorno 22 febbraio 2018 13:02, emmexx  ha scritto:

>
> I casi in cui Google vincerebbe facilmente una causa sono abbastanza
> ovvi. Ed è cosa nota che nelle mappe (o nei dizionari) vengano inseriti
> di proposito elementi errati in attesa che qualcuno li copi.
>
> Strano come praticamente solo persone di origine straniera difendano una
> certa posizione...
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-at] "geocodec/Socke/Johann Haag" stummschalten

[Johann Haag]

wenn du kompetenztechnisch nicht mitreden kannst, was machst du dann hier in 
einem OSM Forum. Dir ist aber schon bewusst dass Deine Stimme hier als 
Vollwertig in OSM Entscheidungen gilt.  

Grüsse Johann
osm wiki the map

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 22.02.2018 um 11:40 schrieb Marcus MERIGHI :
> 
> Ich kann kompetenztechnisch inhaltlich nicht mitreden; aber ich merke,
> wenn einer immer das selbe sagt, argumentativ widerlegt wird - und
> wieder dasselbe sagt. 
> 
> Netiquette ist Ihm auch egal, seine E-Mails sind muehsam zu lesen. 
> 
> Wenn ich so ein Verhalten erleben will dann halte ich lieber einen
> Kletterkurs fuer Jugendliche.
> 
> Er ist ja so ein armes Opfer. Alle sind gegen Ihn.
> Dunning-Kruger-Effekt. Troll.
> 
> https://www.mail-list.com/how-to-deal-with-trolls-in-your-listserv/
> http://www.crydee.com/raymond-feist/faq/4164/how-to-handle-trolls-on-the-mailing-list
> https://kotaku.com/10-former-internet-trolls-explain-why-they-quit-being-j-1722649439
> 
> Marcus
> 
> johannh...@hxg.at (Johann Haag), 2018.02.22 (Thu) 00:45 (CET):
>> Hallo Rudi,
>> Meine Fragestellung zur Wiener Adress Besonderheit im osm Forum war
>> rechtzeitig und klar, aber man hat mich dort links liegen gelassen,
>> und mich ganz offen in einen 20k Edit hineinrennen lassen. Nicht ich
>> war jener der die Diskussion verweigert hat.
>> Erst als ich die Sachlage anschlie??end in Eigenregie selbst eruiert
>> hatte, heisst es pl??tzlich, das haben wir doch alles l??ngst gewusst.
>> Das nennt man einen f??r Dumm verkaufen.
>> 
>> Nun nachdem eine einfache L??sung durch Mappen vorerst wenigstens der
>> Basisadressen vorliegt, wird wieder gemauert was das Zeug h??lt, und
>> auch noch im GitHub Forum suggestiv geflennt.
>> 
>> Das ist doch alles nur noch peinlich. Es wird keine Verbesserung in
>> der OSM Adress Situation gewollt. Und der Ober Guru dieser Aktion ist
>> auch noch Kassier im osm Verein AT.
>> Mein Misstrauensantrag an diesen.
>> 
>> Gre Johann
>> Osm: wiki the map
>> 
>>> Am 22.02.2018 um 00:09 schrieb Rudolf Mayer :
>>> 
>>> Hallo!
>>> 
>>> Sorry f??r den Vollquottel unten, aber Andreas, du sprichst mir hier aus 
>>> der Seele mit deiner Antwort.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> @Johann, ich verstehe nicht, was genau Deine Motivation ist. Du 
>>> unterstellst allen anderen, dass sie keine besseren Daten haben wollen.
>>> 
>>> Und was machst du - du f??gst unn??tige Duplikate ein (und ja, es
>>> ist gut dass Deine 20.000 Adressen gel??scht wurden, da war vorher
>>> von Dir keinerlei Kontrolle was du ??berschreibst / duplizierst, so
>>> geht das einfach nicht), nur damit *eine* Anwendung, ??ber welche
>>> die Entwickler selber sagen, dass sie kaputt ist, irgendwie
>>> funktioniert? Das kann es ja wirklich nicht sein, so stur, das ist
>>> schon surreal.
>>> 
>>> Deine Nachrichten sind teilweise sehr m??hsam zu lesen. Z.B. wenn Du
>>> da proklamierst, das "Adressr??tsel" gel??st zu haben (wenn du aber
>>> nur best??tigt hast, was dir andere (z.b. fkv) schon mehrmals gesagt
>>> haben; wenn Du dauernd das selbe wiederholst und einen bestimmten
>>> Hack in den Daten machen willst, obwohl Dir genug Kollegen
>>> widersprechen, etc. Wenn du jeden beschuldigst, ein Feind von guten
>>> Daten zu sein...
>>> 
>>> Und ich habe da von Dir auch keinerlei Vorschlag gesehen, wie ein
>>> zuk??nftiger Import das besser machen w??rde, wie du Duplikate
>>> filtern oder bereinigen willst.
>>> 
>>> Ich w??rde vorschlagen, ??ber das mal zu reflektieren, und nicht
>>> gleich anzunehmen, dass hier die "b??se Wiener Gang" einen
>>> schlechten Datenbestand verteidigen will..
>>> Ich bin selber 1/4 Tiroler, 3/4 Steirer, aber nun mal grtenteils
>>> in Wien unterwegs, und ich h??tte bis jetzt nicht das Gef??hl
>>> gehabt, dass da eine generelle Abneigung zu Mappern, die nicht nur
>>> Wiener Blut haben, gibt :-) Ich glaube, das liegt eher an deinem
>>> unausgereiftem Vorschlag und gro??em Import, der vorher einfach
>>> nicht diskutiert wurde. Und darauf hast du dann eigentlich nur
>>> patzig reagiert, anstatt einen Fehler in der Vorgehensweise
>>> einzusehen, und das in Ruhe zu diskutieren.
>>> 
>>> Also, bitte, ein paar mal tief durchatmen, und nicht gleich in den
>>> Berserkermodus wechseln.
>>> 
>>> Lg
>>> Rudi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> P.s.: Weil du oft mal auch Google Maps als Vorbild nennst - wenn du
>>> mal wirklich in so einer komplexen Wohnanlage routen willst,
>>> schaffen die das auch nicht, weil einfach viele Gehwege nicht
>>> bekannt sind. Das ist nicht einmal nur immer in den Wohnanlagen der
>>> Fall, sondern auch oft gibt es in Wien (und nicht nur dort!) viele
>>> H??userdurchl??sse, Treppen, etc. die Google nicht kennt. Also so
>>> alles eitel Wonne ist dort auch nicht. Aber klar, die POI Suche, die
>>> ??hnlichkeitssuche, das ist um Welten besser.
>>> 
>>> 
 On 02/21/2018 09:15 PM, andreas wecer wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:55 AM > 

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Simone Saviolo]

Il giorno 22 febbraio 2018 16:34, emmexx  ha scritto:

> On 02/22/2018 03:48 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
>
> > Chi può stabilire da dove viene la mia conoscenza?
>
> Un giudice?
>

Mi legge nel cervello? Anzi, nella cronologia del mio cervello :)


> > Ripeto: ok la protezione sui database, ok le opere derivate, ma una
> > licenza sui dati fattuali è assurda (nel senso di indefinibile e
> > inapplicabile).
>
> Alberto Nogaro ha postato il link ad una risposta di Google sulla
> questione. Lì mi pare ci sia tutto ciò che serve sapere.
>

È una risposta di sette anni fa, data da uno che non mi sembra sia un
avvocato, e che dice "ma, forse che sì, un po', probabilmente che no".

A me pare che in questa lista si debba chiarire che StreetView non è uno
> strumento da usare, se possibile, o da usare con moltissima moderazione.
> Se lo si usa per mappare le strade di un intero comune o tutti gli
> alberi di una via, la violazione della licenza è plateale e palese e
> deve essere chiaro che questo non va fatto.


Sei già in disaccordo con quasi tutti. Hai creato una posizione nuova: "da
usare con moltissima moderazione" - ma tu stesso sembri vago su questa
posizione.

Se devo riassumere tutto questo lungo thread, con spunti molto
interessanti, posso usare una sola parola: "inconcludente". Mi ricorda la
discussione sul GPDR e su tutti i regolamenti che l'hanno preceduto:
"sembrerebbe che sia così - però bisognerà vedere cosa sentenzieranno i
giudici la prima volta che qualcuno verrà processato".

Secondo me, la verità è che la licenza non può determinare cosa si può fare
e cosa no senza alcuna zona grigia, e che quando qualcuno andrà in
tribunale ci saranno decine di fattori estemporanei che porteranno ad una
decisione piuttosto che ad un'altra. E noi continueremo a chiederci cosa si
può fare - e continueremo a non saperlo.

Ciao,

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Simone Saviolo]

Il giorno 22 febbraio 2018 16:45, Volker Schmidt  ha
scritto:

> Scusate,
>
> mi sembra che mescoliamo due argomenti
> *i fatti: *
> Io ho copiato più o meno da una fonte Google, StreetView in questo caso
> *le prove che l'ho fatto: *
> come Google potrebbe dimostrare senza dubbi che io ho copiato da Google
>

Beh, no. Io sto dicendo che anche senza copiare da Street View qualcuno
potrebbe sostenere ragionevolmente che ho copiato da Street View. E che io
farei fatica a confutare la sua tesi.

Oppure, in alternativa, che né la sua tesi né la mia hanno alcun fondamento
logico, e che si deciderà sulla base di qualcos'altro.

Il mio punto è che non dobbiamo copiare per non mettere a rischio il
> progetto.
>

D'accordissimo. Ma definisci "copiare".

Tutta questa discussione è un po' come:
> C'è un cartello di limite di velocità di 50km/h.
> Uno dice: "Devo andare non più veloce di 50km/h"
> e l'altro risponde
> "Perché? La polizia non può provare che sei andato più veloce, non c'è un
> autovelox in quel posto!"
>
> (so che semplifico, ma gli argomenti della discussione sono su piani
> disgiunti)
>

Sì, semplifichi. La velocità è un dato misurabile. La misura ha un margine
di incertezza, e di quello si tiene conto, e con questo sono finiti i
problemi. Un paragone migliore sarebbe quello del "moderare la velocità":
in prossimità di un incrocio devo "moderare la velocità"... ma moderarla
quanto? Ho rallentato abbastanza? Ero veramente in prossimità di un
incrocio, anche se io ero su una statale in aperta campagna e da sinistra
arrivava un tratturo privato usato solo dai trattori?

Ciao,

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Feb 2018, at 13:02, emmexx  wrote:
> 
> I casi in cui Google vincerebbe facilmente una causa sono abbastanza
> ovvi. Ed è cosa nota che nelle mappe (o nei dizionari) vengano inseriti
> di proposito elementi errati in attesa che qualcuno li copi.


oppure il mappatore dichiara pubblicamente di aver preso informazioni da 
google...


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

Re: [Talk-it] leisure=pitch come inner?

[Federico Cortese]

2018-02-22 15:39 GMT+01:00 demon.box :
> ciao, se trovo già mappata un'area molto estesa come multipoligono
> landuse=residential e sopra questa vado a mappare alcune aree leisure=pitch
> devo metterle come membri con ruolo inner?

Secondo me no, non sono in conflitto con landuse, tantomeno se
residential, quindi non devono essere escluse.

Ciao,
Federico

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

Re: [Talk-it] leisure=pitch come inner?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Feb 2018, at 15:39, demon.box  wrote:
> 
> ciao, se trovo già mappata un'area molto estesa come multipoligono
> landuse=residential e sopra questa vado a mappare alcune aree leisure=pitch
> devo metterle come membri con ruolo inner?


io favorisco la mappatura dettagliata per i landuse. Quando trovo dei 
multipoligoni molto grandi e ci tengo alla zona mi impegno a spezzare il 
poligono in tanti più piccoli (tolgo le strade, che non sono 
landuse=residential, per esempio). Così si crea una base molto più facilmente 
gestibile e trasparente (facile da capire), e anche più precisa (scala più 
dettagliata). Poi quel pitch raramente si trova su una particella residenziale, 
e quindi non lo includerei nel landuse=residential (in certi casi anche sì 
invece, es. campo da tennis nel giardino della villa).

Volendo e in certi casi potrebbe avere senso addirittura di andare ancora sotto 
la scala della particella (sub-aree), ma li vedo come eccezione 
(laboratorio/ufficina e residenza sulla stessa particella, per esempio)


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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Feb 2018, at 12:18, Cascafico Giovanni  wrote:
> 
> Vabbe', allora avvertite il DWG che c'è un utente che dev'essere bloccato.. 
> andrò a far compagnia al vandalo di Trieste.


no, il caso è diverso del vandalo, nel caso di infrazione di diritti di terzi 
devono fare una “redaction”

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

Re: [Talk-it] Di nuovo l'utente pasticcione

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Per cominciare c'è la lista degli user blocks è1] che contiene i blocchi in
fase di termine, ma anche i blocchi terminati (quindi a rischio di
recidivi). Poi che un warning in osmcha tipo "User has multiple blocks",
per esempio per il vandalo di Trieste [2].


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks?page=3
[2]
https://osmcha.mapbox.com/?filters=%7B%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22Roberto%20Dipiazza%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22Roberto%20Dipiazza%22%7D%5D%7D


Il giorno 22 febbraio 2018 16:45, Marco  ha scritto:

> Il 17/02/2018 21:35, Andreas Lattmann ha scritto:
>
> Altri suggerimenti per strumenti utili a monitorare utenti sospetti??
>>
>> Andreas Lattmann
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-it mailing list
>> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>>
>
>
>
> A che sito/servizio potremmo appoggiarci per fare un lista nera degli
> utenti da tenere sotto controllo?
> Sto pensando a qualcosa simile ad un foglio excell, pubblico o comunque
> accessibile e modificabile da più mappatori
>
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Di nuovo l'utente pasticcione

[Andreas Lattmann]

Si, qualcosa del genere, perché se no ci scappa la situzione dalle mani. 
Segnalo un utente a Napoli che fa changeset cambiando buildings in parchi ed 
altri scempi. L'utente è https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mauro%20Lepore da 
come risulta da questi commenti al changeset: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56578763#map=11/40.8728/14.2554

Un po in tutta Italia stanno avvenendo questi atti vandalici.

Andreas Lattmann
-- 
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Perdonate la brevità. 

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Feb 2018, at 15:48, Simone Saviolo  wrote:
> 
> ricevuto un volantino pubblicitario (a proposito, quelli sono coperti da 
> copyright?),


si, sono coperti da copyright ma non c’entra niente, perché i fatti non sono 
mai protetti da copyright, solo le creazioni nuovi di ingenuo (es. volantino: 
la grafica, la composizione ecc.)


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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Feb 2018, at 15:09, emmexx  wrote:
> 
> Ma nessuno ha mai provato a chiederlo direttamente a Google? ;-)


si, hanno chiesto ma mai ricevuto risposta (credo)


Ciao, Martin 

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[emmexx]

On 02/22/2018 03:48 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:

> Chi può stabilire da dove viene la mia conoscenza?

Un giudice?

