Re: [Talk-it] Altra violazione?

[Stefano]

On Aug 26, 2016 03:37, "griphon"  wrote:
>
> Dopo aver installato l'applicazione Moovit per il trasporto pubblico sul
mio
> dispositivo Android ho notato che le mappe utilizzate avevano una strana
> somiglianza con quelle di OSM e, dopo aver controllato alcune zone da me
> mappate, posso asserire che effettivamente sono proprio di provenienza
OSM.
> Non è presente l'attribuzione nella cartina e mi sembra neanche nelle
> informazioni su alcuni sottomenù, dopo una rapida occhiata... c'e'
> violazione?
>
>
É in More -> About -> Partners

Ciao,
Stefano

>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Altra-violazione-tp5880741.html
> Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-cz] Zuzanka

[Lukáš Karas]

Těmi modříny jsi mi připomněl že v řůzných místech německa jsou modříny 
vysázeny do hákových křížů. Mnoho z nich se zachovalo dodnes.

...jsou věci které bych do mapy nazanášel, ale určitě je to dobré téma k pivo 
jak to zmapovat aby to renderer rozlišil od okolí :-) 
landuse=forest, leaf_type=needleleaved ?

L

Dne čtvrtek 25. srpna 2016 17:40:09 CEST Jakub Sýkora napsal(a):
> Ahoj,
> 
> Pokud dobře koukám, tak na ofoto je nápis miluju tě a jméno je jiné
> (něco jako Símo) - určitě tam není Zuzanko. 16m v lomu není zrovna mnoho
> - GPSkou bys to musel trasovat naněkolikrát a beztak by ten výsledek
> podle mě byl nevalný.. To už by bylo lepší to "zaměřit" svinovacím
> metrem, namalovat si to JOSM 1:1 a pak to prsknout zhruba tam, kam to
> patří v tom lomu.
> 
> Tedy se jedná o věc vcelku asi v čase proměnnou, tak je otázka, zda to
> vůbec mapovat.
> 
> To už bych spíš zmapoval v Harrachově vysázené modříny do cifry 10,
> které tam byly vysazeny k desátému výročí vzniku republiky v roce 1928.
> Dodnes je to krásně patrné obzvlášť z čerťáku. Což mě napadá, že asi
> udělám :-)
> 
> K
> 
> Dne 25.8.2016 v 17:24 Mikoláš Štrajt napsal(a):
> > Zdravím OSM komunitu,
> > 
> > pro dnešek mám takové odlehčené téma.
> > 
> > Na dovolené jsme mimo jiné navštívil Solvayovy lomy (blízko Berouna),
> > kde jsem v prostoru bývalého lomu paraple zahlédl poměrně velký nápis
> > "Miluju tě, Zuzanko" vyskládaný z kamenů.
> > 
> > Když jsem to uviděl, říkal jsem si, že by to mohlo být vidět na
> > ortofotomapě - a skutečně - https://mapy.cz/s/10xKP
> > 
> > Je to tedy vidět jen na té od mapy.cz, ostatní poskytovatelé nemají
> > tak podrobné/aktuální ortofoto.
> > 
> > Mám dva takový troufalý dotazy:
> >  - je to mapovatelné pomocí normálních nástrojů OSM (tj. mobily, GPS,
> > 
> > případně tracing z ortofota), nebo to chce něco přesnějšího. Samotný
> > nápis "Miluju" má dle měření na mapy.cz délku 16m, tedy asi jednu tramvaj
> > 
> >  - jak to značit? Třeba stonehenge jsou building=yes, historic=stone a
> > 
> > natural=stone. Tohle asi moc historic nebude (tuším, že tam byl rok 1998).
> > 
> > Severák
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 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


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [Talk-cz] Zuzanka

[Lukáš Karas]

Těmi modříny jsi mi připomněl že v řůzných místech německa jsou modříny 
vysázeny do hákových křížů. Mnoho z nich se zachovalo dodnes.

...jsou věci které bych do mapy nazanášel, ale určitě je to dobré téma k pivo 
jak to zmapovat aby to renderer rozlišil od okolí :-) 
landuse=forest, leaf_type=needleleaved ?

L

Dne čtvrtek 25. srpna 2016 17:40:09 CEST Jakub Sýkora napsal(a):
> Ahoj,
> 
> Pokud dobře koukám, tak na ofoto je nápis miluju tě a jméno je jiné
> (něco jako Símo) - určitě tam není Zuzanko. 16m v lomu není zrovna mnoho
> - GPSkou bys to musel trasovat naněkolikrát a beztak by ten výsledek
> podle mě byl nevalný.. To už by bylo lepší to "zaměřit" svinovacím
> metrem, namalovat si to JOSM 1:1 a pak to prsknout zhruba tam, kam to
> patří v tom lomu.
> 
> Tedy se jedná o věc vcelku asi v čase proměnnou, tak je otázka, zda to
> vůbec mapovat.
> 
> To už bych spíš zmapoval v Harrachově vysázené modříny do cifry 10,
> které tam byly vysazeny k desátému výročí vzniku republiky v roce 1928.
> Dodnes je to krásně patrné obzvlášť z čerťáku. Což mě napadá, že asi
> udělám :-)
> 
> K
> 
> Dne 25.8.2016 v 17:24 Mikoláš Štrajt napsal(a):
> > Zdravím OSM komunitu,
> > 
> > pro dnešek mám takové odlehčené téma.
> > 
> > Na dovolené jsme mimo jiné navštívil Solvayovy lomy (blízko Berouna),
> > kde jsem v prostoru bývalého lomu paraple zahlédl poměrně velký nápis
> > "Miluju tě, Zuzanko" vyskládaný z kamenů.
> > 
> > Když jsem to uviděl, říkal jsem si, že by to mohlo být vidět na
> > ortofotomapě - a skutečně - https://mapy.cz/s/10xKP
> > 
> > Je to tedy vidět jen na té od mapy.cz, ostatní poskytovatelé nemají
> > tak podrobné/aktuální ortofoto.
> > 
> > Mám dva takový troufalý dotazy:
> >  - je to mapovatelné pomocí normálních nástrojů OSM (tj. mobily, GPS,
> > 
> > případně tracing z ortofota), nebo to chce něco přesnějšího. Samotný
> > nápis "Miluju" má dle měření na mapy.cz délku 16m, tedy asi jednu tramvaj
> > 
> >  - jak to značit? Třeba stonehenge jsou building=yes, historic=stone a
> > 
> > natural=stone. Tohle asi moc historic nebude (tuším, že tam byl rok 1998).
> > 
> > Severák
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 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

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [Talk-cz] spolek

[Petr Vozdecký]

ahoj Jakube,



s tímto prosím ještě počkej. Pokud by ti vlastnictví domény přinášelo 
komplikace, dej vědět. Pokud jsi z Brna, stav se na kvartální pivo 7.9. 
(místo upřesním).



díky



vop



-- Původní zpráva --

Od: Jakub Sýkora 

Datum: 25. 8. 2016 v 15:26:54

Předmět: [Talk-cz] spolek



Ahoj, vznikl vlastně nějaký spolek, který zastřešuje osm.cz ? Jde mi o to, 
že vedu doménu mtbmap.cz a v případě, že by spolek existoval, tak bych ho 
nastavil jako vlastníka. Dnes jsem u domény veden jako vlastník já... K 
___ 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-us] Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

[Kevin Kenny]

Perhaps you could inquire via the contact information in
http://www.katahdinmaine.com/images/pdf/KatahdinVG2015-WEB.pdf where they
got the GIS data? There are maps of the new area on pp. 44-45, 50-51,
54-55, 76-77.

Failing that:

We could georeference the map of the area at
https://www.nps.gov/kaww/planyourvisit/upload/KAWW-Recreation-Map-08_2016.pdf
(presumably a US Government work not subject to copyright) and select the
corresponding area in the tax parcel map available from
http://www.maine.gov/megis/catalog/ (which appears to have OSM-compatible
usage terms: http://www.maine.gov/megis/catalog/metadata/parcels_ut.htm).

I've managed to extract park boundaries from tax parcel data in New York in
the recent past.

I'm lookng at the tax parcels from
http://www.maine.gov/megis/catalog/shps/state/parcels_uts.zip overlaid atop
a roughly georeferenced version of the NPS map in QGIS right now, and
except for the fact that two parcels (01-1 and 01-3.1) in the southwest
corner appear to have been subdivided, the NPS map follows the tax map.
There appears to be an error in the boundary between lots 01-2.21 and
01-2.2 as well, and there, since the shape appears to be similar, I'm more
inclined to trust the taxing authority. (A lot of these backcountry
property lines are based on ancient surveys where the errors of closure
could literally be tens or even hundreds of metres, so I strongly suspect
that there's an indefinite boundary in there, anyway.)

Dissolving the parcel polygons, slicing off the line at the southern
boundary, and adding the little missing bit by Whetstone Falls, would give
us a pretty darned accurate outline. It would look like hell on the
rendered map unless we also brought in the polygons for the rivers, but
that would also surely be doable.

I'm likely not to have time for this project for a couple of weeks, but
I'll happily put it on the 'things to do' list if the legal beagles are
comfortable with this approach.


Kevin

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Jeffrey Ollie  wrote:

> So, if you haven't seen the announcement, yesterday President Obama
> established the latest National Monument.
>
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/08/24/president-
> obama-designates-national-monument-maines-north-woods
> https://www.nps.gov/kaww/index.htm
>
> It'd be nice to get at least the boundaries into OSM, anyone have a
> source for the data? I didn't see anything obvious in the NPS data
> portal.
>
> --
> Jeff Ollie
> The majestik møøse is one of the mäni interesting furry animals in Sweden.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[David Mease]

My interpretation:

What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
>> approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
>> without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
>> signed with an arrow, such as this one?
>>  http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>>
>
This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit
where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is
a place to put tags. This freeway should not be split. You said yourself
that the exit is not part of the freeway itself, so tags should not be
placed on the freeway. This intersection is a candidate for the destination
tag.


> mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are very
> faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint left ?
>
what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?
>

Same difference. But the arrow in the above example is pointing to where
the exit is, not describing a turn lane preceding the exit.


> do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?
>

Do we remove the name tag from roads when the street signs get iced over or
overgrown with vegetation?

mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit.
> the information should be useful for navigation


Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and
governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe
precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them
exactly as is. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about how those
arrows on the roads led them astray.

In the above example, I would not expect navigation software to direct me
to get into the lane marked with a slight right arrow. In fact, I would be
miffed when I found there was no such lane. All I would expect is a simple
"In x distance take exit 78 towards Sycamore/Ocilla"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

[Jeffrey Ollie]

So, if you haven't seen the announcement, yesterday President Obama
established the latest National Monument.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/08/24/president-obama-designates-national-monument-maines-north-woods
https://www.nps.gov/kaww/index.htm

It'd be nice to get at least the boundaries into OSM, anyone have a
source for the data? I didn't see anything obvious in the NPS data
portal.

-- 
Jeff Ollie
The majestik møøse is one of the mäni interesting furry animals in Sweden.

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

[Talk-it] Altra violazione?

[griphon]

Dopo aver installato l'applicazione Moovit per il trasporto pubblico sul mio
dispositivo Android ho notato che le mappe utilizzate avevano una strana
somiglianza con quelle di OSM e, dopo aver controllato alcune zone da me
mappate, posso asserire che effettivamente sono proprio di provenienza OSM.
Non è presente l'attribuzione nella cartina e mi sembra neanche nelle
informazioni su alcuni sottomenù, dopo una rapida occhiata... c'e'
violazione?




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Altra-violazione-tp5880741.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Zuzanka

[Pavel Machek]

Ahoj!
> 
> Pokud dobře koukám, tak na ofoto je nápis miluju tě a jméno je jiné (něco
> jako Símo) - určitě tam není Zuzanko. 16m v lomu není zrovna mnoho - GPSkou
> bys to musel trasovat naněkolikrát a beztak by ten výsledek podle mě byl
> nevalný.. To už by bylo lepší to "zaměřit" svinovacím metrem, namalovat si
> to JOSM 1:1 a pak to prsknout zhruba tam, kam to patří v tom lomu.
> 
> Tedy se jedná o věc vcelku asi v čase proměnnou, tak je otázka, zda to vůbec
> mapovat.

Pro tu srandu, ja bych to zmapoval...

Pripadne by nekdo mohl presunout kameny do "miluji te, mapo", a
zmapovat to tak ;-).

> > - je to mapovatelné pomocí normálních nástrojů OSM (tj. mobily, GPS,
> >případně tracing z ortofota), nebo to chce něco přesnějšího. Samotný nápis
> >"Miluju" má dle měření na mapy.cz délku 16m, tedy asi jednu tramvaj

Vyfotit z nejakeho vyssiho mista a pak fotku narovnat...?

Pavel


-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) 
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

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

[OSM-talk-ie] weeklyOSM #318 08/16/2016-08/22/2016

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 318,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8022/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM is brought to you by ... 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Languages
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

[Talk-in] weeklyOSM #318 08/16/2016-08/22/2016

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 318,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8022/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM is brought to you by ... 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Languages
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #318 08/16/2016-08/22/2016

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 318,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8022/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM is brought to you by ... 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Languages
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #318 08/16/2016-08/22/2016

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 318,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8022/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM is brought to you by ... 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Languages
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #318 08/16/2016-08/22/2016

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 318,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8022/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM is brought to you by ... 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Languages
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Rihards]

On 2016.08.26. 00:15, Jack Burke wrote:

Freeway exit tagging


I am totally confused.