> Ripeto: ok la protezione sui database, ok le opere derivate, ma una
> licenza sui dati fattuali è assurda (nel senso di indefinibile e
> inapplicabile). 

Alberto Nogaro ha postato il link ad una risposta di Google sulla
questione. Lì mi pare ci sia tutto ciò che serve sapere.

A me pare che in questa lista si debba chiarire che StreetView non è uno
strumento da usare, se possibile, o da usare con moltissima moderazione.
Se lo si usa per mappare le strade di un intero comune o tutti gli
alberi di una via, la violazione della licenza è plateale e palese e
deve essere chiaro che questo non va fatto.

ciao
maxx

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

Re: [Talk-it] Di nuovo l'utente pasticcione

[Cascafico Giovanni]

e' importante fare ad ogni changeset un breve commento chiaro in inglesem
meglio se da più utenti, dopodochè si segnala al Data Working Group con una
mail. Di solito intervengono in 24h con un blocco breve, giusto perchè
l'utente pasticcione legga che altri stanno segnalando il comportamento
scorretto.

Il giorno 22 febbraio 2018 18:22, Andreas Lattmann  ha scritto:

> Si, qualcosa del genere, perché se no ci scappa la situzione dalle mani.
> Segnalo un utente a Napoli che fa changeset cambiando buildings in parchi
> ed altri scempi. L'utente è https://www.openstreetmap.org/
> user/Mauro%20Lepore da come risulta da questi commenti al changeset:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56578763#map=11/40.8728/14.2554
>
> Un po in tutta Italia stanno avvenendo questi atti vandalici.
>
> Andreas Lattmann
> --
> Inviato dal mio dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Perdonate la brevità.
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] leisure=pitch come inner?

[Andrea Albani]

Il giorno 22 febbraio 2018 17:17, Federico Cortese 
ha scritto:

>
> Secondo me no, non sono in conflitto con landuse, tantomeno se
> residential, quindi non devono essere escluse.
>

+1

Descrivono cose logicamente diverse.

Un campo da tennis ad esempio può stare all'interno di un'area
residenziale, così come ci possono stare i building, etc.
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Volker Schmidt]

Scusate,

mi sembra che mescoliamo due argomenti
*i fatti: *
Io ho copiato più o meno da una fonte Google, StreetView in questo caso
*le prove che l'ho fatto: *
come Google potrebbe dimostrare senza dubbi che io ho copiato da Google

Il mio punto è che non dobbiamo copiare per non mettere a rischio il
progetto.

Tutta questa discussione è un po' come:
C'è un cartello di limite di velocità di 50km/h.
Uno dice: "Devo andare non più veloce di 50km/h"
e l'altro risponde
"Perché? La polizia non può provare che sei andato più veloce, non c'è un
autovelox in quel posto!"

(so che semplifico, ma gli argomenti della discussione sono su piani
disgiunti)
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Di nuovo l'utente pasticcione

[Marco]

Il 17/02/2018 21:35, Andreas Lattmann ha scritto:


Altri suggerimenti per strumenti utili a monitorare utenti sospetti??

Andreas Lattmann

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




A che sito/servizio potremmo appoggiarci per fare un lista nera degli 
utenti da tenere sotto controllo?
Sto pensando a qualcosa simile ad un foglio excell, pubblico o comunque 
accessibile e modificabile da più mappatori


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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Andreas Lattmann]

+1 Hai centrato il problema

Il February 22, 2018 3:45:22 PM UTC, Volker Schmidt  ha 
scritto:
>Scusate,
>
>mi sembra che mescoliamo due argomenti
>*i fatti: *
>Io ho copiato più o meno da una fonte Google, StreetView in questo caso
>*le prove che l'ho fatto: *
>come Google potrebbe dimostrare senza dubbi che io ho copiato da Google
>
>Il mio punto è che non dobbiamo copiare per non mettere a rischio il
>progetto.
>
>Tutta questa discussione è un po' come:
>C'è un cartello di limite di velocità di 50km/h.
>Uno dice: "Devo andare non più veloce di 50km/h"
>e l'altro risponde
>"Perché? La polizia non può provare che sei andato più veloce, non c'è
>un
>autovelox in quel posto!"
>
>(so che semplifico, ma gli argomenti della discussione sono su piani
>disgiunti)

Andreas Lattmann
-- 
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Perdonate la brevità. 

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

Re: [Talk-at] "geocodec/Socke/Johann Haag" stummschalten

[Peter Müller]

Ich kann kompetenztechnisch auch nicht mitreden und gebe trotzdem meinen senf 
ab, weil ich meine Popcorn gerne bei einer Diskussion von alten Herrn esse ;-) 
und das feuer muss am brennen bleiben, hihi
Macht weiter so, ich freue mich auf Staffel zwei! 
:-P

> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2018 um 13:49 Uhr
> Von: "Johann Haag" 
> An: "OpenStreetMap AT" 
> Betreff: Re: [Talk-at] "geocodec/Socke/Johann Haag" stummschalten
>
> wenn du kompetenztechnisch nicht mitreden kannst, was machst du dann hier in 
> einem OSM Forum. Dir ist aber schon bewusst dass Deine Stimme hier als 
> Vollwertig in OSM Entscheidungen gilt.  
> 
> Grüsse Johann
> osm wiki the map
> 
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> 
> > Am 22.02.2018 um 11:40 schrieb Marcus MERIGHI :
> > 
> > Ich kann kompetenztechnisch inhaltlich nicht mitreden; aber ich merke,
> > wenn einer immer das selbe sagt, argumentativ widerlegt wird - und
> > wieder dasselbe sagt. 
> > 
> > Netiquette ist Ihm auch egal, seine E-Mails sind muehsam zu lesen. 
> > 
> > Wenn ich so ein Verhalten erleben will dann halte ich lieber einen
> > Kletterkurs fuer Jugendliche.
> > 
> > Er ist ja so ein armes Opfer. Alle sind gegen Ihn.
> > Dunning-Kruger-Effekt. Troll.
> > 
> > https://www.mail-list.com/how-to-deal-with-trolls-in-your-listserv/
> > http://www.crydee.com/raymond-feist/faq/4164/how-to-handle-trolls-on-the-mailing-list
> > https://kotaku.com/10-former-internet-trolls-explain-why-they-quit-being-j-1722649439
> > 
> > Marcus
> > 
> > johannh...@hxg.at (Johann Haag), 2018.02.22 (Thu) 00:45 (CET):
> >> Hallo Rudi,
> >> Meine Fragestellung zur Wiener Adress Besonderheit im osm Forum war
> >> rechtzeitig und klar, aber man hat mich dort links liegen gelassen,
> >> und mich ganz offen in einen 20k Edit hineinrennen lassen. Nicht ich
> >> war jener der die Diskussion verweigert hat.
> >> Erst als ich die Sachlage anschlie??end in Eigenregie selbst eruiert
> >> hatte, heisst es pl??tzlich, das haben wir doch alles l??ngst gewusst.
> >> Das nennt man einen f??r Dumm verkaufen.
> >> 
> >> Nun nachdem eine einfache L??sung durch Mappen vorerst wenigstens der
> >> Basisadressen vorliegt, wird wieder gemauert was das Zeug h??lt, und
> >> auch noch im GitHub Forum suggestiv geflennt.
> >> 
> >> Das ist doch alles nur noch peinlich. Es wird keine Verbesserung in
> >> der OSM Adress Situation gewollt. Und der Ober Guru dieser Aktion ist
> >> auch noch Kassier im osm Verein AT.
> >> Mein Misstrauensantrag an diesen.
> >> 
> >> Gre Johann
> >> Osm: wiki the map
> >> 
> >>> Am 22.02.2018 um 00:09 schrieb Rudolf Mayer :
> >>> 
> >>> Hallo!
> >>> 
> >>> Sorry f??r den Vollquottel unten, aber Andreas, du sprichst mir hier aus 
> >>> der Seele mit deiner Antwort.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> @Johann, ich verstehe nicht, was genau Deine Motivation ist. Du 
> >>> unterstellst allen anderen, dass sie keine besseren Daten haben wollen.
> >>> 
> >>> Und was machst du - du f??gst unn??tige Duplikate ein (und ja, es
> >>> ist gut dass Deine 20.000 Adressen gel??scht wurden, da war vorher
> >>> von Dir keinerlei Kontrolle was du ??berschreibst / duplizierst, so
> >>> geht das einfach nicht), nur damit *eine* Anwendung, ??ber welche
> >>> die Entwickler selber sagen, dass sie kaputt ist, irgendwie
> >>> funktioniert? Das kann es ja wirklich nicht sein, so stur, das ist
> >>> schon surreal.
> >>> 
> >>> Deine Nachrichten sind teilweise sehr m??hsam zu lesen. Z.B. wenn Du
> >>> da proklamierst, das "Adressr??tsel" gel??st zu haben (wenn du aber
> >>> nur best??tigt hast, was dir andere (z.b. fkv) schon mehrmals gesagt
> >>> haben; wenn Du dauernd das selbe wiederholst und einen bestimmten
> >>> Hack in den Daten machen willst, obwohl Dir genug Kollegen
> >>> widersprechen, etc. Wenn du jeden beschuldigst, ein Feind von guten
> >>> Daten zu sein...
> >>> 
> >>> Und ich habe da von Dir auch keinerlei Vorschlag gesehen, wie ein
> >>> zuk??nftiger Import das besser machen w??rde, wie du Duplikate
> >>> filtern oder bereinigen willst.
> >>> 
> >>> Ich w??rde vorschlagen, ??ber das mal zu reflektieren, und nicht
> >>> gleich anzunehmen, dass hier die "b??se Wiener Gang" einen
> >>> schlechten Datenbestand verteidigen will..
> >>> Ich bin selber 1/4 Tiroler, 3/4 Steirer, aber nun mal grtenteils
> >>> in Wien unterwegs, und ich h??tte bis jetzt nicht das Gef??hl
> >>> gehabt, dass da eine generelle Abneigung zu Mappern, die nicht nur
> >>> Wiener Blut haben, gibt :-) Ich glaube, das liegt eher an deinem
> >>> unausgereiftem Vorschlag und gro??em Import, der vorher einfach
> >>> nicht diskutiert wurde. Und darauf hast du dann eigentlich nur
> >>> patzig reagiert, anstatt einen Fehler in der Vorgehensweise
> >>> einzusehen, und das in Ruhe zu diskutieren.
> >>> 
> >>> Also, bitte, ein paar mal tief durchatmen, und nicht gleich in den
> >>> Berserkermodus wechseln.
> >>> 
> >>> Lg
> >>> Rudi
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> P.s.: 

Re: [Talk-at] "geocodec/Socke/Johann Haag" stummschalten

[Rudolf Mayer]

On 02/22/2018 01:49 PM, Johann Haag wrote:

wenn du kompetenztechnisch nicht mitreden kannst, was machst du dann hier in 
einem OSM Forum. Dir ist aber schon bewusst dass Deine Stimme hier als 
Vollwertig in OSM Entscheidungen gilt.



Seit wann muss man in Österreich Kompetenz haben, um was (mit)bestimmen 
zu können? :-)


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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Andreas Lattmann]

>La prova potrebbe esser la seguente:
>Nelle foto di StreetView la via Garibaldi >appare il 20 settembre 2017,
>il 22 settembre 2017 la via Garibaldi >appare anche in OSM.
>Ma anche in questo caso dovrebbero >esserci altri elementi perché
>l'accusa tenga.

Poi ci si accorge che le foto di Google sono vecchie e si introducono degli 
errori.
Lo dico perché è capitato che un mapper Francese ha cambiato i limiti di 
velocità che avevo inserito in una superstrada, perché aveva visto su 
streetview che il limite era a X...

Andreas Lattmann
-- 
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Perdonate la brevità. 

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

Re: [Talk-it] [Imports] Fwd: Re: Sabbioneta buildings import

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Feb 2018, at 14:41, Andrea Musuruane  wrote:
> 
> * You should also add building=yes to bell towers.


I would suggest building=bell_tower


Cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Andreas Lattmann]

>Strano come praticamente solo persone di origine straniera difendano
>una
>certa posizione...
>

 


Non bisogna "copiare" indipendentemente se si viene beccati o meno o se sia 
lecito o meno. Google scrive "di non copiare", rispettiamo la sua volontà, è un 
suo lavoro ha il diritto umano di poter decidere cosa voler fare del frutto del 
suo lavoro. Anche se la legge ce lo dovesse permettere impariamo a rispettare 
il lavoro altrui. Non lamentiamoci poi se altre persone/società camuffano la 
"nostra" mappa per rendere difficile dimostrare che è OSM con la scusa, "ma a 
me serve una mappa con i sentieri, dove la prendo e poi tanto come fanno quelli 
di OSM a dimostrare che è loro...". Non esistono giustificazioni, non si fa. 
Punto. Vi servono le foto? Esiste OpenStreetCam o Mapillary o vi fate le foto 
per conto vostro. Non ricordate una cosa?? Fa niente, la prossima volta vi 
ricorderete di far fotografie, di prendere note più descrittive o note audio. 

Detto popolare: "Chi non ha testa, ha gambe!" 


Andreas Lattmann
-- 
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Perdonate la brevità. 

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

[OSM-talk-be] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

Not wanting to change current consensus in Belgium, but I wonder how close
this would be to current mapping practice in Belgium, and if it would be a
way of thinking that could help in some current edge cases.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Fernando Trebien 
Date: 2018-02-15 19:14 GMT+01:00
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
To: t...@openstreetmap.org


Landing on this discussion several months late. I've just heard of it
by reading a wiki talk page [1].

Since 13 February 2009, the wiki [2] criticises highway classification
as problematic/unverifiable. This has also been subject to a lot of
controversy (and edit wars) in my local community (Brazil), especially
regarding the effect of (lack of) pavement.

In trying to achieve greater consensus some years ago, I decided to
seek opinions elsewhere and finally I arrived at this scheme [3] which
I think is very useful, if not perfect yet. It can be easily
summarised like this:
- trunk: best routes between large/important cities
- primary: best routes between cities and above
- secondary: best routes between towns/suburbs and above
- tertiary: best routes between villages/neighbourhoods and above
- unclassified: best routes between other place=* and above

For example, the best route between two villages would be at least
tertiary. So would be the best route between a village and a town or a
city. Parts of this route might have a higher class in case they are
part of a route between more important places.

It surely raises the problem of determining optimal routes. Maybe a
sensible criterion would be average travel time without traffic
congestion. A number of vehicles may be selected for this average -
could be motorcycle+car+bus+truck, or simply car+truck.

Early results in my area [4, in Portuguese] seem promising and have
produced more consensus than any previous proposals. To me, this
method seems to:
- resist alternations in classification along the same road
- work across borders (where classification discontinuities are
expected because each country is using different classification
criteria)
- account for road network topology
- work in countries with mostly precarious/unpaved roads or
without/unknown official highway classes
- work between settlements as well as within settlements

Borderline cases are probably inescapable in any system that does not
use solely criteria that are directly verifiable - from the ground, or
from the law. Maybe, in certain developed countries, the system is so
well organized that merely checking signs/laws is sufficient. That
does not mean it is like that everywhere on the planet.