What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
signed with an arrow, such as this one?
 http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw

Through examples[1], the wiki shows that when the freeway lanes *are*
signed, then "through;slight_right" appears to be the correct value.
The wiki examples also appear to indicate that "through" is *only*
appropriate when there is corresponding signage.  The wiki is also very


referencing the previous topic in talk-us about how lane tagging should 
follow lane _markings_, i'd like to suggest to only map the legally 
allowed driving directions, no matter how we arrive at them.


mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are 
very faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint 
left ?

what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?
do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?

mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit. 
the information should be useful for navigation software - or, more 
importantly, for the end user (no matter which software delivers useful 
service to them). they don't really care how exactly the allowed 
directions are marked, as long as they get through it all without 
crashes and fines.



clear what to do when an edge lane is an exit-only lane
("slight_right"), and what to do when a lane is signed for both through
and right turn ("through;right").  So what's the right thing to use when
there is no "through" indicator, yet there is an upcoming branching
exit?  By inference from what's contained in the wiki,
"none;slight_right" appears to be the appropriate value, but it looks
like a lot of people are disagreeing with that[2], even though it
appears to be the only logical conclusion.  Others think that
"through;slight_right" should be used because it's the reality on the
ground[2] despite the lack of paint/signs.

I'm bringing this up because I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia
and Florida tagged with destination and lane guidance (though only one
navigation app processes lane guidance AFAIK, but I hope that by adding
the data, others will take it up, too), and don't want to waste my time
tagging it incorrectly.  One helpful group trying to fix what they
consider incorrect lane counts & tags, turned a bunch of my
continue-or-exit lanes tagged with "none;slight_right" into exit-only
lanes[3] with just "slight_right".  I'm worried about switching to
"through;slight_right" because I don't want some *other* do-gooder
coming along later and similarly breaking lane guidance because there's
no arrow on the ground or on a sign.  Thus, I am now at a standstill
because there doesn't appear to be any correct tagging scheme for this
incredibly common situation.

Note:  I am intentionally leaving the proposal for "transit:lanes" out
of this, both because it hasn't been voted on, as well as it doesn't
appear to cover this situation any better than turn:lanes does.

--jack



References:

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn

[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029335.html

[3]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-August/016643.html



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




--
 Rihards

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

[Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

Freeway exit tagging


I am totally confused.

What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
signed with an arrow, such as this one?
http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw

Through examples[1], the wiki shows that when the freeway lanes *are*
signed, then "through;slight_right" appears to be the correct value.  The
wiki examples also appear to indicate that "through" is *only* appropriate
when there is corresponding signage.  The wiki is also very clear what to
do when an edge lane is an exit-only lane ("slight_right"), and what to do
when a lane is signed for both through and right turn ("through;right").
So what's the right thing to use when there is no "through" indicator, yet
there is an upcoming branching exit?  By inference from what's contained in
the wiki, "none;slight_right" appears to be the appropriate value, but it
looks like a lot of people are disagreeing with that[2], even though it
appears to be the only logical conclusion.  Others think that
"through;slight_right" should be used because it's the reality on the
ground[2] despite the lack of paint/signs.

I'm bringing this up because I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia and
Florida tagged with destination and lane guidance (though only one
navigation app processes lane guidance AFAIK, but I hope that by adding the
data, others will take it up, too), and don't want to waste my time tagging
it incorrectly.  One helpful group trying to fix what they consider
incorrect lane counts & tags, turned a bunch of my continue-or-exit lanes
tagged with "none;slight_right" into exit-only lanes[3] with just
"slight_right".  I'm worried about switching to "through;slight_right"
because I don't want some *other* do-gooder coming along later and
similarly breaking lane guidance because there's no arrow on the ground or
on a sign.  Thus, I am now at a standstill because there doesn't appear to
be any correct tagging scheme for this incredibly common situation.

Note:  I am intentionally leaving the proposal for "transit:lanes" out of
this, both because it hasn't been voted on, as well as it doesn't appear to
cover this situation any better than turn:lanes does.

--jack



References:

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn

[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029335.html

[3]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-August/016643.html
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-it] Tag Sentieri

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 25 ago 2016, alle ore 15:37, Ivo Reano  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Ho letto che il nome non dovrebbe includere il numero percorso


+1, non va messo

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Artwork problems

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 25 ago 2016, alle ore 15:28, Daniel Koć  ha scritto:
> 
> there are some places, where the indoor artworks just make noise and I still 
> don't know how to avoid this clutter in general:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/48.86064/2.33631


these look like artwork in a museum, I guess they don't meet the definition for 
the osm tag according to the wiki (public artwork) and should be fixed 
(different tagging)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 25 ago 2016, alle ore 21:41, Bjoern Hassler  
> ha scritto:
> 
> The use: I'm interested in locating megalithic structures, but only where 
> those are visible on Bing. I am not interested in copying anything from the 
> map to OSM that I cannot see in Bing (as it probably isn't worth visiting 
> anyway).


I believe this kind of use of IGM is not permitted because you can't see in 
bing what it is, you only find these places because you use the IGM maps, i.e. 
you derive information from them.


cheers,
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-de] Editor für Ipad

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 25 ago 2016, alle ore 18:10, Eifelhunde  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Ich suche einen Editor für OSM fürs iPad. Ich brauchs im Moment nur fürs 
> eintragen von ein paar Häusern. So etwa wie Josm. Ich habe GoMap ist aber 
> viel zu unhandlich


was besseres gibt es soweit ich weiß für iOS nicht, Alternativ kannst Du Dir 
hier ein paar andere ansehen: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Apple_iOS#Editing_the_map

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

Re: [Talk-it] Edit war Sardegna

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 25 ago 2016, alle ore 20:35, Fayor Uno  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Come ho già detto, non si tratta di una questione da discutere nella mailing 
> list locale perché riguarda una situazione nazionale, comune ad altre aree 
> italiane abitate da minoranze linguistiche.


in realtà sono soltanto "minoranze" a livello nazionale, mentre a livello 
locale spesso è la maggioranza a parlare quella lingua.

Per me si può discutere sia a livello nazionale che locale / regionale, ma 
ritengo più importante ciò che dicono gli abitanti dei posti in questione. Poi 
si possono sempre aggiungere dei name:it anche se si dovesse decidere di non 
mettere un nome italiano nel campo "name". ;-)

Il wiki dice: "The common default name. (Note: For disputed areas, please use 
the name as displayed on e.g. street signs for the name tag...)"

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Christoph,

Definitely a practical query!

The rights: My interest is wth the IGM maps
http://www.igmi.org/vendite/autorizzazione_riproduzioni.php
Their rights are fairly standard: Reproduction and distribution to the
public is prohibited. However, use is permitted for personal use (e.g.
research). The terms also forbid processing/re-publishing of the data.

The use: I'm interested in locating megalithic structures, but only where
those are visible on Bing. I am not interested in copying anything from the
map to OSM that I cannot see in Bing (as it probably isn't worth visiting
anyway). As described, I would like to merely use the map to locate objects
using a Bing layer in JOSM, and (if they can be identified from space)
enter them into OSM. However, I am interested in doing this for a
systematically in a few areas that I might visit, so it might be 50
objects, rather than one. Perhaps this constitutes "processing" (although
it's not digital processing)? Or maybe it's more of a question as to "when"
it constitutes processing.

I should also say that I am not interested in testing the law (which is
also not in line with trying to keep OSM genuinely open and free of
challenges) - if it looks contentious, then I'll try to obtain (and
document) the relevant permission first.

Any clarification you might be able to offer (or insights from other
countries, such as UK/ordinance survey)  would be appreciated!
Bjoern

On 25 August 2016 at 19:54, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Thursday 25 August 2016, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
> >
> > Suppose I have a list of GPS points of airports (one per airport),
> > derived from publicly available paper (copyrighted) maps. Suppose
> > there is no issue with sui generis rights in that list, but that
> > there was no special permission to create that list (and thus the
> > list is not rights cleared as such, but only used personally). I
> > would think that: [...]
>
> I am not sure if you are engaging in a theoretical thought exercise or
> if you are trying to solve a practical problem.  In the former case you
> probably will not get much reaction here.
>
> In the latter case you would need to be more specific about what data
> you are considering using, who produced this data and under what terms
> of use it has been made available to you.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-co] Mapaton Vias Terciarias: Hoy fecha limite de inscripción

[hyan...@gmail.com]

Hola comunidad!

Gentilmente les hago recorderis que *hoy es la fecha limite* para las
inscripciones en la Mapaton de Vias Terciarias que haremos sobre el
Municipio de Convención, Norte de Santander.

http://blog.openstreetmap.co/2016/08/19/mapaton-vias-terciarias/

La inscripción es muy sencilla, básicamente es el *nombre de usuario de los
participantes* que van a concursar:

https://goo.gl/forms/LzRPEZABW2MvAAzh1

Les esperamos mañana, en el transcurso del día se les enviara a los
inscritos el enlace UStream desde donde se hará mañana la emisión desde el
nodo en el Laboratorio de Cartografía de la Universidad de Los Andes.

Si alguno de la comunidad en Bogotá desea asistir a la Universidad, por
favor enviar sus datos para el ingreso (nombre y cedula) antes de 5 PM.

Saludos,

Humberto Yances
___
Talk-co mailing list
Talk-co@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Fwd: [gulliver] Journées du patrimoine : sur OSM

[Laurent Combe]

dans mon secteur les points ne sont pas bien calés
dommage !
sinon effectivement bien vu et cela fait plaisir de voir une
utilisation d'OSM pour une manifestation grand public

2016-08-24 23:32 GMT+02:00 Yannick :
>
>
>
>  Message transféré 
> Sujet : [gulliver] Journées du patrimoine : sur OSM
> Date : Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:56:13 +0200
> De : Vincent Mahe 
> Répondre à : gulli...@listes.gulliver.eu.org
> Pour : gulli...@listes.linux-france.org
>
> Hello
>
> Fait notable, le site français des journées européennes du patrimoine
> est basé sur Open Street Map :
> http://journeesdupatrimoine.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/Programme
>
> --
>
> Cordialement
>
> Vincent MAHÉ
>
>
>  Liste gulliver 
> Archives,http://gulliver.eu.org/ml-archives/
> Description, http://gulliver.eu.org/ml/ml.html
> Bons usages, http://gulliver.eu.org/wiki/UsagesCourriels
>
>
>
> --
> Yannick VOYEAUD
> Nul n'a droit au superflu tant que chacun n'a pas son nécessaire
> (Camille JOUFFRAY 1841-1924, maire de Vienne)
> http://www.voyeaud.org
> Créateur CimGenWeb: http://www.francegenweb.org/cimgenweb/
> Journées du Logiciel Libre: http://jdll.org
> Généalogie en liberté avec Ancestris http://www.ancestris.org
>
> ___
> 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-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 25 August 2016, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
> Suppose I have a list of GPS points of airports (one per airport),
> derived from publicly available paper (copyrighted) maps. Suppose
> there is no issue with sui generis rights in that list, but that
> there was no special permission to create that list (and thus the
> list is not rights cleared as such, but only used personally). I
> would think that: [...]

I am not sure if you are engaging in a theoretical thought exercise or 
if you are trying to solve a practical problem.  In the former case you 
probably will not get much reaction here.

In the latter case you would need to be more specific about what data 
you are considering using, who produced this data and under what terms 
of use it has been made available to you.

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

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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Stefano]

Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 18:16, Luca Delucchi  ha
scritto:

> Il 25/ago/2016 18:03, "Stefano"  ha scritto:
> >
> > Ciao a tutti,
>
> Ciao ste,
>
> Ti scrivo in privato coscientemente
>
> > abbiamo messo su l'immagine di Massimo
> > Il link del wms da inserire in josm (c'è solo un livello da selezionare)
> è
> > http://osmit3.wmflabs.org/cgi-bin/qgis_mapserv.fcgi?map=/
> srv/Amatrice/amatrice.qgs=WMS=GetCapabilities=1.3
> >
> > Occhio che è molto shiftata (-130 in verticale a sinistra), non sono
> riuscito a riproiettarla bene perché mi è partito il pc in fase di
> elaborazione con qgis.
> >
> > Se ci riesco riprovo a georeferirla.
> >
>
> Non è difficile, non usare qgis ma direttamente GDAL (gdalwarp), che
> sistema di proiezione è?
>

La proiezione da gdalinfo era la EPSG:32633.

> Penso sia meglio usare mapserver piuttosto che qgis-mapserver ;-)
>
Concordo, ma al volo non lo sapevo fare, con qgis mi è bastato caricare il
progetto :-)

Alessandro ha rigeoreferito l'immagine, l'ho sostituita a quella attuale.

> > Ciao,
> > Stefano
> >
>
> PS
> Se serve una mano basta che scrivete
>
> Hai messaggi :-)

> Ciao
> Luca
>
> Grazie,
Stefano


> ___
> 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-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Alan Richards]

Generally some of the polygons can be later merged across the boundaries
into less square shapes, but it can be complicated and slow work.