OSM has so far received a lot of input from communities in developed
countries (mostly Europe, North America and Australia) and hasn't
given much attention to less developed/organized countries. What comes
closest to this is what the HOT Team does, but the judgment of road
classification one can do from satellite images in a foreign country
is much more limited than the criteria that have been raised in this
thread so far.

I wouldn't endorse tags such as maxspeed:practical due to lack of
verifiability (it should be obvious that different types of vehicles
would achieve different practical speeds). It is better to use the
legal speed in maxspeed=* and describe the practical reason for a
lower speed using surface=*, smoothness=*, and, who knows, maybe the
not yet approved hazard=* [5] (though that is intended for signed
hazards, not subjective/opinionated hazards).

For the sake of long-term sanity, I also wouldn't mix the purpose of
one tag with the purpose of other tags. To describe the surface, there
is surface=*, smoothness=* and tracktype=*. To describe access rights,
there is access=*, foot=*, bicycle=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc. To
describe legal speed, maxspeed=*. To describe curves, there's
geometry.

Purpose, perhaps, is the main issue. What is the purpose of highway
classification? Is it to save us the work of adding extra tags? Is it
to allow the renderer to produce a cleaner output at low zoom levels?
Is it to allow routers to assume default speeds? Maybe to guide their
routing heuristics? Is it to express some sort of importance? If so,
by which perspective - urbanistic, traffic engineering, movement,
commercial value, cultural/fame, historic, some combination of those?
Should the purpose be the same in every country?

It may be interesting to also discuss the classification adopted by
other maps. I don't have a reference for Google (originally TeleAtlas)
or Here.com (originally Navteq), but Waze publishes its per-country
road classification criteria in its wiki. [6-16]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%
3Dtrunk#change_.22high_performance.22_to_.22high_importance.22
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability#Problematic_tags
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ftrebien/Drafts/

[OSM-talk] Mapping rivers that flow into/through lakes?

[Rory McCann]

Hi mappers,

What's the best way to map rivers that flow into lakes, especially when
another river flows through it? Should they be connected?

When a river flows through a lake, you can map a waterway=river way
through it, to be "topoligcally complete". Or would it be better to add
ways (w/o waterway tag) to the river relation?

When a tributary river joins another, join the central waterway=river
ways together. But what if a river drains into a lake with a  "central
river" through it? Should you connect that river to the central river?
It makes topological sense.

If you asked someone "Where does this river end?" they'd probably point
to where it joins the lake. Connecting the river to the "central river"
breaks this. And it can result in odd long ways. I might have gone a
little OTT here (
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=water=27.98062=-16.95179=11
) or here (
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=water=-8.26705=52.99047=11
).

Without joining the ways, then a data consumer will have to do
complicated extra processing to deduce that one river "flows into" the
other? (River X ends on the shore of a lake, River Y flows through the
lake, so connect X to Y). Is that "good enough"?

Thoughts?

Rory

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

Re: [Talk-it] leisure=pitch come inner?

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Il 22/02/2018 15:39, demon.box ha scritto:

ciao, se trovo già mappata un'area molto estesa come multipoligono
landuse=residential e sopra questa vado a mappare alcune aree leisure=pitch
devo metterle come membri con ruolo inner?
grazie
--enrico



Io multipoligoni in questi casi non li ho mai fatti, comunque si vedono 
renderizzati senza problemi, qui un esempio mio:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/46.05607/11.46767


--
_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
Simone Girardelli

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

Re: [Talk-at] "geocodec/Socke/Johann Haag" stummschalten

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 22.02.2018 19:54, "Peter Müller" wrote:

weil ich meine Popcorn gerne bei einer Diskussion von alten Herrn esse ;-)
Du hast in deiner Zeitmaschine die falsche Taste gedrückt, die Club 2 mit 
Nenning liefen 1976-95. :-p


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping rivers that flow into/through lakes?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 22 February 2018, Rory McCann wrote:
>
> What's the best way to map rivers that flow into lakes, especially
> when another river flows through it? Should they be connected?
>
> [...]

This has been discussed in the past occasionally and IIRC there was 
never full agreement on the matter.  A few things that are important to 
consider:

* The question if a river flows through a lake or if it enters a lake 
and ends there is not generally something that can be answered 
verifiably.
* In well mapped areas where a lake has one large outflow and only one 
or a few similarily large inflows they are often connected.
* In most cases with larger lakes smaller inflows are not connected.
* In contrast to riverbank polygons where there is in principle a well 
established rule where to place the waterway (the thalweg) there is no 
established rule how rivers that are connected within a lake are to be 
placed or connected.
* There is also no established rule if waterways within a lake get the 
name and other tags from the tributaries they connect or if they are to 
be without name tag.  Both variants are common.
* The vast majority of waterbody imports import without connectivity, 
even if connected data is available like in the US and Canada.

Part of the problem is of course that the task of generating waterway 
connectivity within a water area or supplementing an incomplete 
connectivity are cumbersome mechanical tasks.  So the ultimate question 
probably is if this is something editors should provide support to 
produce automatically or if it is something that data users should 
generate automatically as needed.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

[OSM-talk] SharedStreets open platform is built on top of OSM

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

I came across this article describing SharedStreets which is intended to be
an open platform for city governments and private entities like Uber to
share street-related data like traffic data, taxi/cab pickup points, and
the like. The chief architect for SharedStreets says: "What GTFS does for
transit, we’re doing for streets."

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/02/a-powerful-map-promises-to-help-cities-keep-streets-free/553739/

Here's the SharedStreets website:
http://sharedstreets.io/

And it links to the SharedStreets GitHub repository which explains the
technical details.
https://github.com/sharedstreets/sharedstreets-ref-system

It seems that they can ingest OSM (or another set of geodata) to generate
an abstracted topology of the street network based on street intersections
and the street segments connecting them.

Here is their FAQ with respect to OSM:

*How does this relate to OpenStreetMap? (Or, doesn't OSM already do this?)*
>
> SharedStreets complements OpenStreetMap. OSM does not attempt to provide
> stable IDs, and complex OSM ways make many applications difficult to build
> using raw OSM data.
>
> SharedStreets provides a layer of abstraction on top of OSM, allowing
> users to work with the topology of OpenStreetMaps data without dealing with
> the details how OSM ways are encoded.
>
> By providing direct references to OSM way and node IDs users can always
> query and relate SharedStreets references back to the underlying OSM data
> where needed.
>
> We believe that SharedStreets will allow users to more rapidly improve
> OpenStreetMap data by making it easier to identify missing streets, or
> opportunities to improve street geometry and connectivity.
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Is this legal to what philly.com is doing?

[James Mast]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/will-republicans-impeach-pennsylvania-supreme-court-justices-20180222.html


(ignore what the article is about)


Just happen to see a thumbnail and clicked on the article since I noticed the 
OSM base map.  Nowhere that I can find does it give credit to OSM for the use 
of it.


Now, the part to where I was curious if this was legal (sans the lack of 
credit), is that they are 'selling' the uploaded image.  Is that allowed 
currently under the license that OSM has?


Just thought I'd throw this out there for somebody more experienced in this 
sector.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Where to suggest/discuss the renderer?

[marc marc]

Le 23. 02. 18 à 07:44, Karel Adams a écrit :
> Whence my repeated question: where or with whom can this be discussed?

the tagging mailing for the schema
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

github to use a current schema
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Aury88]

non era mia intenzione scatenare tutto questo trambusto. 

Non metto in dubbio che ci siano persone che, nonostante quanto imponga OSM
e nonostante quanto vieti Google, utilizzi i dati google sistematicamente
per inserire elementi (siano essi note o dati) su OSM.

non ho neanche provato ad addentrarmi nella questione divieto lecito o il
fatto che sia provabile l'avvenuta trasgressione...

ho solo posto il quesito su una dichiarazione di un utente in cui
esplicitamente si affermava di utilizzare anche un servizio google per
inserire elementi (per ricordarseli? per scoprirne di nuovi?) su OSM

a fronte di una dichiarazione del genere anche il più incapace degli
avvocati è in grado di dimostrare la colpevolezza dell'utente visto che la
prova sarebbe l'affermazione dell'utente stesso (senza considerare che
google sa chi e quando si connette ad un proprio servizio e, nel caso di
streetview, quale area sta guardando...dati che presi assieme alla data,
utente e area del changelog  possono già essere una prova per alcuni
dell'avvenuta copiatura...ma questo è un altro discorso).

provato quindi o meglio ammesso che l'utente è andato contro le regole
google diventa lecito per google richiedere la rimozione dei dati inseriti
dall'utente (+ eventuali danni)...a quel punto cosa togliamo? difficilmente
il dato dell'utente è rimasto isolato...sarà stato modificato, unito,
diviso, usato come riferimento per altro anche da altri ecc ecc 



non succederà mai? non possiamo saperlo, ma sappiamo che non è impossibile e
questo basta per mettere a rischio non solo l'utente ma anche al progetto ed
al suo utilizzo da chi non vuole avere problemi dall'uso del db...

il mio parere? è comunque meglio evitare anche la sbirciatina...better safe
than sorry anche esagerando lato safe 

my 2 cents
aury




-
Ciao,
Aury
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping rivers that flow into/through lakes?

[Maarten Deen]

On 2018-02-22 22:59, Rory McCann wrote:

Hi mappers,

What's the best way to map rivers that flow into lakes, especially when
another river flows through it? Should they be connected?

When a river flows through a lake, you can map a waterway=river way
through it, to be "topoligcally complete". Or would it be better to add
ways (w/o waterway tag) to the river relation?

When a tributary river joins another, join the central waterway=river
ways together. But what if a river drains into a lake with a  "central
river" through it? Should you connect that river to the central river?
It makes topological sense.

If you asked someone "Where does this river end?" they'd probably point
to where it joins the lake. Connecting the river to the "central river"
breaks this. And it can result in odd long ways. I might have gone a
little OTT here (
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=water=27.98062=-16.95179=11
) or here (
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=water=-8.26705=52.99047=11
).


I see nothing wrong with those examples, I would do it the same, 
especially if the rivers can be sailed on by boat. Then you absolutely 
need the rivers to be connected to a central river (or fairway) in the 
lake.


Maarten

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

Re: [Talk-at] "geocodec/Socke/Johann Haag" stummschalten

[andreas wecer]

Wenn ich kompetenztechnisch inhaltlich noch etwas zur nicht
funktionierenden Suche anmerken darf: das eigentliche Problem sehe ich
darin, dass Nominatim öfter gar kein Ergebnis findet und es nicht schafft,
ein weniger spezifisches zu liefern, also bpsw. "Davidgasse 76-80" statt
"Davidgasse 76-80/14/10" - und eigenartigerweise funktioniert genau dieses
Beispiel jetzt bei Nominatim, während Volkis Nachbarn dagegen schon wieder
nicht mehr so viel Glück haben. Photon (die Such-Engine von komoot) wirkt
da bspw. nicht so erratisch.
___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Where to suggest/discuss the renderer?

[Karel Adams]

Glenn, hebt ge me wel goed gelezen?

There is not the slightest need to convince me we should not map for the 
renderer. There's a bunch of mappers, especially in France but also one 
in Italy, who vehemently remove the "aeroway=aerodrome" tag from small 
airfields. When I reinstate it, they will promptly remove it and send me 
angry messages.


I do not say they are right, I do say there is some reason to their 
approach. It is not acceptable that the renderer knows only one category 
of aerodrome so that it maps a small recreational aerodrome the same way 
as an international airport. This should be improved in the renderer, 
both to satisfy those Southern grumblers even if they're not right; but 
mainly to improve the map that we produce.


It is not because they are wrong in France that there is no room for 
improving the renderer. Whence my repeated question: where or with whom 
can this be discussed?


KA

PS one thing I have begun to do is to tag those small fields as 
"aeroway=airstrip" but that is not to everybody's liking, either.



On 22/02/18 09:41, Glenn Plas wrote:

Mapping for the renderer is de facto wrong and what you experience now
(in france etc.) is the endresult of that attitude.  I don't understand
why you get discouraged on OSM because of a map you don't like.   It's
like saying:  "I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore because when I
print a page out, it's not aligned the way I want it."

There are several options for anyone in your situation:

1. make your own map.  There are several sites that allow you to make
custom maps.
2. more technical: copy cartoCSS, change whatever you want, set up a
tile server and enjoy your perfectly suited map
3. try to change the consensus, lobby for universal solution, try to get
the standard cartoCSS changed to your likings (and repeat later when
someone else does the same)
4. Look for existing map alternatives  (different renderings)

You should realise that it has nothing to do with the source data.
There are already ton's of different map rendering out there, perhaps
one will be perfect for you.

Don't stop mapping because of someone elses decision to represent a
feature in a way that doesn't appeal to you.  It's the worst reason to
stop as that might just change in an instant.

Glenn


On 19-01-18 16:43, Karel Adams wrote:

When I first consulted maps - paper-only, at that time, of course -
the famous Michelin 1:20 had distinct symbols for (bigger)
airports, (smaller) airfields, and glider fields. As of 2018, the
generic map of openstreetmap has only a single icon to represent
anything mapped with "aeroway:aerodrome" - and all of them rendered as
from zoomlevel=13 - and none below.

This is really very bad. Why should I want to contribute to a system
that delivers poorer info than paper maps of 50 years old?

Even worse, many active and able mappers are reluctant to update the
database properly because the correct info will be so poorly rendered.
Especially in France and Italy, where I had endless arguments with
people removing the "aeroway=aerodrome" tag from real proper
aerodromes, because they didn't want their local grass runway mapped
the same as CDG Roissy airport. Even if I don't agree, I can fully
understand their point of view!

What is the proper place to question this matter, and discuss schemes
of improvement? Is there a discussion site for the renderer?




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






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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Alberto Nogaro]

Tanto tempo fa era stato fatto:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-April/057473.html

Ciao,
Alberto

>-Original Message-
>From: emmexx [mailto:emm...@tiscalinet.it]
>Sent: giovedì 22 febbraio 2018 15:10
>To: openstreetmap list - italiano 
>Subject: Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView


>Ma nessuno ha mai provato a chiederlo direttamente a Google? ;-)



---
Questa email è stata esaminata alla ricerca di virus da AVG.
http://www.avg.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] The diversity-talk@ list is back! [WAS: Re: diversity-talk: No such list]

[Sérgio V .]

Hi, glad to know this, this is an important topic in OSM ecosystem, as well as 
in the world, mainly nowadays. Signed, thanks! From Brazil,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs



De: Rory McCann 
Enviado: quinta-feira, 22 de fevereiro de 2018 05:36
Para: Sérgio V.; talk@openstreetmap.org
Assunto: The diversity-talk@ list is back! [WAS: Re: diversity-talk: No such 
list]

Hello all,

I've volunteered to do the admin/modding of the diversity-talk list, so
it has been set up again.

You need to sign up again for now. Maybe it's possible to import an old
membership list, but for now, please re-sign up.