Personally, I'm still unclear on whether CanVec importing is still going
on? Is the data still available and updated? Most of what I can find on the
wiki is old and out of date and no one seems to be doing any visible work
there.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Gordon Dewis  wrote:

> Forest footprints change over time but not that much in most places. The
> problem is that forest polygons can quickly end up with thousands of points
> and have the added complexity of holes.
>
> There is value to having them in OSM, we just have to find a better way to
> do them, or live with "seams" at the edges of Canvec tiles.
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2016, 13:09 -0400, Stewart C. Russell ,
> wrote:
>
> On 2016-08-25 04:53 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
>
>
> … The polygons will need to be either merged
> or redrawn to conform with the underlying land use.
>
>
> Or, dare I suggest, deleted completely. If they take a huge amount of
> work to fix and they add little value by being based on elderly data, I
> question their need to be in OSM.
>
> I know it's considered politically inexpedient to have huge blank areas
> in your country's map: it gives ambitious neighbours expansionist ideas.
> You can't find anything interesting in these polygons, and they don't
> help you to find anything, either. Maybe we should just have the legend
> “hic sunt sciuri”* every few square kilometres instead?
>
> cheers,
> Stewart
>
> *: “here be squirrels”
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Maurizio Napolitano]

2016-08-25 18:01 GMT+02:00 Stefano :
> Ciao a tutti,
> abbiamo messo su l'immagine di Massimo
> Il link del wms da inserire in josm (c'è solo un livello da selezionare) è
> http://osmit3.wmflabs.org/cgi-bin/qgis_mapserv.fcgi?map=/srv/Amatrice/amatrice.qgs=WMS=GetCapabilities=1.3
>
> Occhio che è molto shiftata (-130 in verticale a sinistra), non sono
> riuscito a riproiettarla bene perché mi è partito il pc in fase di
> elaborazione con qgis.
>
> Se ci riesco riprovo a georeferirla.

Hai i punti georiferiti?
che proiezione hai scelto?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Yves,

Depends what you mean by "source". In scenario (2), the copyrighted map
tells me where to look, but I use bing imagery to trace over the object
(say the runway). The copyrighted map is used, but only provides
information in a conceptual sense, but is not a source of (numerical) data:
The OSM data is generated by tracing over bing. So is the use of the
conceptual information from the map permissible or not?

I would think that it's not a copyright issue: what is the work that is
being copied? The lat/lon from POIs in the copyrighted map is not copied.
However, it may be an issue with sui generis or other rights. Perhaps the
issue is with "systematically" (as you suggest?). Clearly systematic
copying of data would be prohibited by sui generis rights. However, I'd
argue that scenario (2) is not copying of data: The data is used for
discovery, but bing imagery provides the data entered into OSM.

Many thanks for the message!
Bjoern

On 25 August 2016 at 19:09, Yves  wrote:

> In other words, you would systematically use a copyrighted map as a source
> to enter data in OSM?
> Yves
>
> Le 25 août 2016 19:49:05 GMT+02:00, Bjoern Hassler 
> a écrit :
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Is it permissible to use (copyrighted) maps to discover features on Bing
>> (and trace those into OSM)?
>>
>> Suppose I have a list of GPS points of airports (one per airport),
>> derived from publicly available paper (copyrighted) maps. Suppose there is
>> no issue with sui generis rights in that list, but that there was no
>> special permission to create that list (and thus the list is not rights
>> cleared as such, but only used personally). I would think that:
>>
>> (1) I am not permitted to transfer that data straight to OSM, because I
>> would effectively be tracing over those maps, which constitutes
>> digitisation, and which is very likely not permitted. Do you agree?
>>
>> (2) However, I am allowed to use that list to systematically find
>> airports on bing. I.e. use an editor to visit those GPS coordinates, and
>> then see whether a runway is present in bing. If the runway is there (and
>> not in OSM already), I then manually trace over bing to add the runway; if
>> nothing is there, I do nothing.
>>
>> I assume that (2) does not violate copyright, because I am only using the
>> copyrighted information to find possible locations in bing, and then trace
>> over bing. Do you agree?
>>
>> Two concerns:
>>
>> (A) While it does not violate copyright, maybe it violate other rights
>> (sui generis rights associated with the original maps) or other terms of
>> use (for the original map)?
>>
>> (B) My second concern is that (1) could be seen as a "limiting" case of
>> (2): Suppose I don't trace over the runway, but I just enter a POI for
>> airport. Suppose that often those POIs are close to the GPS point in the
>> original map? Surely, that is effectively case (1), and would not be
>> permitted? So (2) hinges on the fact that you see the object on bing, and
>> then trace over it in bing.
>>
>> (3) A final consideration: In (2), can I enter other public data into OSM
>> (such as the name of the airport) that I derived from the map? The name as
>> such is not copyrighted, but maybe there is a sui generis right in the
>> collection of the names?
>>
>> Thanks for any light that you can shed on this! (Or any websites /
>> documents with further information.)
>>
>> All the best,
>> Bjoern
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>>
> --
> Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-it] Edit war Sardegna

[Fayor Uno]

Come siano andate le cose è piuttosto noto e anche facilmente verificabile, lo 
riassumo a beneficio non solo di Francesca ma anche di chi non ha letto tutte 
le discussioni.


La doppia denominazione non c'era, fu Luca Meloni a proporla a ottobre 2013 per 
adeguare la Sardegna all'Alto Adige.

Tra pareri favorevoli e contrari a un certo punto Luca fece la "conta" dei voti 
e vista una leggera maggioranza decise di fare le sue modifiche.

La discussione tuttavia non era stata chiusa, tanto che ci furono altri pareri 
contrari, ma lui se ne infischiò e scrisse anche un paragrafo nel wiki, anche 
questo senza alcun consenso.


Successivamente ci furono alcuni utenti che tentarono di ripristinare la 
situazione esistente, sia nella mappa che nel wiki. Si aprì un'altra 
discussione su talk-it a gennaio 2014 e si aggiunsero altre opinioni contrarie 
ai doppi nomi e qualcuno gli fece notare che non si era raggiunto un accordo 
per le modifiche .
Anche stavolta Luca non volle sentire ragioni e rimise i doppi nomi.


Per la terza volta, in seguito al mio intervento, la discussione è ripresa e 
siamo a questo punto. Se ci fosse stata, all'epoca, una decisione concordata 
sui doppi nomi, non avrei certamente agito ma mi sarei limitato ad aprire una 
nuova discussione di mantenerli  o meno.

"Chi di dovere" è la Osm Foundation, a cui mi sono rivolto per una mediazione 
come dalla stessa consigliato in caso di mancata risoluzione.

Come ho già detto, non si tratta di una questione da discutere nella mailing 
list locale perché riguarda una situazione nazionale, comune ad altre aree 
italiane abitate da minoranze linguistiche.





Da: Francesca Valentina 
Inviato: giovedì 25 agosto 2016 19.14
A: openstreetmap list - italiano
Oggetto: Re: [Talk-it] Edit war Sardegna


Ciao Federico,
In realtá la comunitá sarda era molto tranquilla nessuno di noi ha cambiato 
nulla. Semplicemente é arrivato Fayor, che non é sardo e non ne ha nemmeno 
proposto il cambio sulla mailing list locale e ha deciso per noi.

Fayor, di grazia , chi hai interpellato "di dovere"?