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

Rory

On 17/02/18 20:56, Sérgio V. wrote:
> Hi, I've just realized that in the
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity
> at the bottom, /Resources,
>
> there's no such link to
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
>
> If you click there , or search for it, it returns "No such list
> diversity-talk".
>
> Is it still alive?
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

[djakk djakk]

Hello,

I totally agree with you, the definition you provide, administrative-free,
tends to the same osm map between countries.

djakk

Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 19:18, Fernando Trebien 
a écrit :

> Landing on this discussion several months late. I've just heard of it
> by reading a wiki talk page [1].
>
> Since 13 February 2009, the wiki [2] criticises highway classification
> as problematic/unverifiable. This has also been subject to a lot of
> controversy (and edit wars) in my local community (Brazil), especially
> regarding the effect of (lack of) pavement.
>
> In trying to achieve greater consensus some years ago, I decided to
> seek opinions elsewhere and finally I arrived at this scheme [3] which
> I think is very useful, if not perfect yet. It can be easily
> summarised like this:
> - trunk: best routes between large/important cities
> - primary: best routes between cities and above
> - secondary: best routes between towns/suburbs and above
> - tertiary: best routes between villages/neighbourhoods and above
> - unclassified: best routes between other place=* and above
>
> For example, the best route between two villages would be at least
> tertiary. So would be the best route between a village and a town or a
> city. Parts of this route might have a higher class in case they are
> part of a route between more important places.
>
> It surely raises the problem of determining optimal routes. Maybe a
> sensible criterion would be average travel time without traffic
> congestion. A number of vehicles may be selected for this average -
> could be motorcycle+car+bus+truck, or simply car+truck.
>
> Early results in my area [4, in Portuguese] seem promising and have
> produced more consensus than any previous proposals. To me, this
> method seems to:
> - resist alternations in classification along the same road
> - work across borders (where classification discontinuities are
> expected because each country is using different classification
> criteria)
> - account for road network topology
> - work in countries with mostly precarious/unpaved roads or
> without/unknown official highway classes
> - work between settlements as well as within settlements
>
> Borderline cases are probably inescapable in any system that does not
> use solely criteria that are directly verifiable - from the ground, or
> from the law. Maybe, in certain developed countries, the system is so
> well organized that merely checking signs/laws is sufficient. That
> does not mean it is like that everywhere on the planet.
>
> OSM has so far received a lot of input from communities in developed
> countries (mostly Europe, North America and Australia) and hasn't
> given much attention to less developed/organized countries. What comes
> closest to this is what the HOT Team does, but the judgment of road
> classification one can do from satellite images in a foreign country
> is much more limited than the criteria that have been raised in this
> thread so far.
>
> I wouldn't endorse tags such as maxspeed:practical due to lack of
> verifiability (it should be obvious that different types of vehicles
> would achieve different practical speeds). It is better to use the
> legal speed in maxspeed=* and describe the practical reason for a
> lower speed using surface=*, smoothness=*, and, who knows, maybe the
> not yet approved hazard=* [5] (though that is intended for signed
> hazards, not subjective/opinionated hazards).
>
> For the sake of long-term sanity, I also wouldn't mix the purpose of
> one tag with the purpose of other tags. To describe the surface, there
> is surface=*, smoothness=* and tracktype=*. To describe access rights,
> there is access=*, foot=*, bicycle=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc. To
> describe legal speed, maxspeed=*. To describe curves, there's
> geometry.
>
> Purpose, perhaps, is the main issue. What is the purpose of highway
> classification? Is it to save us the work of adding extra tags? Is it
> to allow the renderer to produce a cleaner output at low zoom levels?
> Is it to allow routers to assume default speeds? Maybe to guide their
> routing heuristics? Is it to express some sort of importance? If so,
> by which perspective - urbanistic, traffic engineering, movement,
> commercial value, cultural/fame, historic, some combination of those?
> Should the purpose be the same in every country?
>
> It may be interesting to also discuss the classification adopted by
> other maps. I don't have a reference for Google (originally TeleAtlas)
> or Here.com (originally Navteq), but Waze publishes its per-country
> road classification criteria in its wiki. [6-16]
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#change_.22high_performance.22_to_.22high_importance.22
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability#Problematic_tags
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ftrebien/Drafts/Generic_highway_classification_principles#Schematic_diagram_and_general_comments
> [4] 

[Talk-it] leisure=pitch come inner?

[demon.box]

ciao, se trovo già mappata un'area molto estesa come multipoligono
landuse=residential e sopra questa vado a mappare alcune aree leisure=pitch
devo metterle come membri con ruolo inner?
grazie
--enrico




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html

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

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[Simone Saviolo]

Il giorno 22 febbraio 2018 15:09, emmexx  ha scritto:

> On 02/22/2018 02:43 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> > Non ti sembra una prova? Allora descrivimi come dovrebbe essere una
> prova.
>
> La prova potrebbe esser la seguente:
> Nelle foto di StreetView la via Garibaldi appare il 20 settembre 2017,
> il 22 settembre 2017 la via Garibaldi appare anche in OSM.
> Ma anche in questo caso dovrebbero esserci altri elementi perché
> l'accusa tenga.
>

Metti pure che tramite la tecnologia magica riescano a sapere che avevo
JOSM aperto sulla zona che stavo guardando in Street View proprio un minuto
prima che committasi un changeset. Questo non dimostra niente: potrei
benissimo aver aperto Street View perché ho cercato su Google una
recensione della pasticceria che avevo visto due ore prima e che in quel
momento stavo aggiungendo su OSM.

Non si può dimostrare né l'innocenza né la colpevolezza. Perché la
pasticceria è fattuale. È lì, la vede chiunque. Come faccio a sapere che
esiste e come si chiama? Potrei averla vista di persona, potrei averla
sentita descrivere da un amico, potrei aver ricevuto un volantino
pubblicitario (a proposito, quelli sono coperti da copyright?), potrei
averla vista su Street View. Chi può stabilire da dove viene la mia
conoscenza?

> Strano come praticamente solo persone di origine straniera difendano
> una
> > certa posizione...
> >
> > Quello che interessa a me è dimostrare che una licenza su dati fattuali
> > è pressoché assurda per definizione. Infatti per farla rispettare si
> > introducono elementi fittizi... cioè non fattuali. Tra il dato fattuale
> > e una sua rappresentazione esiste una catena di comunicazioni (l'ho
> > saputo da X che l'ha saputo da Y che l'ha visto coi suoi occhi), ed è
> > pressoché impossibile ricostruirla correttamente. Inoltre, è sempre
> > possibile "assumere" (ma non dimostrare) che in quella catena ci sia
> > almeno un elemento che vieta la propagazione dell'informazione.
> >
>
> Quello che stanno dicendo alcuni è che, nel dubbio, anche uno solo,
> meglio non usare StreetView, meglio non scrivere che potrebbe essere
> lecito usarlo, meglio non far credere che sia possibile usarlo.
>
> Ma nessuno ha mai provato a chiederlo direttamente a Google? ;-)
>

Sì, e Google ha risposto (non lo trovo più) che non si può usare per
derivarne informazioni: la licenza lo vieta. (Dicevano anche che sarebbe
stato ingestibile perseguire le violazioni).

Street View non va usato per mappare. La definizione di "usato" è vaga. Per
i duri e puri, questo significa non aprire https://maps.google.com. Molti
dissentono. Bollarli come i soliti italiani è un'approssimazione del
problema: sicuramente a star lontani da Street View non si sbaglia, ma è
veramente necessario?

Mi immagino un'altra storiella. Prenoto una settimana in albergo al mare.
Voglio vedere bene quanto posto ho lì vicino per parcheggiare la macchina e
scaricare i bagagli. Allora vado su Street View e do un'occhiata: che
bello, proprio di fronte all'albergo c'è uno spiazzo di parcheggi gratuiti,
saranno una ventina, e nella foto del mese di luglio ce ne sono quattro
liberi, più uno per i disabili. Vado al mare, trovo posto lì, scarico i
bagagli e ci lascio la macchina per una settimana. Vedo quel parcheggio
tutti i giorni. Una sera, mentre sono sulla porta e aspetto di uscire, per
ingannare il tempo mi metto a contare i parcheggi: sono 17 più due per i
disabili. Forse nella foto di Street View uno era occupato... ah no, era
nascosto dalla cabina del telefono e non l'avevo visto.
Finisce la vacanza e torno a casa. Apro JOSM e segno la strada pedonale,
l'intitolazione della chiesa parrocchiale, la gelateria e il negozio di
scarpe: ci passavo davanti tutte le sere e le so a memoria. So che tra un
molo e un altro c'erano tre panchine, e le segno. Oltretutto ho fatto
tracce GPS per tutto il tempo, ho un sacco di note che ho preso col mio
telefono, tutta roba mia. Poi arrivo a quel parcheggio davanti all'albergo.
La prima volta che l'ho visto... l'ho visto su Street View. Potrò metterlo,
visto che non posso usare informazioni ricavate da Street View? Posso
scrivere che ci sono 17 posti più due per disabili? Io su SV non ci avevo
fatto caso, ma a guardare attentamente potrei ricavare quell'informazione
anche da lì.

Supponiamo invece che davanti all'albergo non ci siano posti, ma se giro a
destra e poi ancora a destra entro in un parcheggio che non si vede dalla
strada. Certo, ci sono andato, ho fatto avanti e indietro per prendere i
bagagli, l'ho visto di persona... ma se non l'avessi visto su Street View
non l'avrei mai scoperto. Posso aggiungerlo in quel caso?

Insomma, per essere al sicuro dal rischio di contaminare OSM, io mappatore
posso ancora fare uso di altri prodotti geografici commerciali? Non corro
forse il rischio di impararne qualcosa... che poi potrei mettere in OSM? :)

Ripeto: ok la protezione sui database, ok le opere derivate, ma una licenza
sui dati fattuali è assurda (nel 

Re: [Talk-it] risposta a dichiarazione uso di GoogleStreetView

[emmexx]

On 02/22/2018 02:43 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> Non ti sembra una prova? Allora descrivimi come dovrebbe essere una prova. 

La prova potrebbe esser la seguente:
Nelle foto di StreetView la via Garibaldi appare il 20 settembre 2017,
il 22 settembre 2017 la via Garibaldi appare anche in OSM.
Ma anche in questo caso dovrebbero esserci altri elementi perché
l'accusa tenga.

> 
> Strano come praticamente solo persone di origine straniera difendano una
> certa posizione...
> 
> Quello che interessa a me è dimostrare che una licenza su dati fattuali
> è pressoché assurda per definizione. Infatti per farla rispettare si
> introducono elementi fittizi... cioè non fattuali. Tra il dato fattuale
> e una sua rappresentazione esiste una catena di comunicazioni (l'ho
> saputo da X che l'ha saputo da Y che l'ha visto coi suoi occhi), ed è
> pressoché impossibile ricostruirla correttamente. Inoltre, è sempre
> possibile "assumere" (ma non dimostrare) che in quella catena ci sia
> almeno un elemento che vieta la propagazione dell'informazione. 
> 

Quello che stanno dicendo alcuni è che, nel dubbio, anche uno solo,
meglio non usare StreetView, meglio non scrivere che potrebbe essere
lecito usarlo, meglio non far credere che sia possibile usarlo.

Ma nessuno ha mai provato a chiederlo direttamente a Google? ;-)

ciao
maxx

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Voies

[Axelos]

Coucou,


Le 22/02/2018 à 09:37, Francescu GAROBY a écrit :
> Sauf que la piste en question est bidirectionnelle, l'ajouter à une way en
> sens unique n'a pas de sens ! Je doute que les calculateurs d'itinéraire
> l'auraient proposée, pour un trajet ouest -> est (sens contraire de la
> circulation motorisée).


Bien vu, je n'avais pas remarqué cette erreur.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[Marián Kyral]

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Marián Kyral 
Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 20. 2. 2018 0:06:29
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )
"Dne 19.2.2018 v 23:42 majka.zem+t...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> 19. února 2018 22:54:22 SEČ, "Marián Kyral"  napsal:
>> Může být?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Vypadá to na zajímavou detektivku. Dle všeho se upřednostnila čísla
>> evidenční před čísly popisnými, takže to občas ustřelí někam do chatové
>> oblasti.
>>
>> Marián
>>
 Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> Vypadá to moc pěkně, musím nás pochválit :)
>
>
> Drobná připomínka:
> Moc věříme datům v OSM. Schránka 37271:309 (ZOO Ohrada) má špatně uvedené
číslo ref - asi můj přehmat. Tváří se přitom spokojeně (zelená), jen ukazuje
posun o skoro 40 km. Zítra na to kouknu.
> Možná by ale stálo za to, na velké posuny v řádu km nějak víc ukázat.
Obvykle to znamená nějaký problém, běžná taková chyba není.

Jo, to je v plánu. Jen nevím, jestli to zítra (vlastně už dnes ;-) stihnu)
"



Sice jsem to nestihl realizovat, ale trochu jsem to promýšlel. V POI-
Importeru zavedu maximální povolený posun (1km?), u větších vzdáleností
nebudu OSM souřadnice přebírat a do statistik přidám informaci o tom, že
posun je podezřele velký. Nic lepšího mne nenapadlo.





Taky se snažím nějak vyřešit pravidelné aktualizace dat POI-Importeru.
Původní představa byla použít git a nahrávat na web jen opravdu změněné
dlaždice. Ale narazil jsem na to, že ten export do geojson je pokaždé jinak
uspořádaný, takže git pak hlásí jako rozdíl úplně všechno :-(




Budu to muset nějak přiohnout :-(




Marián






"
Marián


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Voies

[Francescu GAROBY]

> Sur la discussion du changeset
 (Christian,donc oui il a
eu discussion), Meersbrook veut utiliser lane pour les bandes et track pour
les pistes cyclables qui sont parallèles à la voirie.
Si on parle de lisibilité et réseau, ça peut s'entendre mais alors on a des
cycleway:right=track et autres cycleway:right:surface=paved,
sidewalk:right:surface=concrete... ?

Sauf que la piste en question est bidirectionnelle, l'ajouter à une way en
sens unique n'a pas de sens ! Je doute que les calculateurs d'itinéraire
l'auraient proposée, pour un trajet ouest -> est (sens contraire de la
circulation motorisée).