Non c'é nessuna inerzia, semplicemente la vorremmo cosí com'era, a gran parte 
di noi andava bene. Forse gli altri si sono stancati di ribadirlo ma sono giá 
pronunciati in merito diverse persone.
Tra le altre cose, fayor, non hai risposto all'invito di tutti di parlarne in 
lista sardegna.
Ciao

On 25 Aug 2016 16:02, "Fayor Uno" 
> wrote:


Se avrete il tempo e la voglia di rileggervi tutta la discussione, sia questa 
che quelle precedenti in merito alla doppia denominazione, scoprirete che la 
maggioranza di chi è intervenuto è favorevole a mantenere in name solo la sola 
denominazione ufficiale stabilità da chi di competenza: cioè quella unica (non 
"in italiano", non è una questione di lingua ma di rispetto delle norme) uguale 
per tutto il territorio nazionale con l'eccezione del bilinguismo in Alto Adige.

Solo in questa discussione ho contato 13 opinioni in tal senso e 9 per la 
doppia denominazione (tra queste alcune sono per il sardo/italiano, altri per 
l'italiano/sardo).

La cosa comunque assurda e inaccettabile è che ancora rimangano le modifiche 
fatte da Luca Meloni nonostante il mancato consenso e che vi sia questo 
disinteresse diffuso di cui parla Federico: alla fine ognuno dice la sua ma a 
pochissimi interessa davvero se la situazione resterà questa o cambi!

In tal senso, vista l'inerzia, ho già contattato chi di dovere per risolvere, 
entro questo mese, la situazione, quindi in un modo o nell'altro la cosa si 
dovrà definire.





Da: Federico Cortese >
Inviato: giovedì 25 agosto 2016 09.22
A: openstreetmap list - italiano
Oggetto: Re: [Talk-it] Edit war Sardegna

2016-08-25 8:29 GMT+02:00 Francesca Valentina 
>:
> Fayor il tuo "molti" non esiste, sono alcuni, e gran parte di chi é
> contrario al tuo senso di giustizia nei confronti della sardegna, si é giá
> espressa e non continua.

Ciao Francesca, credo stessi rispondendo a me ma forse mi hai confuso
con fayor ;)
Ho scritto così perchè mi pare appunto ci siano molti che non
apprezzano il doppio nome messo in name con lo slash, per i vari
motivi già ampiamente esposti, poi posso anche sbagliarmi per carità,
per questo avevo proposto una votazione per contarci, ma a quanto pare
non c'è interesse in merito.
Rispetto certamente le idee di voi "locals", io non conosco
personalmente la situazione sarda nel dettaglio e non ci sono mai
stato, mi spiace che continuerete a vedere di tanto in tanto cambiare
i nomi finché non si arriverà ad una decisione netta. Fate una
votazione Doodle sulla lista sarda se volete e mostrateci i risultati,
ma fate qualcosa!
Ciao
Federico

___
Talk-it mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Paul Johnson]

Here's another example of how none breaks:
http://mapillary.com/map/im/IUibLmC-b_nkLkYjziO7pA

If you're only going by signs and pavement markings without context, this
would be none|none|none|none leading up to the intersection, instead of
left|through|through|merge_to_left


On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:

> Paul, your examples are pretty much exactly what I've been doing, with the
> exception that for the last one I was using:
>
> turn:lanes=none|none|none;slight_right
>
> because of the aforementioned discussion of whether or not to use
> "through" without signage.
>
> --jack
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
>>
>>> So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is
>>> deficient for branching exits like this one:
>>> http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's correct.  Moving a couple frames closer to
>> http://mapillary.com/map/im/MsMAW3HKVNYxEVCtkRneBg, here's how I would
>> tag three segments based on what's visible there and no other context:
>>
>> Ahead of camera after diverging ramp:
>>
>> highway=motorway
>> oneway=yes
>> lanes=3
>> ref=I 75
>> hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes
>>
>> The ramp from the physical gore (next to the exit sign) to the tip of the
>> theoretical (painted) gore (with the node for the intersection being even
>> with the theoretical gore):
>>
>> highway=motorway_link
>> oneway=yes
>> placement=transition
>> lanes=1
>> destination=Sycamore;Ocilla
>> destination:ref=GA 32  (also, damn, had to check the minimap on that, I
>> almost said MO 32 based on the shape).
>> junction:ref=78
>>
>> Behind the camera:
>>
>> highway=motorway
>> oneway=yes
>> lanes=3
>> ref=I 75
>> hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes
>> turn:lanes=through|through|through;slight_right
>>
>> Your Osmand "invention" example is a perfect case-study of what I'm
>>> working on.  I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia and Florida tagged
>>> with destination and lane guidance so that Osmand can show proper guidance,
>>> and hopefully other OSM-based navigation apps will add that feature, too.
>>> As it stands, I use Osmand to test my tags.
>>>
>>
>> I've been testing this, as well.  I'm fortunate enough to live in a city
>> that has nearly every kind of interchange to play with (except for some of
>> the newer CFI styles, but OKC and...for like, no reason, rural interchanges
>> with basically no traffic on I 40 leading into the Ouachitas are getting
>> those) and well enough aware of the tagging in play to have seen what works
>> and what doesn't, now.
>>
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Gordon Dewis]

Forest footprints change over time but not that much in most places. The 
problem is that forest polygons can quickly end up with thousands of points and 
have the added complexity of holes.

There is value to having them in OSM, we just have to find a better way to do 
them, or live with "seams" at the edges of Canvec tiles.

On Aug 25, 2016, 13:09 -0400, Stewart C. Russell , wrote:
> On 2016-08-25 04:53 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
> >
> > … The polygons will need to be either merged
> > or redrawn to conform with the underlying land use.
>
> Or, dare I suggest, deleted completely. If they take a huge amount of
> work to fix and they add little value by being based on elderly data, I
> question their need to be in OSM.
>
> I know it's considered politically inexpedient to have huge blank areas
> in your country's map: it gives ambitious neighbours expansionist ideas.
> You can't find anything interesting in these polygons, and they don't
> help you to find anything, either. Maybe we should just have the legend
> “hic sunt sciuri”* every few square kilometres instead?
>
> cheers,
> Stewart
>
> *: “here be squirrels”
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Yves]

In other words,  you would systematically use a copyrighted map as a source to 
enter data in OSM? 
Yves 