Francescu

Le 21 février 2018 à 22:52,  a écrit :

> Le 21/02/2018 à 19:50, Erwan Salomon - r...@gmx.fr a écrit :
>
> c’est pas parce que certains se le permettent qu’il faut les imiter ;-)
>
> +1, aussi pour JB et Jérome.
>
> Ça rejoint la discussion sur 1/2 way et le conflit d'édition.
>
> > cela donne des résultats bizarres https://www.
> openstreetmap.org/?mlat=48.83928=2.24425#map=18/48.83928/2.24425
> Voir que la piste cyclable traverse la voie de tram perpendiculairement
> c'est une info pertinente, donc alors que je suis assez d'accord sans ce
> cas précis ça ne fait pas hurler.
>
> > Comme le rappelle Christian, le principal objectif d'avoir des voies
> séparées dans OSM est l'aide au routage. Si la chaussée est la même, il
> faut se poser la question de la pertinence de scinder la voie.
>
> Sur la discussion du changeset
>  (Christian,donc oui il
> a eu discussion), Meersbrook veut utiliser lane pour les bandes et track
> pour les pistes cyclables qui sont parallèles à la voirie.
> Si on parle de lisibilité et réseau, ça peut s'entendre mais alors on a
> des cycleway:right=track et autres cycleway:right:surface=paved,
> sidewalk:right:surface=concrete... ?
>
> Pour la route de la Reine (https://www.openstreetmap.
> org/?mlat=48.83928=2.24425#map=18/48.83928/2.24425), je suis
> d'accord c'est une horreur, je pense que la personne ne connaît pas
> turn:lanes:forward et turn:lanes:backward.
>
> C'est d'ailleurs un problème de micro-cartographie : une carte symbolise
> et donc simplifie pour avoir une visibilité.
>
> Par analogie avec sidewalk
> , pourquoi ne pas
> mettre un cycleway=separate sur la rue principale et un cycleway en propre
> à côté s'il a aussi "sa vie propre" par endroit ?
>
> >*Au USA il font des aires  de croisement avec des relations pour gérer
> les contraintes d'accès. Du coup la surface entre deux voies c'est pas con
> comme idée. A voir comment un moteur de calcul d'itinéraire s'en sort avec
> ça et comme gérer les interdictions de demi-tour.*
>
> *Jérôme*
>
> C'est qu'aux États-Unis tu vas avoir une "voie" bitumée centrale, séparée
> par un trait continu, précédé par des zébras et des flèches de tourne à
> gauche (souvent dans les deux sens, alternativement !)
> https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-77.034168=38.895508=
> 19=2=mapnik=digitalglobe-premium=
> 
> (tu remarqueras que la carte est simple et lisible... sans cette surface).
>
> Comme Erwan je suis contre le passage en surfacique sur la voirie (sauf
> exception style parking) : c'est un réseau, on veut l'utiliser comme une
> carte pas comme une photo.
> L'exemple des péages est "bon" : ce qui compte c'est qu'il y a un péage.
> le détail des voies, un lane suffit et ça évite 10 "Autoroute Machintruc"
> barbouillant le péage (pourquoi mettre un nom sur chaque way ?).
>
> Jean-Yvon
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[Marián Kyral]

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Petr Vozdecký 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 21. 2. 2018 10:25:48
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )
"
Ahoj,
věnoval jsem se tomu chvíli a předkládám nějaké poznatky z pohledu "řadového
mappera":

- než jsem pochopil, co mám přesně dělat, navzdory popisu na Taskmanu jsem
tápal - pomohl mi až telefonát s Mirkem Suchým, nechápal jsem do té doby
některé nuance, např. že Taskman je jen na zabarvování čtverečků, že
porovnání v POI importeru je jen "jednosměrné" (viz níže) atp."



Asi se předpokládá, že o Taskmanu něco víš ;-)



"
- (jednosměrnost) v POI importeru vidím vizualizované jen ty schránky, které
jsou v externí datové sadě České pošty? Tedy pokud oni něco nemají a my ano,
je to nějak vizualizováno?"



Ano. POI-Importer funguje tak, že externí data jsou správně. Vizualizaci
dat, která v datasetu nejsou neumí (a asi by bylo trochu komplikované to tam
dopsat).

Nicméně plánuji přidat do statistik stránku s přehledem nespárovaných
schránek (jsou v OSM, ale nemají ref, nebo mají jiného operátora).




"
- v POI importeru jsem chvíli tápal a objevil jeden neduh - nalezl jsem
schránku, která se zprvu označí šedým špendlíkem a když se špendlíky
zabarví, tak tento zmizí (asi nemá definovanou barvu). V praxi tzn, že
nevidím všechny špendlíky (zmizí mi před očima a nevím, které to byly) - viz
http://osm.kyralovi.cz/POI-Importer-testing/#map=18/49.1881/16.5363
=CZECPbox=hideCompletePOI
"



zodpovězeno dříve, hint: hideCompletePOI


 
"- údaj collection_times=* lze do OSM zadat buď jako údaj uvedený v jejich
databázi, nebo údaj uvedený na schránce. Z nějakého důvodu je na schránkách
uveden daleko přesnější čas (např. pro celou část města je uveden v databázi
jednotný čas - nejspíše čas, kdy pošťák začne schránky objíždět, např. 16:
00, ale na jednotlivých schránkách je např. 17:02). Který čas je pro nás
"správnější" pro uvedení do OSM?
"



Asi ten co je na schránce. Jenže pak to začne házet rozdíly :-(

Výhledově by asi bylo fajn, kdyby si toto ČP zpřesnila. Ale oni zatím ani
nemají všechny souřadnice :-D




"- údaje o adresách a poznámky jsou v DB pošty docela zajímavé - nebylo by k
něčemu, přebírat do OSM i ty poznámky? Jde často o upřesnění, které může
pomoci schránku nalézt (stojan u zastávky MHD apod.)"



Taky jsem už nad tím uvažoval, mohlo by se to dát jako text do klíče
description=*. Již propojené schránky můžeme aktualizovat hromadně.




Jak to vidí ostatní?



"
-
- při projití ca 5-10 schránek jsem prakticky u každé nalezl nějaký rozdíl v
externích datech ČP a datech OSM. Nevím, jak detailně a jak efektivně toto
"hlásit". Píšu to do mailu, do teď jsem s tím vším strávil ca 1,5 hod a
přišlo mi to značně neefektivní... Dělám to vlastně dvakrát (jednou do OSM
dat a jednou do mailu) a navíc se ty poznámky od různých mapperů jistě budou
jevit asi značně nesourodě...
"



Možná bys je mohl zapsat do tagu "note=*" spolu s fixme=* a pak by se to
dalo hromadně exportovat z databáze.

Případně můžeme vymyslet nějaké lepší tagovací schéma.




Marián



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

Re: [Talk-il] Hebrew maps for Garmin

[Safwat Halaby]

On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 01:51 +0300, Dov Ber Ackerman wrote:
> Hello I am trying to find an updated map of Israel for a Garmin
> device for
> a friend, but they are all in English so the hebrew search does not
> work.!!
> Are there any recently (last 2 years etc.) updated maps for Israel
> that
> would work or can be converted to an .img file?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Dov Ber
> ___
> Talk-il mailing list
> Talk-il@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-il


I would advice using the forum, it is much more active and you are more
likely to get a reply: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id
=33

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

Re: [Talk-il] Hebrew maps for Garmin

[Ben Katz]

Did you try http://openmtbmap.org?

On 6 Feb 2018, 00:51 +0200, Dov Ber Ackerman , wrote:
> Hello I am trying to find an updated map of Israel for a Garmin device for a 
> friend, but they are all in English so the hebrew search does not work.!! Are 
> there any recently (last 2 years etc.) updated maps for Israel that would 
> work or can be converted to an .img file?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Dov Ber
> ___
> Talk-il mailing list
> Talk-il@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-il
___
Talk-il mailing list
Talk-il@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-il

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[majka]

Několik poznámek ode mě:

U schránek, které jsem zadávala, tam obvykle je přidaná "*note*". Jen tam
nejsou jen poznámky pošty, ale občas i moje poznámka k umístění. Vše to
vychází z loňského roku, kdy ještě nebyly ref, ale zjistila jsem, že se to
v datech hodí, pokud se k tomu někdy v budoucnu vrátím. Předpokládám, že
postupem času ty poznámky přestanou být tak důležité, a budou stačit jen u
problematických míst.
Dokonce jsem začala přidávat i *source:collection_times* ve stejném
formátu, jako má POI-importer, tedy v této chvíli CP:201802. Tohle zase
vychází z toho, že kdykoli jsem myslela, že je hotovo, pošta ty výběry
změnila, a potřebovala jsem odlišit, zda už jsem se ke schránce dostala se
změnou či nikoli. Teď to chvíli drží, poslední výrazná změna bylo zrušení
sobotního a nedělního výběru u většiny schránek, jinak zřejmě dochází jen k
optimalizacím trasy.

*Doba výběru*:
Přesnost na schránce, stejně jako u každého jiného údaje jak v tom souboru,
tak i u všech údajů napsaných na schránce záleží na depu. Já jsem u
schránek, které jsem fyzicky navštívila, nenašla rozdíly žádné, ale ten
soubor pošty je opravdu viditelně závislý na tom, jaké depo jako část
zpracovává. "Naši" pošťáci poctivě vytiskli nové cedulky a na schránkách je
vždy mění při jakékoli změně. Dokonce vím i o tom, že existuje kontrola
toho, že schránku opravdu vybrali v daný den kdy měli.

*Umístění* a posuny:
Pozor, všimla jsem si, že to geokódování na pár místech výrazně ujelo
(předpokládám, že vzalo jinou obec se stejným názvem). Pořád ještě to
považuji za věc, se kterou se musí počítat a která se časem srovná, ale bez
chyb to jednoznačně není. Je to vidět, pokud se z dat vybere celé depo a
nechá zobrazit třeba v JOSM. Například u depa Jindřichův Hradec jsou asi 3
schránky "mimo prostor". Problém je, že nejlépe viditelné je to opravdu až
při zobrazení pozic na mapě, což málokdo dělá... Předpokládám, že to opět
bude problém u konkrétních dep (na konci celé akce už jsem to měla lépe
ošetřené).

*Rušení schránek:*
Další věc, kterou Marián v přehledu má, ale kterou jsme víc neprobírali.
Pošta docela hodně ruší schránky a v datech jsem si toho všimla až mezi
únorem a lednem 2018. Takže v datech OSM má nyní ode mě několik schránek
fixme="ověřit existenci", kde tento stav předpokládám. Jsou to schránky,
které ještě loni bez problémů fungovaly, a nyní v datech ČP nejsou. Ty
schránky jsou samozřejmě viditelné jak na Streetview, tak i na Seznam
Panorama. Druhá věc je, jestli v budoucnu chceme "od stolu" rušit schránky,
kde to vyplyne z těch souborů České pošty.
Navíc je v datech pošty několik "*dočasně*" zrušených schránek, na
některých místech je tento dočasný stav už zhruba rok. Naproti tomu v
datech pošty chybí několik *sezónních schránek*, kde nejsem přesvědčená o
tom, že skutečně došlo ke zrušení a pozná se to až v létě. Jak zacházet s
tímhle v datech OSM, opravdu netuším - tedy pokud někdo z nás není, resp. v
létě nebude natolik blízko, aby to mohl ověřit na místě.

Majka

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Hiérarchie des relations d’itinéraire cyclistes

[Axelos]

Coucou tous le monde,

Pour information j'ai ajouté du contenu sur la page du wiki dédié à ce
sujet.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hierarchies_route%3Dbicycle

J'ai également retrouvé un texte à ce sujet qui existe depuis plusieurs
années, mais aucune explication pratique donc ouf ! ma page ne fait pas
doublon :) C'est aussi partiellement traduit sur la page FR.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Multiple_routes_sharing_the_same_ways

J'ai repris en compte les retours; sauf je dois l'avouer, le retrait de
state=proposed :)
Cependant le chapitre "notes" reste assez vagues, je pense changer le
titre pour quelque chose de plus progressif, "Possibilités" par exemple,
c’est-à-dire que les sujets qui y sont traitées ne font pas vraiment
partie du concept hiérarchie tel que proposé au départ, mais sont des
idées d’améliorations à introduire.

Axel.

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

Re: [Talk-es] Importación de Catastro. Uso del Callejero Digital Unificado de Andalucía

[dcapillae]

Gracias, Javier.

Nos vendrá bien conocer el número de edificios por municipio para
planificarnos.

He pensado en sugerir a otros contribuidores que usen como fuente para la
revisión del callejero de los pueblos de la provincia los mapas del IECA.
Tenemos autorización [1] para usar la información del Callejero Digital de
Andalucía Unificado (CDAU) [2] e incorporar esa información al mapa, así que
doy por hecho que podemos usarla libremente. Imagino que no habrá problemas.
El tema se trató hace tiempo en la lista de correo [3].

En los proyectos de Totalán y Colmenar no he usado esta fuente de
información porque no me acordaba que podíamos usarla. Cuando se complete la
incorporación de edificios en Totalán y Colmenar, volveré a revisar el
callejero por si se puede completar alguna calle con #1calle1nombre.


[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Autorizaci%C3%B3n_del_IECA_para_la_incorporaci%C3%B3n_de_datos_del_CDAU_a_OpenStreetMap.png
[2] http://www.callejerodeandalucia.es/
[3]
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Uso-de-los-datos-del-CDAU-en-OSM-td5895566.html



-
Daniel Capilla
OSM user: dcapillae 
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Spain-f5409873.html

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

[Talk-lt] Karo laikų vokiečių ortofoto

[Paulius Zaleckas]

Šiuo metu sakė sukelta 600 kadrų iš 17000. Neužilgo bus daugiau.

https://lcva.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingSwipe/index.html?appid=55427117cc974807abf0f99af0487144

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles

[David Marchal]

Bonjour.


Pour avoir déjà cherché comment faire, je peux te dire que le problème 
principal est de donner les limites de ces zones : comme la limite en est floue 
car non définie avec certitude – on ne peut dire avec certitude, surtout sur 
les bordures, que tel endroit en fait partie et tel autre, non –, on ne peut 
pas les modéliser. Si tu as une source disant que la région, par exemple, 
inclut uniquement telles communes, tu peux modéliser, mais justement, ces 
sources sont généralement inexistantes ou contradictoires, donc, sans bases 
fiables, impossible de modéliser. Autant que je sache, quand c’est flou, on ne 
modélise pas.


Cordialement.


De : djakk djakk 
Envoyé : mercredi 21 février 2018 20:01
À : Discussions sur OSM en français
Objet : [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles

Re-salut,

une question sur le sujet des zones géographiques : comment tagguer celles qui 
sont « informelles » (non-administratives), dont la limite est floue : la 
vallée de la Vésubie, la corniche de Pail, la Beauce ...
On retrouve trace de ces noms dans la presse locale.


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

Re: [Talk-es] Importación de Catastro. Uso del Callejero Digital Unificado de Andalucía

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

Teniendo la autorización me parece fantástico. Añade en la descripción que
de puede usar esa capa y la url del wms. Se podría solicitar que se añada
como fuente de datos en JOSM.