Le 25 août 2016 19:49:05 GMT+02:00, Bjoern Hassler  a 
écrit :
>Dear all,
>
>Is it permissible to use (copyrighted) maps to discover features on
>Bing
>(and trace those into OSM)?
>
>Suppose I have a list of GPS points of airports (one per airport),
>derived
>from publicly available paper (copyrighted) maps. Suppose there is no
>issue
>with sui generis rights in that list, but that there was no special
>permission to create that list (and thus the list is not rights cleared
>as
>such, but only used personally). I would think that:
>
>(1) I am not permitted to transfer that data straight to OSM, because I
>would effectively be tracing over those maps, which constitutes
>digitisation, and which is very likely not permitted. Do you agree?
>
>(2) However, I am allowed to use that list to systematically find
>airports
>on bing. I.e. use an editor to visit those GPS coordinates, and then
>see
>whether a runway is present in bing. If the runway is there (and not in
>OSM
>already), I then manually trace over bing to add the runway; if nothing
>is
>there, I do nothing.
>
>I assume that (2) does not violate copyright, because I am only using
>the
>copyrighted information to find possible locations in bing, and then
>trace
>over bing. Do you agree?
>
>Two concerns:
>
>(A) While it does not violate copyright, maybe it violate other rights
>(sui
>generis rights associated with the original maps) or other terms of use
>(for the original map)?
>
>(B) My second concern is that (1) could be seen as a "limiting" case of
>(2): Suppose I don't trace over the runway, but I just enter a POI for
>airport. Suppose that often those POIs are close to the GPS point in
>the
>original map? Surely, that is effectively case (1), and would not be
>permitted? So (2) hinges on the fact that you see the object on bing,
>and
>then trace over it in bing.
>
>(3) A final consideration: In (2), can I enter other public data into
>OSM
>(such as the name of the airport) that I derived from the map? The name
>as
>such is not copyrighted, but maybe there is a sui generis right in the
>collection of the names?
>
>Thanks for any light that you can shed on this! (Or any websites /
>documents with further information.)
>
>All the best,
>Bjoern
>
>
>
>
>___
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

-- 
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Toby Murray  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
> > So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is
> > deficient for branching exits like this one:
> > http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>
> Why does this example even need any special lane tagging? I would map
> this as lanes=3 on the motorway and then draw the motorway_link with a
> lanes=1 tag out to right in front of where that picture is.


Because what's obvious to a human isn't going to be obvious to a machine.
Let's try a similar but slightly more complicated example with no lane
markings but definite turn lanes:

http://mapillary.com/map/im/Usplvj-EDevqwnBbZmXvQA

Right now the section leading up to the junction is tagged
"slight_left|slight_left;through|through", with the left junction being
"junction:ref=2" "destination=Glenpool;Okmulgee" and "destination:ref=US 75
South"; the right route is "destination=Oklahoma City", "destination:ref=I
244 West".   The turn lane part is technically correct, but the ground
perspective makes it look almost the opposite; I'm considering changing the
"through|through" part to "slight_right|slight_right" for clarity
(especially given that almost all traffic exits I 244 for Exit 2 towards
Okmulgee here).  Osmand invents four lanes without the lane tagging, which
doesn't help if you're still behind the curve and don't know the setup at
the decision point.


> Right now
> the motorway_link doesn't branch off of the main way until WAY past
> where the white solid line starts and where you must commit to the
> exit.
>

I would put the motorway_junction node at the commit point (the start of
the theoretical gore).  Extending the ramp lane centerline tends to be
messy and cause routers to assume you've already left the freeway before
you've even made the turn on particularly wide motorways.  Obviously I'm
not actually looking at the data to see what it is right now.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Jack Burke]

Paul, your examples are pretty much exactly what I've been doing, with the
exception that for the last one I was using:

turn:lanes=none|none|none;slight_right

because of the aforementioned discussion of whether or not to use "through"
without signage.

--jack

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
>
>> So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is
>> deficient for branching exits like this one:
>> http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>>
>
> Yes, that's correct.  Moving a couple frames closer to
> http://mapillary.com/map/im/MsMAW3HKVNYxEVCtkRneBg, here's how I would
> tag three segments based on what's visible there and no other context:
>
> Ahead of camera after diverging ramp:
>
> highway=motorway
> oneway=yes
> lanes=3
> ref=I 75
> hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes
>
> The ramp from the physical gore (next to the exit sign) to the tip of the
> theoretical (painted) gore (with the node for the intersection being even
> with the theoretical gore):
>
> highway=motorway_link
> oneway=yes
> placement=transition
> lanes=1
> destination=Sycamore;Ocilla
> destination:ref=GA 32  (also, damn, had to check the minimap on that, I
> almost said MO 32 based on the shape).
> junction:ref=78
>
> Behind the camera:
>
> highway=motorway
> oneway=yes
> lanes=3
> ref=I 75
> hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes
> turn:lanes=through|through|through;slight_right
>
> Your Osmand "invention" example is a perfect case-study of what I'm
>> working on.  I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia and Florida tagged
>> with destination and lane guidance so that Osmand can show proper guidance,
>> and hopefully other OSM-based navigation apps will add that feature, too.
>> As it stands, I use Osmand to test my tags.
>>
>
> I've been testing this, as well.  I'm fortunate enough to live in a city
> that has nearly every kind of interchange to play with (except for some of
> the newer CFI styles, but OKC and...for like, no reason, rural interchanges
> with basically no traffic on I 40 leading into the Ouachitas are getting
> those) and well enough aware of the tagging in play to have seen what works
> and what doesn't, now.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Jack Burke]

Fixing where the motorway_link branches out is also one of the things I'm
working on fixing with this project.

But as to why...so that a navigation app can provide proper lane guidance.
I selected this particular example because it's very simple, without other
details to clutter up the discussion.  But in large cities, such as Atlanta
where we have a lot of freeway exits just around a curve and you can't see
them in time, it can be incredibly important to know what lane you need to
be in well ahead of time--especially in periods of heavy traffic, were you
can't get into the correct lane at the last minute.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Toby Murray  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
> > So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is
> > deficient for branching exits like this one:
> > http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>
> Why does this example even need any special lane tagging? I would map
> this as lanes=3 on the motorway and then draw the motorway_link with a
> lanes=1 tag out to right in front of where that picture is. Right now
> the motorway_link doesn't branch off of the main way until WAY past
> where the white solid line starts and where you must commit to the
> exit.
>
> Toby
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Dear all,

Is it permissible to use (copyrighted) maps to discover features on Bing
(and trace those into OSM)?

Suppose I have a list of GPS points of airports (one per airport), derived
from publicly available paper (copyrighted) maps. Suppose there is no issue
with sui generis rights in that list, but that there was no special
permission to create that list (and thus the list is not rights cleared as
such, but only used personally). I would think that:

(1) I am not permitted to transfer that data straight to OSM, because I
would effectively be tracing over those maps, which constitutes
digitisation, and which is very likely not permitted. Do you agree?

(2) However, I am allowed to use that list to systematically find airports
on bing. I.e. use an editor to visit those GPS coordinates, and then see
whether a runway is present in bing. If the runway is there (and not in OSM
already), I then manually trace over bing to add the runway; if nothing is
there, I do nothing.

I assume that (2) does not violate copyright, because I am only using the
copyrighted information to find possible locations in bing, and then trace
over bing. Do you agree?