El 22 feb. 2018 11:07, "dcapillae"  escribió:

> Gracias, Javier.
>
> Nos vendrá bien conocer el número de edificios por municipio para
> planificarnos.
>
> He pensado en sugerir a otros contribuidores que usen como fuente para la
> revisión del callejero de los pueblos de la provincia los mapas del IECA.
> Tenemos autorización [1] para usar la información del Callejero Digital de
> Andalucía Unificado (CDAU) [2] e incorporar esa información al mapa, así
> que
> doy por hecho que podemos usarla libremente. Imagino que no habrá
> problemas.
> El tema se trató hace tiempo en la lista de correo [3].
>
> En los proyectos de Totalán y Colmenar no he usado esta fuente de
> información porque no me acordaba que podíamos usarla. Cuando se complete
> la
> incorporación de edificios en Totalán y Colmenar, volveré a revisar el
> callejero por si se puede completar alguna calle con #1calle1nombre.
>
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Autorizaci%C3%
> B3n_del_IECA_para_la_incorporaci%C3%B3n_de_datos_
> del_CDAU_a_OpenStreetMap.png
> [2] http://www.callejerodeandalucia.es/
> [3]
> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Uso-de-los-datos-del-CDAU-
> en-OSM-td5895566.html
>
>
>
> -
> Daniel Capilla
> OSM user: dcapillae
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Spain-f5409873.html
>
> ___
> Talk-es mailing list
> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] une ou deux way ? 2 ways s'il y a un obstacle.

[Jérôme Seigneuret]

Les surfaces c'est pas forcément simple (double représentation ducoup) et
ok pour les carrefours d'ailleurs concernant la circulation à double sens
sur un carrefour avec feu et voie principale à sens unique, j'ai du
supprimer la partie en sens unique.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/557610710


Le 21 février 2018 à 18:52, Erwan Salomon  a écrit :

> de prime abord j’aurais tendance à utiliser pour ce genre de cas :
> traffic_calming=island
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:traffic_calming%3Disland
> à ajouter sur une portion du way
> sans doute à compléter avec des interdictions de tourner à gauche à
> certains carrefours
> voir juste un passage piéton avec la précision crossing=island
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing
>
> sinon un rendu qui prendrait en compte lanes=# pour dessiner la largeur
> des highway ça serait pas mal aussi
> ça donnerait un rendu plus proche de la réalité et qui limiterait l’envie
> de passer en surfacique (qui me semble une mauvaise option proche du tag
> pour le rendu)
> ça rendrait aussi les transition sur les séparation de chemin plus
> esthétiques notamment dans les cas comme cette « Route de la Reine »
>
> Le 21 févr. 2018 à 14:45, Thomas Ruchin  a écrit :
>
> Attention, ce n'est pas si évident que cela. Quand on le pratique de
> manière jusqu'au boutiste, cela donne des résultats bizarres
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=48.83928=2.24425#
> map=18/48.83928/2.24425
> Pour ceux qui connaissent le secteur, heureusement que le Boulevard de
> Magenta à Paris n'est pas cartographié selon la même manière que la Route
> de la Reine à Boulogne
>
> Comme le rappelle Christian, le principal objectif d'avoir des voies
> séparées dans OSM est l'aide au routage. Si la chaussée est la même, il
> faut se poser la question de la pertinence de scinder la voie.
>
> Thomas Ruchin
>
> Le 21 février 2018 à 12:21, Cyrille37 OSM  a
> écrit :
>
>> Le 21/02/2018 à 10:28, Christian Quest a écrit :
>>
>>> Pour moi tout ce qui oblige à faire un choix de passer "à gauche ou à
>>> droite" (donc routage) est un obstacle.
>>> Une bande réservée au stationnement est aussi pour moi un obstacle vu
>>> qu'on va devoir choisir par où passer.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] recherche autorisation pour ortho Bordeaux et Languedoc-Roussillon

[Vincent Bergeot]

Le 22/02/2018 à 13:35, marc marc a écrit :

Bonjour,

je continue la remise en ordre des couches eli/iD <> josm
Pour 2 couches, je ne trouve pas la mention de la licence permettant de
l'utiliser dans osm :
Bordeaux 2016 (ajout anonyme dans josm il y a 5 mois)


est ce que cela t'aide : https://data.bordeaux-metropole.fr/?new=117309

et la licence : https://data.bordeaux-metropole.fr/license




Languedoc-Roussillon 2012 (ajout par Ptigrouick dans josm il y a 3 ans)

Si quelqu'un a l'info :)

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



--
Vincent Bergeot


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] recherche autorisation pour ortho Bordeaux et Languedoc-Roussillon

[Vincent Bergeot]

Le 22/02/2018 à 13:35, marc marc a écrit :

Bonjour,

je continue la remise en ordre des couches eli/iD <> josm
Pour 2 couches, je ne trouve pas la mention de la licence permettant de
l'utiliser dans osm :
Bordeaux 2016 (ajout anonyme dans josm il y a 5 mois)
Languedoc-Roussillon 2012 (ajout par Ptigrouick dans josm il y a 3 ans)


sans doute obsolète surtout ?
http://geocatalogue.siglr.org/geonetwork/srv/fr/metadata.show?uuid=4531ef8b-ae5e-4915-9af0-6419b737d47d

je ne suis pas sur de tout bien comprendre mais je dirais que le 2016 
est disponible ?


à plus







Si quelqu'un a l'info :)

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



--
Vincent Bergeot


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

Re: [Talk-ec] Mejoras a la red de carreteras en Ecuador

[Daniel Orellana]

Hola Andrew.

Te comento que hemos encontrado algunos problemas en las ediciones que está
haciendo tu equipo, en particular el usuario TyFly. He detectado que varias
calles en la ciudad de Cuenca se han cambiado las etiquetas
injustificadamente

Ej 1: Calle sucre es residential y se ha cambiado a tertiary
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337277984

Ej 2: Calle Roberto Crespo Toral es Secondary y se ha cambiado a tertiary.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42143234

Por favor indica a tu equipo que revierta estos cambios y que consulte acá
antes de realizar este tipo de cambios ya que nos ha costado mucho tiempo
llegar a consensos.

Una ayuda muy importante para nosotros sería si se puede extender el
trabajo que están haciendo sobre building footprints a Ecuador.


Saludos
Daniel.

___
Daniel Orellana, PhD.
Profesor Principal
Universidad de Cuenca

>> Consulta mi agenda

>> Publicaciones en Google Scholar

>> Perfil en ResearchGate

>> Investigación en LlactaLAB 
>> Investigación en iDRHICA


2018-02-05 13:56 GMT-05:00 Andrew Wiseman :

> Muchas gracias Daniel y Miriam por la información y documents. Se ven muy
> útiles.
>
> Saludos,
>
> Andrew
>
> Andrew Wiseman |  Maps | andrew_wise...@apple.com
>
> APPLE CONFIDENTIAL
> This message (including attachments if any) is for the private use of the
> addressee only and may contain confidential or privileged information. If
> you have received this message by mistake please notify the sender by
> return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your system.
> Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this message, and any attachments
> in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2018, at 12:26 PM, Gonzales, Miriam - (p) 
> wrote:
>
> Hola Daniel + Andrew
>
> Espero se encuentren muy bien, qué gusto saludarlos y saber que el equipo
> de Apple Maps está colaborando en la mejora de los datos en LATAM. Les
> comparto un par de documentos para que puedan ver los avances en Ecuador
> hemos tomado miles de kilómetros de imágenes con OpenStreetCam además de
> que nuestro Mapping Team ha estado trabajando en la mejora de los datos de
> calles y carreteras. Los retos principales a los que nos seguimos
> enfrentando es cómo agregar los nombres de las calles y los POIs
>
> Presentación de Avances en Ecuador
> https://www.slideshare.net/MiriamGonzalez49/mejorando-datos-
> de-caminos-y-carreteras-usando-openstreetcam
>
> Captura de Imágenes en Ecuador con OpenStreetCam
> http://www.openstreetcam.org/map/@-1.8541685045484668,-79.19
> 714368879796,8z
>
> Saludos y gracias,
>
> M
>
> *From:* Daniel Orellana [mailto:daniel.orell...@ucuenca.edu.ec
> ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 1, 2018 5:55 AM
> *To:* OpenStreetMap Ecuador 
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ec] Mejoras a la red de carreteras en Ecuador
>
> Hola Andrew.
>
> Bienvenido a la comunidad OSM de Ecuador. Que bien que puedan sumarse a
> los esfuerzos para mejorar el mapa de Ecuador. Aunque la comunidad no es
> muy grande, somos algunos contribuyentes que estamos pendientes de lo que
> se puede hacer.
>
> Los problemas más frecuentes en el mapa de Ecuador son (probablemente en
> ese orden):
>
> 1. Completar vías terciarias / unclassified, principalmente fuera de zonas
> urbanas.
> 2. Consistencia topológica en las vías dentro de zonas urbanas.
> 3. Elementos importantes para la movilidad no motorizada (peatones y
> bicicletas) tales como aceras, andenes, pasos peatonales, ciclovías, etc.
>
> También te comento que la empresa TELNAV ha estado colaborando también en
> el mapa desde hace algunos meses.
>
>
> Saludos cordiales,
>
> daniel.
>
>
> ___
> Daniel Orellana, PhD.
> Profesor Principal
> Universidad de Cuenca
>
> >> Consulta mi agenda
> 
> >> Publicaciones en Google Scholar
> 
> >> Perfil en ResearchGate
> 
> >> Investigación en LlactaLAB
> 

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[Miroslav Suchy]

Dne 22.2.2018 v 10:15 majka napsal(a):
> Navíc je v datech pošty několik "*dočasně*" zrušených schránek, na některých 
> místech je tento dočasný stav už zhruba
> rok. Naproti tomu v datech pošty chybí několik *sezónních schránek*, kde


V Brně byla jedna taková v Obřanech, kde byla na fasádě, kde se dělalo 
zateplení. A myslím, že to bylo skoro rok. Já
bych tyhle dočasné nevyhazoval.

Mirek

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[Jan Dudík]

Depo nemusí nutně znamenat okres.
např.
17704 Depo Praha 704  má
v seznamu schránky nejen na území Prahy, ale i okresů Praha-západ, Beroun a
dokonce i jednu z okresu Příbram.
28400 Kutná Hora LD II  má
v seznamu jedinou schránku
37271 Depo České Budějovice 71
 má i část okresů %Ceský
Krumlov, Prachatice a Jindřichův Hradec

atd.


JAnD
---
Ing. Jan Dudík
projekce dopravních staveb
tel. 777082195

Dne 22. února 2018 12:55 Petr Vozdecký  napsal(a):

> ...no a proc to POI importer posadil do Brna-města na ulici Boří? Když
> hledá Bor, Brno-venkov... To je celé nějak špatně, velmi špatně. Existuje
> autobusová zastávka Bor-rozcestí a to velmi teoreticky na území JM kraje v
> okrese Brno-venkov a navíc co by kamenem dohodil od Nedvědice i od obce
> Bor. Ale rozhodně to nevybírá pošta 60010 (nebo to je údaj, který jsi
> dogeneroval dodatečně?) a na streetview
> 
> tam schranka neni. Je ale v nedaleke obci Bor u autobusove zastavky v obci (
> streetview
> ),
> ale to uz urcite neni Brno-venkov. Leda bychom pripustili, ze to vybira
> posta z Nedvedice, ktera je principialne Brno-venkov (coz by byl zajimavy
> poznatek, ze udaj Brno-venkov nemusi znamenat to, ze se ta posta na uzemi
> Brno-venkov nachazi). A bude to asi ona, protoze tam fyzicky je a v POI
> importeru ji v Boru
> 
> nevidim...
>
> To je ale siiilena detektivka... jak postupovat? Dovozovat takto prisne
> logicky? Co dal? jen to predat "pani z posty" pres Mirka? Bylo by ale
> vhodne k tomu dat zapis do note=*, ktery by se ale mel zobrazit i v tabulce
> POI importeru, aby se mapperi porad nedivili cervenemu spendliku... Protoze
> kdyz venuje nekdo takovy cas patrani, at to ma nejakou odezvu v POI
> importeru, ktera usetri cas dalsim mapperum... :)
>
> vop
>
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

[Talk-cz] Taginfo CZ

[Tom Ka]

Po upravach hostingu/domen apod prestalo fungovat proxy na
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.cz/.
Michale, bylo by mozne se na to podivat a obnovit provoz?

Diky

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles

[Philippe Verdy]

l'idée seraitr d'avoir un tag dérivé de boundary pour indiquer que la
limite polygonale n'est pas précise, juste estimée, ou un tag donnant un
seuil de tolérance (une distance de tampon autour de la limite donnée...,
et sinon au pire ne taguer qu'un noued avec l'indication d'un rayon, mais
l'objet sera difficile à trouver dans la base par une recherche géographique

On a des cas de frontières floues avec les baies maritimes exemple : Golfe
de Gascogne

Le 22 février 2018 à 11:36, David Marchal  a écrit :

> Bonjour.
>
>
> Pour avoir déjà cherché comment faire, je peux te dire que le problème
> principal est de donner les limites de ces zones : comme la limite en est
> floue car non définie avec certitude – on ne peut dire avec certitude,
> surtout sur les bordures, que tel endroit en fait partie et tel autre, non
> –, on ne peut pas les modéliser. Si tu as une source disant que la région,
> par exemple, inclut uniquement telles communes, tu peux modéliser, mais
> justement, ces sources sont généralement inexistantes ou contradictoires,
> donc, sans bases fiables, impossible de modéliser. Autant que je sache,
> quand c’est flou, on ne modélise pas.
>
>
> Cordialement.
>
> --
> *De :* djakk djakk 
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 21 février 2018 20:01
> *À :* Discussions sur OSM en français
> *Objet :* [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles
>
> Re-salut,
>
> une question sur le sujet des zones géographiques : comment tagguer celles
> qui sont « informelles » (non-administratives), dont la limite est floue :
> la vallée de la Vésubie, la corniche de Pail, la Beauce ...
> On retrouve trace de ces noms dans la presse locale.
>
>
> djakk
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles

[Francescu GAROBY]

À défaut de frontières bien définies, un node, placé à peu près au centre
de la zone concernée, ça n'irait pas ?

Francescu


Le 22 février 2018 à 12:29, Philippe Verdy  a écrit :

> Ne pas taguer est pire que tout. Les limites comunales africaine sont
> souvent estimées et ne rien mettrre veut dire qu'on ne trouvera pas du tout
> ces communes.
> Je pense qu'on doit pouvoir tracer tout en indiquant la marge
> d'incertitude. Même chose concernant les frontières entre les émirats
> arabes (la limite est floue aussi, c'est une frontière naturelle non
> matérialisée, le désert) pourtant il y a besoin d'en faire un type
> "boundary=adminsitrative".
>
> Là encore on doit pouvoir s'en sortie en traçant un polygone estimatif et
> ajoutant un tag d'incertitude. Idem pour les extensions des glaciers : ne
> rien mettre veut dire ne pas faire figurer le glacier du tout, ce qui est
> pire que de le représenter avec une limite estimative.
>
> Après on doit faire un choix de rendu pour que ces frontières soient aussi
> rendues comme floues (dans la limite de l'incertitude donnée en distance
> autour du chemin). Les recherches par Nominatim devraient alors trouver ces
> objets.
>
>
> Le 22 février 2018 à 11:36, David Marchal  a écrit :
>
>> Bonjour.
>>
>>
>> Pour avoir déjà cherché comment faire, je peux te dire que le problème
>> principal est de donner les limites de ces zones : comme la limite en est
>> floue car non définie avec certitude – on ne peut dire avec certitude,
>> surtout sur les bordures, que tel endroit en fait partie et tel autre, non
>> –, on ne peut pas les modéliser. Si tu as une source disant que la région,
>> par exemple, inclut uniquement telles communes, tu peux modéliser, mais
>> justement, ces sources sont généralement inexistantes ou contradictoires,
>> donc, sans bases fiables, impossible de modéliser. Autant que je sache,
>> quand c’est flou, on ne modélise pas.
>>
>>
>> Cordialement.
>>
>> --
>> *De :* djakk djakk 
>> *Envoyé :* mercredi 21 février 2018 20:01
>> *À :* Discussions sur OSM en français
>> *Objet :* [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles
>>
>> Re-salut,
>>
>> une question sur le sujet des zones géographiques : comment tagguer
>> celles qui sont « informelles » (non-administratives), dont la limite est
>> floue : la vallée de la Vésubie, la corniche de Pail, la Beauce ...
>> On retrouve trace de ces noms dans la presse locale.
>>
>>
>> djakk
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles

[Philippe Verdy]

Un node est introuvable sur une carte, impossible à représenter quel que
soit le niveau de zoom... On doit pouvoir tracer quelquechose estimatif
donnant une idée correcte de l'étendue (j'ai donné l'exemple des communes
africaines ou des frontières terrestres des émirats ou les baies maritimes,
on ne s'en sort pas du tout avec un simple noeud. On peut donner d'autres
exemples avec les massifs montagneux.
Cela concerne autant les boundary=* (même administrative), natural=*,
water=*
Un tag supplémentaire devrait être défini et le moteur de rendu devrait
pouvoir s'adapter pour ne pas tracer un trait trop marqué comme absolu.
Pour les frontières administratives, le rendu serait des tirets discontinus
suffisamment espacés.

Le 22 février 2018 à 12:32, Francescu GAROBY  a écrit :

> À défaut de frontières bien définies, un node, placé à peu près au centre
> de la zone concernée, ça n'irait pas ?
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[Petr Vozdecký]

Pises "do statistik". Bylo by asi efektivnejsi generovat "rozdilovy soubor",
tedy v tomto pripade seznam schranek, ktere jsou v OSM a ktere nejsou zatim
naparovany. Tyto zobrazovat v POI importeru jako samostatnou vrstvu. Tim 
bych totiz asi jako mapper zacal, protoze mam vetsi duveru v geografickou 
presnost techto dat... A k temto datum bych v prvni rade dohledaval
"zatolulane" schranky z dat CP...


-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Marián Kyral 
""- (jednosměrnost) v POI importeru vidím vizualizované jen ty schránky,
které jsou v externí datové sadě České pošty? Tedy pokud oni něco nemají a
my ano, je to nějak vizualizováno?"



Ano. POI-Importer funguje tak, že externí data jsou správně. Vizualizaci
dat, která v datasetu nejsou neumí (a asi by bylo trochu komplikované to tam
dopsat).

Nicméně plánuji přidat do statistik stránku s přehledem nespárovaných
schránek (jsou v OSM, ale nemají ref, nebo mají jiného operátora).





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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles

[Philippe Verdy]

Ne pas taguer est pire que tout. Les limites comunales africaine sont
souvent estimées et ne rien mettrre veut dire qu'on ne trouvera pas du tout
ces communes.
Je pense qu'on doit pouvoir tracer tout en indiquant la marge
d'incertitude. Même chose concernant les frontières entre les émirats
arabes (la limite est floue aussi, c'est une frontière naturelle non
matérialisée, le désert) pourtant il y a besoin d'en faire un type
"boundary=adminsitrative".

Là encore on doit pouvoir s'en sortie en traçant un polygone estimatif et
ajoutant un tag d'incertitude. Idem pour les extensions des glaciers : ne
rien mettre veut dire ne pas faire figurer le glacier du tout, ce qui est
pire que de le représenter avec une limite estimative.

Après on doit faire un choix de rendu pour que ces frontières soient aussi
rendues comme floues (dans la limite de l'incertitude donnée en distance
autour du chemin). Les recherches par Nominatim devraient alors trouver ces
objets.


Le 22 février 2018 à 11:36, David Marchal  a écrit :

> Bonjour.
>
>
> Pour avoir déjà cherché comment faire, je peux te dire que le problème
> principal est de donner les limites de ces zones : comme la limite en est
> floue car non définie avec certitude – on ne peut dire avec certitude,
> surtout sur les bordures, que tel endroit en fait partie et tel autre, non
> –, on ne peut pas les modéliser. Si tu as une source disant que la région,
> par exemple, inclut uniquement telles communes, tu peux modéliser, mais
> justement, ces sources sont généralement inexistantes ou contradictoires,
> donc, sans bases fiables, impossible de modéliser. Autant que je sache,
> quand c’est flou, on ne modélise pas.
>
>
> Cordialement.
>
> --
> *De :* djakk djakk 
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 21 février 2018 20:01
> *À :* Discussions sur OSM en français
> *Objet :* [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles
>
> Re-salut,
>
> une question sur le sujet des zones géographiques : comment tagguer celles
> qui sont « informelles » (non-administratives), dont la limite est floue :
> la vallée de la Vésubie, la corniche de Pail, la Beauce ...
> On retrouve trace de ces noms dans la presse locale.
>
>
> djakk
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[Petr Vozdecký]

...tedy primarni vlastnost pro parovani (situace, kdy POIimporter vi, co 
chce v tabulce porovnavat) je vzdalenost? Hraje tam nejakou roli ref=*?

vop

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Marián Kyral 
""
další dotaz - kde je chyba, pokud je údaj v externí databázi shodný s údaji
v OSM a přesto to POI importer nechce napárovat?

viz:
http://osm.kyralovi.cz/POI-Importer-testing/#map=17/49.1936/16.5671
=CZECPbox=hideCompletePOI
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4782741021
"



POI-Importer má nastaveno, jak daleko má ty schránky hledat. Tahle je moc
daleko. Spáruje se až po aktualizaci souřadnic schránek z OSM. To ale zatím
nemám automatizováno a teď jsem na to dva dny neměl čas :-(





Ale je trochu zvláštní, že ani po mnoha hodinách není na mapě vykreslena
ikona schránky. Přitom místa je tam dost.




Marián

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[Petr Vozdecký]

...no a proc to POI importer posadil do Brna-města na ulici Boří? Když hledá
Bor, Brno-venkov... To je celé nějak špatně, velmi špatně. Existuje
autobusová zastávka Bor-rozcestí a to velmi teoreticky na území JM kraje v
okrese Brno-venkov a navíc co by kamenem dohodil od Nedvědice i od obce Bor.
Ale rozhodně to nevybírá pošta 60010 (nebo to je údaj, který jsi dogeneroval
dodatečně?) a na streetview
(https://www.google.cz/maps/@49.4459742,16.287831,3a,75y,77.9h,85.33t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1smh-thZKGD8R50VRne_SE9g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dmh-thZKGD8R50VRne_SE9g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D34.02659%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i32?hl=cs)
tam schranka neni. Je ale v nedaleke obci Bor u autobusove zastavky v obci (
streetview
(https://www.google.cz/maps/@49.4382377,16.2893575,3a,75y,46.49h,91.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVkceOMRRwcuO1U0MZpQgnQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DVkceOMRRwcuO1U0MZpQgnQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D331.53705%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=cs)
), ale to uz urcite neni Brno-venkov. Leda bychom pripustili, ze to vybira
posta z Nedvedice, ktera je principialne Brno-venkov (coz by byl zajimavy 
poznatek, ze udaj Brno-venkov nemusi znamenat to, ze se ta posta na uzemi 
Brno-venkov nachazi). A bude to asi ona, protoze tam fyzicky je a v POI 
importeru ji v Boru
(http://osm.kyralovi.cz/POI-Importer-testing/#map=15/49.4381/16.2885=CZECPbox)
nevidim...

To je ale siiilena detektivka... jak postupovat? Dovozovat takto prisne 
logicky? Co dal? jen to predat "pani z posty" pres Mirka? Bylo by ale vhodne
k tomu dat zapis do note=*, ktery by se ale mel zobrazit i v tabulce POI
importeru, aby se mapperi porad nedivili cervenemu spendliku... Protoze kdyz
venuje nekdo takovy cas patrani, at to ma nejakou odezvu v POI importeru, 
ktera usetri cas dalsim mapperum... :)

vop

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Marián Kyral 
Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 22. 2. 2018 7:16:48
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )
"Dne 21.2.2018 v 18:09 Petr Vozdecký napsal(a):
> ...dotaz - toto je nějaká chyba?
>
> https://ulozto.cz/!dcciRBZSNda6/quickmemo-2018-02-21-18-03-22-png
>
> http://osm.kyralovi.cz/POI-Importer-testing/#map=18/49.2870/16.6360;
datasets=CZECPbox
>
> bod se z pohledu hodnoty ref tvari, ze tam patri, z pohledu poznamky, ze
tam je uplne omylem. Bod je v mistni casti Utechov v Brne a
> odkazuje na obec Nedvedice... V Nedvedici by ale takove ref rozhodne
nebylo...

Ahoj,
trochu jsem znejistěl, ale nakonec to vypadá na chybu v datech ČP:

60012;Depo Brno 73;67autobusová zastávka,
Bor;Nedvědice;Nedvědice;Brno-venkov;08:15;1-5 - pracovní dny (pondělí až
pátek)

Jaký je skutečný stav, asi budeš muset zjistit sám ;-)

Marián


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[Petr Vozdecký]

...s evidentnimi BAD-DATA se peru v dalsim pripade - POI importer (resp. 
data Ceske posty) tvrdi, ze existuje schranka na adrese Libušina třída 3 v
Brně-Kohoutovicich (viz zde
(http://osm.kyralovi.cz/POI-Importer-testing/#map=18/49.1985/16.5339=CZECPbox)
). To je ale nesmysl, takové adresní místo neexistuje a poblíž místa, které
by se za takovou adresu dalo považovat (tedy geograficky mezi existujícími
adresními body s cislem orientacnim 1 a 9) je jina konkretni schranka. Cili
mam v Kohoutovicich jednu schranku navic a to i kdyz vezmu v uvahu otazku,
ze tam vsechny schranky znam a ze rozlozeni techto identifikovanych schranek
pokryva rovnomerne cele sidliste, tedy nejsem schopen ani tipnout, kde by 
mohla byt "skryta ve krovi"...

Mohlo by mi pomoci znat, jak ta data vypadaji ve zdroji a to i v kontextu s
jinymi daty (muze jit o data/adresu evidentne z jineho mesta) - dostanu se
ja jednoduse k tomu zdroji?

Dalsi cesty jak patrat me zatim nenapadaji - predpokladam, ze mail na postu
pres Mirka Sucheho bude mit jen odpoved "v datech to mame, asi to existuje,
rusit to v datech jen na zaklade vaseho podezreni nebudeme"... :)

vop

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Marián Kyral 
"
Ahoj,
trochu jsem znejistěl, ale nakonec to vypadá na chybu v datech ČP:

60012;Depo Brno 73;67autobusová zastávka,
Bor;Nedvědice;Nedvědice;Brno-venkov;08:15;1-5 - pracovní dny (pondělí až
pátek)

Jaký je skutečný stav, asi budeš muset zjistit sám ;-)

Marián

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

[OSM-talk-fr] recherche autorisation pour ortho Bordeaux et Languedoc-Roussillon

[marc marc]

Bonjour,

je continue la remise en ordre des couches eli/iD <> josm
Pour 2 couches, je ne trouve pas la mention de la licence permettant de 
l'utiliser dans osm :
Bordeaux 2016 (ajout anonyme dans josm il y a 5 mois)
Languedoc-Roussillon 2012 (ajout par Ptigrouick dans josm il y a 3 ans)

Si quelqu'un a l'info :)

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

Re: [Talk-lt] Karo laikų vokiečių ortofoto

[Darius Žitkevičius]

Super!!! :)

2018-02-22 11:44 GMT+02:00 Paulius Zaleckas :

> Šiuo metu sakė sukelta 600 kadrų iš 17000. Neužilgo bus daugiau.
>
> https://lcva.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingSwipe/index.html?appid=
> 55427117cc974807abf0f99af0487144
>
> ___
> Talk-lt mailing list
> Talk-lt@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lt
>



-- 
Darius Žitkevičius

Laimingas tas, kuris džiaugsmingai dirba ir džiaugiasi darbais, kuriuos
padarė. – J. V. Gėtė.
___
Talk-lt mailing list
Talk-lt@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lt

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles

[marc marc]

Bonjour,

soit un nœud au milieu
soit un polygone avec source:geometry=estimated pour une fois
sur l'objet

Cordialement,
Marc

Le 22. 02. 18 à 11:36, David Marchal a écrit :
> Bonjour.
> 
> 
> Pour avoir déjà cherché comment faire, je peux te dire que le problème 
> principal est de donner les limites de ces zones : comme la limite 
> en est floue car non définie avec certitude – on ne peut dire avec 
> certitude, surtout sur les bordures, que tel endroit en fait partie et 
> tel autre, non –, on ne peut pas les modéliser. Si tu as une source 
> disant que la région, par exemple, inclut uniquement telles communes, tu 
> peux modéliser, mais justement, ces sources sont généralement 
> inexistantes ou contradictoires, donc, sans bases fiables, impossible de 
> modéliser. Autant que je sache, quand c’est flou, on ne modélise pas.
> 
> 
> Cordialement.
> 
> 
> 
> *De :* djakk djakk 
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 21 février 2018 20:01
> *À :* Discussions sur OSM en français
> *Objet :* [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles
> Re-salut,
> 
> une question sur le sujet des zones géographiques : comment tagguer 
> celles qui sont « informelles » (non-administratives), dont la limite 
> est floue : la vallée de la Vésubie, la corniche de Pail, la Beauce ...
> On retrouve trace de ces noms dans la presse locale.
> 
> 
> djakk
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> 


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

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[majka]

Dovolím si odpovědět za Mariána:
hlavní problém je, že je třeba to párování aktualizovat, což se dva dny
nestalo, pokud chápu dobře.
V této chvíli se páruje se primárně přes ref, přes vzdálenost jen pokud už
ke spárování přes ref nedošlo.

Hlavní ale je: dokud nedojde k aktualizaci u Mariána, rozdíl tam zůstane.
Nestačí opravit data OSM.

Majka

2018-02-22 12:28 GMT+01:00 Petr Vozdecký :

> ...tedy primarni vlastnost pro parovani (situace, kdy POIimporter vi, co
> chce v tabulce porovnavat) je vzdalenost? Hraje tam nejakou roli ref=*?
>
> vop
>
>
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [Talk-cz] Schránky - statistiky (aka progress meter ;) )

[majka]

Opět se do toho vložím -* stačí číst:*
*POZOR:* Souřadnice jsou pouze *orientační*!
Přesné umístění nutno dohledat dle poznámky!

Tohle vychází z geokódování, a chyby tam jsou a budou.

*Správný postup:*
V tomhle konkrétním případě není problém pošty, ale můj (geokódování).

Jsou dvě možnosti:
1. vím jak to má být správně:
Zadám schránku do OSM, včetně všech informací, počkám, až se zaktualizuje.
Vzhledem k tomu, že u schránek, které jsou včetně ref v OSM se vezme
skutečná pozice, problém při příští aktualizaci odstraní

2. nevím, jak to má být správně, ale vím že TOHLE je blbě:
pošlu zprávu sem a někdo jiný se o to nějak postará

Ta data jsou veřejně přístupná, pokud Tě to zajímá, můžeš si je stáhnout

.

Fakt tu situaci komplikuješ mnohem víc, než to ve skutečnosti je. Pokud tě
zajímá přesný postup, napiš mi mimo list.

Majka


2018-02-22 12:55 GMT+01:00 Petr Vozdecký :

>
> To je ale siiilena detektivka... jak postupovat? Dovozovat takto prisne
> logicky? Co dal? jen to predat "pani z posty" pres Mirka? Bylo by ale
> vhodne k tomu dat zapis do note=*, ktery by se ale mel zobrazit i v tabulce
> POI importeru, aby se mapperi porad nedivili cervenemu spendliku... Protoze
> kdyz venuje nekdo takovy cas patrani, at to ma nejakou odezvu v POI
> importeru, ktera usetri cas dalsim mapperum... :)
>
>
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Zones géographiques informelles

[Francescu GAROBY]

Bien sûr que si, un node est trouvable sur une carte ! Sinon, on ne
pourrait pas trouver les commerces/numéros de rue/... quand on fait une
recherche !

Francescu

Le 22 février 2018 à 12:40, Philippe Verdy  a écrit :

> Un node est introuvable sur une carte, impossible à représenter quel que
> soit le niveau de zoom... On doit pouvoir tracer quelquechose estimatif
> donnant une idée correcte de l'étendue (j'ai donné l'exemple des communes
> africaines ou des frontières terrestres des émirats ou les baies maritimes,
> on ne s'en sort pas du tout avec un simple noeud. On peut donner d'autres
> exemples avec les massifs montagneux.
> Cela concerne autant les boundary=* (même administrative), natural=*,
> water=*
> Un tag supplémentaire devrait être défini et le moteur de rendu devrait
> pouvoir s'adapter pour ne pas tracer un trait trop marqué comme absolu.
> Pour les frontières administratives, le rendu serait des tirets discontinus
> suffisamment espacés.
>
> Le 22 février 2018 à 12:32, Francescu GAROBY  a écrit
> :
>
>> À défaut de frontières bien définies, un node, placé à peu près au centre
>> de la zone concernée, ça n'irait pas ?
>>
>>


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

[Talk-ec] Cambios en Cuenca

[Daniel Orellana]

Hola comunidad.

Les comento que el usuario TyFly ha estado realizando cambios en el mapa
Ecuador y algunos de ellos sin correspondencia a los esfuerzos de
normalización que hemos tenido en la comunidad.

Aquí copio el mensaje que le he enviado.

Hi Tyler!

Welcome to the Ecuador OSM project.

I've seen your last contributions for OSM Ecuador. Thanks for your help and
hope you will keep improving the map and participating on the community.

I realized you changed some highway tags in Cuenca for some reason without
the input of the local community.

Ej: Sucre and Bolivar streets are residential, no tertiary.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337277984#map=16/-2.8984/-79.0028

Would you please revert back your changes accordingly?  We've put a lot of
effort on keeping the map accurrate and following the local concensus.

At the same time, I invite you to participate on the talk-ec mailing list
and #mappingecuador channel on telegram to discuss any doubt you might have.

https://t.me/mappingEcuador
https://t.me/joinchat/AD5SAe4T9h195r8lmA

Best,

Daniel

(pd. You can reach me directly at daniel.orell...@ucuenca.edu.ec)
___
Daniel Orellana, PhD.
Profesor Principal
Universidad de Cuenca

>> Consulta mi agenda

>> Publicaciones en Google Scholar

>> Perfil en ResearchGate

>> Investigación en LlactaLAB 
>> Investigación en iDRHICA


-- 
Advertencia legal: 
Este mensaje y, en su caso, los archivos anexos son confidenciales, 
especialmente en lo que respecta a los datos personales, y se dirigen 
exclusivamente al destinatario referenciado. Si usted no lo es y lo ha 
recibido por error o tiene conocimiento del mismo por cualquier motivo, le 
rogamos que nos lo comunique por este medio y proceda a destruirlo o 
borrarlo, y que en todo caso se abstenga de utilizar, reproducir, alterar, 
archivar o comunicar a terceros el presente mensaje y ficheros anexos, todo 
ello bajo pena de incurrir en responsabilidades legales. Las opiniones 
contenidas en este mensaje y en los archivos adjuntos, pertenecen 
exclusivamente a su remitente y no representan la opinión de la Universidad 
de Cuenca salvo que se diga expresamente y el remitente esté autorizado 
para ello. El emisor no garantiza la integridad, rapidez o seguridad del 
presente correo, ni se responsabiliza de posibles perjuicios derivados de 
la captura, incorporaciones de virus o cualesquiera otras manipulaciones 
efectuadas por terceros.
___
Talk-ec mailing list
Talk-ec@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ec

[OSM-talk-fr] JOSM transfert des nœuds et pas des chemins

[Rpnpif]

Bonjour,

Je suis novice dans JOSM.
J'ai voulu importer des ruisseaux manquants sur une petite zone à titre
d'essai en veillant bien à ne pas écraser ceux existants et à partir de
la base nationale du Ministère de l'environnement.

J'avais bien la vision des waterway=stream sur tous les ways sous JOSM.
Tout était correct.
Mais dans OSM, je n'obtiens que les nœuds sans aucun way. Ils sont 
« secs » sans attributs autres que la source.

D'après vous, ai-je fait une fausse manipulation, oublié quelque chose
ou c'est un problème de JOSM (dernière version) ?

Je précise que JOSM a planté à un autre moment après un redémarrage
après mise en veille de mon système et pour lequel j'ai fait un ticket.
Je doute quand même qu'il y ait un lien.

Le changeset est ici ;
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56579562

Qu'en pensez-vous ?
-- 
Alain Rpnpif

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] JOSM transfert des nœuds et pas des chemins

[Francescu GAROBY]

Bonjour,
Je ne sais pas si le problème vient de JOSM qui a foiré l'upload, mais je
note que ton changeset n'a que des nodes. Aucune way n'a été uploadée !

Francescu

Le 22 février 2018 à 16:48, Rpnpif  a écrit :

> Bonjour,
>
> Je suis novice dans JOSM.
> J'ai voulu importer des ruisseaux manquants sur une petite zone à titre
> d'essai en veillant bien à ne pas écraser ceux existants et à partir de
> la base nationale du Ministère de l'environnement.
>
> J'avais bien la vision des waterway=stream sur tous les ways sous JOSM.
> Tout était correct.
> Mais dans OSM, je n'obtiens que les nœuds sans aucun way. Ils sont
> « secs » sans attributs autres que la source.
>
> D'après vous, ai-je fait une fausse manipulation, oublié quelque chose
> ou c'est un problème de JOSM (dernière version) ?
>
> Je précise que JOSM a planté à un autre moment après un redémarrage
> après mise en veille de mon système et pour lequel j'ai fait un ticket.
> Je doute quand même qu'il y ait un lien.
>
> Le changeset est ici ;
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56579562
>
> Qu'en pensez-vous ?
> --
> Alain Rpnpif
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>



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

[Talk-es] Maps, app libre en F-Droid basada en MAPS.ME

[Iván Hernández Cazorla]

Buenas,
Creo que el título lo dice todo. Me gustaría compartir con ustedes una 
aplicación que encontré hoy en F-Droid [0] y que fue publicada hace solo 
dos días. Se trata de Maps [1] y está basada en MAPS.ME [2], un servicio 
que se que muchos de ustedes también usan. Puede que les guste, ya que 
se trata de una versión más acorde a los principios de los proyectos en 
los que trabajamos, al menos desde mi punto de vista claro.


Yo suelo utilizar OsmAnd, también en F-Droid [3]. Pero quise probar esta 
para y comprobar qué tal funciona. De momento me he descargado el mapa 
mundi general, necesario para la app, y el mapa de Canarias, y parece 
que funciona bastante bien.


Lo dicho, se las dejo por si la quieren probar. Sobre todo para Miguel, 
que sé que, aunque creo que prefiere OsmAnd, seguro querrá probarla al 
ser una app FOSS [4].


Saludos,
Iván

[0]: repositorio de aplicaciones libres y de código abierto para 
Android: https://f-droid.org/en/about/

[1]: https://f-droid.org/packages/com.github.axet.maps/
[2]: https://maps.me/
[3]: https://f-droid.org/packages/net.osmand.plus/
[4]: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_libre_y_de_c%C3%B3digo_abierto
--
Iván Hernández Cazorla
Miembro de Wikimedia España

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] JOSM transfert des nœuds et pas des chemins

[marc marc]

Bonjour,

Le 22. 02. 18 à 16:48, Rpnpif a écrit :
> Je suis novice dans JOSM.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56579562
> Qu'en pensez-vous ?

Pour un premier changeset avec un nouvel éditeur,
je pense que tu as fais une modif trop gigantesque.
1 nœuds c'est la limite maxi pour un changeset

as-tu toujours ta modif dans josm ? si oui cela serra utile
pour comprendre car il peux y avoir plusieurs causes :
- soit c'est la limite des 1 qui t'a bloqué mais josm sait
qu'il y a encore des choses à envoyer. fait un test d'envois
sans envoyer (=annule avant l'envoi), cela te dira ce qu'il en est.
- tu peux aussi sélectionner un chemin et faire "menu fichier,
envoyer la sélection", cela te dira si josm considère qu'il faut 
l'envoyer ou pas.

Mais autres questions :
- comment as-tu fait pour utiliser le site web renseigné en source
pour créer des objets dans josm ?
si c'est un simple download de leur donnée et envoi dans osm, cela veu 
dire qu'il y a des doublons avec tout ce qui existe deja dans osm
- si c'est un import (=prendre des données externes pour les ajoutées 
dans osm), il aurait du être discuté
- il n'est pas nécessaire et même contre productif de mettre un source 
sur tous les objets
- source contient le nom de la source, pas l'url (qui va éventuellement 
dans source:url mais peu utilisé)

J'annule et on repart de 0 ? :-)

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

[Talk-lv] neasfaltētu ceļu attēlošana osm.org

[Rihards]

Diskusija ir atsākusies, ir daži piedāvājumi - pie tam, ar Latvijas
datiem :)

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110#issuecomment-367668091
-- 
 Rihards

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Greg Troxel]

> For the US, however, you'd want to do something other than just
> "downgrading to track".  There are a couple of options I suspect:

In the US, treating an unpaved road as "track" does not seem right.
Besides the surface issue, there is a very strong notion of legal status
between a "road" (often on its own parcel, traffic laws apply)and a
"track" (just a place where you could drive within some larger lot, and
often considered that traffic laws do not apply).

It also seems to me that the typical rendering of track is heavier and
more visually prominent than highway=residential, where for a
general-use map it seems that tracks are lesser ways.

> One is to split unpaved roads out as a separate "road type" altogether
> (that's how sidewalk and verge are handled as seen at
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99273=135.02137
> ).  The other is to have some sort of modifier (like "bridge", but
> different).  that's how "long fords" and embankments at
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99958=135.0693
> are handled.

I suspect I'm failing to understand something, but it seems that

  highway=residential surface=paved (or no tag, default)
  highway=residential surface=unpaved

should have rendering that is similar in weight, but with some clue that
one is not paved.  Dashed casing seems plausible.  But I realize this is
very hard as we try to represent more and more in a single map.  I
cannot quibble with your advice to actually try something...




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

Re: [Talk-es] Opensouthcode 2018

[David Sedeño]

Aunque el plazo del CfP ha terminado, aún no está realizado el programa, 
así que que contactad conmigo si alguien se anima a presentar el 
proyecto en la conferencia, estaría genial :)


Saludos

David Sedeño



El 21/02/18 a las 09:25, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo escribió:

Pues siendo en Málaga yo animaría a Daniel Capilla a que fuera.

No tiene ni por qué preparar material sobre el tema, que reutilice 
parte del material que hay en el repositorio de presentaciones:

http://bit.ly/osmpresentaciones

Saludos



--
*Miguel Sevilla-Callejo*
Doctor en Geografía

2018-02-21 1:07 GMT+01:00 Alejandro S. >:


Buenos días,

Hago bump de esto porque creo que sería interesante que se diera
una charlica de difusión de OpenStreetMap. ¿Ningún contribuidor de
la zona se atreve/quiere? Si hay ganas igual se podría hacer
incluso una mapping party.

Yo daría la charla, pero me cae un poco mal ir desde Zaragoza sólo
para dar la charla...

Saludos,
Alejandro Suárez


On Wed, Feb 7, 2018, 18:43 David Sedeño > wrote:

Hola,

tenemos abierto el plazo de recepción de actividades para la
tercera
edición de Opensouthcode, que se realizará en Málaga el 1 y 2
de junio.

Opensouthcode es un evento dedicado al software/hardware libre y
tecnologías abiertas. Nos encantaría que puedierais dar a
conocer el
proyecto Openstreetmap dentro del evento.

Más info: https://www.opensouthcode.org

Gracias y saludos
---
David Sedeño


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



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





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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 22/02/2018 16:57, Greg Troxel wrote:

For the US, however, you'd want to do something other than just
"downgrading to track".  There are a couple of options I suspect:

In the US, treating an unpaved road as "track" does not seem right.
Besides the surface issue, there is a very strong notion of legal status
between a "road" (often on its own parcel, traffic laws apply)and a
"track" (just a place where you could drive within some larger lot, and
often considered that traffic laws do not apply).

It also seems to me that the typical rendering of track is heavier and
more visually prominent than highway=residential, where for a
general-use map it seems that tracks are lesser ways.


One is to split unpaved roads out as a separate "road type" altogether
(that's how sidewalk and verge are handled as seen at
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99273=135.02137
).  The other is to have some sort of modifier (like "bridge", but
different).  that's how "long fords" and embankments at
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=-24.99958=135.0693
are handled.

I suspect I'm failing to understand something, but it seems that

   highway=residential surface=paved (or no tag, default)
   highway=residential surface=unpaved

should have rendering that is similar in weight, but with some clue that
one is not paved.


Indeed (hence why I wrote 'For the US, however, you'd want to do 
something other than just "downgrading to track"' above).  The "One is 
to split..." comment is about technically how to do it within an OSM 
Carto-like style; I'm not trying to suggest how things should look,



Dashed casing seems plausible.  But I realize this is
very hard as we try to represent more and more in a single map.
A dashed casing's certainly technically doable (though I suspect you'd 
need to fiddle with widths of things to get the visual weight right).  
You may to show tunnels (which use a very fine dashed casing - see e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.5046/-0.0500 ) in a different 
way though first.


Best Regards,
Andy


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