Two concerns:

(A) While it does not violate copyright, maybe it violate other rights (sui
generis rights associated with the original maps) or other terms of use
(for the original map)?

(B) My second concern is that (1) could be seen as a "limiting" case of
(2): Suppose I don't trace over the runway, but I just enter a POI for
airport. Suppose that often those POIs are close to the GPS point in the
original map? Surely, that is effectively case (1), and would not be
permitted? So (2) hinges on the fact that you see the object on bing, and
then trace over it in bing.

(3) A final consideration: In (2), can I enter other public data into OSM
(such as the name of the airport) that I derived from the map? The name as
such is not copyrighted, but maybe there is a sui generis right in the
collection of the names?

Thanks for any light that you can shed on this! (Or any websites /
documents with further information.)

All the best,
Bjoern
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Toby Murray]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
> So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is
> deficient for branching exits like this one:
> http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw

Why does this example even need any special lane tagging? I would map
this as lanes=3 on the motorway and then draw the motorway_link with a
lanes=1 tag out to right in front of where that picture is. Right now
the motorway_link doesn't branch off of the main way until WAY past
where the white solid line starts and where you must commit to the
exit.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-it] Edit war Sardegna

[Marcello]

On 24/08/2016 19:20, Francesca Valentina wrote:
>
> Ciao,
> per intenderci, casa mia sta in una piazza che esiste solo in sardo,
> conosciuta con il nome in sardo e addirittura con la targa in sardo.
> La posta arriva in un indirizzo in italiano che non é una piazza ma
> una via e in generale se si nomina la piazza in sardo si comprende
> precisamente il luogo se si nomina la via in italiano con il civico si
> ha idea solo dell'area.
>
>
Francesca,
l'indirizzo a cui arriva la posta secondo me non può essere considerato
per stabilire qual'è il nome di una via o piazza, se c'è la targa messa
dal comune quello è il nome. Ho girato un po' la Sardegna e ho visto
diversi paesi o vie o piazze con nomi sardi, la prima che mi viene in
mente è via Is Mirrionis a Cagliari, non so cosa significa e non mi è
mai nemmeno venuto in mente di chiedere ai locali, ma la targa riporta
quel nome e nella mappa è messo quel nome, non è messo Is
Mirrionis/( in italiano). Il mio parere e che in name vada il nome
riportato nella segnaletica, che sia in sardo o in italiano.

Ciao
Marcello 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:

> So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is
> deficient for branching exits like this one:
> http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
>

Yes, that's correct.  Moving a couple frames closer to
http://mapillary.com/map/im/MsMAW3HKVNYxEVCtkRneBg, here's how I would tag
three segments based on what's visible there and no other context:

Ahead of camera after diverging ramp:

highway=motorway
oneway=yes
lanes=3
ref=I 75
hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes

The ramp from the physical gore (next to the exit sign) to the tip of the
theoretical (painted) gore (with the node for the intersection being even
with the theoretical gore):

highway=motorway_link
oneway=yes
placement=transition
lanes=1
destination=Sycamore;Ocilla
destination:ref=GA 32  (also, damn, had to check the minimap on that, I
almost said MO 32 based on the shape).
junction:ref=78

Behind the camera:

highway=motorway
oneway=yes
lanes=3
ref=I 75
hgv:lanes=no|yes|yes
turn:lanes=through|through|through;slight_right

Your Osmand "invention" example is a perfect case-study of what I'm working
> on.  I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia and Florida tagged with
> destination and lane guidance so that Osmand can show proper guidance, and
> hopefully other OSM-based navigation apps will add that feature, too.  As
> it stands, I use Osmand to test my tags.
>

I've been testing this, as well.  I'm fortunate enough to live in a city
that has nearly every kind of interchange to play with (except for some of
the newer CFI styles, but OKC and...for like, no reason, rural interchanges
with basically no traffic on I 40 leading into the Ouachitas are getting
those) and well enough aware of the tagging in play to have seen what works
and what doesn't, now.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Mease  wrote:

>
> From the wiki:
>
> The *turn*=* key can be used to specify the *indicated* direction in
> which a way or a lane will lead. It is used on the way segment from the
> first indication via *road markings*, *signposts* or similar indications
> to the junction or completion of merge. If you instead want to specify
> legal turning restrictions please see the article about the restriction
> relation .
>
> The turn:lanes schema is for identifying the painted/signed lane marking
> arrows, not for describing where you can legally go from that lane. That's
> what the turn restriction relation is for.
>

No, turn restriction relations describe restrictions applying for *the
entire movement* defined in the restriction, from *any* lane.


> Putting "through" on a lane means that there is a straight arrow painted
> on it. Putting "none" on a lane means that there is no marking.
>

I really think this is an overly generous view and essentially renders lane
tagging nearly useless as a result, and is the exact opposite of how it's
actually being used.  Remember, the wiki should reflect how things work in
practice, particularly once something's established enough to get
rendering/routing based on it.  As previously indicated, in statistically
significant parts of the world, turn lanes are implied by context and
position and not by signs and lane markings, unless the usage is
nonstandard.  Additionally, routing engines typically interpret "none" or
blank as "there is no specific restriction on which way you can go from
this lane", so lane usage for a right turn will light up all the none lanes
and the right turn lane.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-it] Edit war Sardegna

[Francesca Valentina]

Ciao Federico,
In realtá la comunitá sarda era molto tranquilla nessuno di noi ha cambiato
nulla. Semplicemente é arrivato Fayor, che non é sardo e non ne ha nemmeno
proposto il cambio sulla mailing list locale e ha deciso per noi.

Fayor, di grazia , chi hai interpellato "di dovere"?

Non c'é nessuna inerzia, semplicemente la vorremmo cosí com'era, a gran
parte di noi andava bene. Forse gli altri si sono stancati di ribadirlo ma
sono giá pronunciati in merito diverse persone.
Tra le altre cose, fayor, non hai risposto all'invito di tutti di parlarne
in lista sardegna.
Ciao
On 25 Aug 2016 16:02, "Fayor Uno"  wrote:

>
> Se avrete il tempo e la voglia di rileggervi tutta la discussione, sia
> questa che quelle precedenti in merito alla doppia denominazione,
> scoprirete che la maggioranza di chi è intervenuto è favorevole a mantenere
> in name solo la sola denominazione ufficiale stabilità da chi di
> competenza: cioè quella unica (non "in italiano", non è una questione di
> lingua ma di rispetto delle norme) uguale per tutto il territorio
> nazionale con l'eccezione del bilinguismo in Alto Adige.
>
> Solo in questa discussione ho contato 13 opinioni in tal senso e 9 per la
> doppia denominazione (tra queste alcune sono per il sardo/italiano, altri
> per l'italiano/sardo).
>
> La cosa comunque assurda e inaccettabile è che ancora rimangano le
> modifiche fatte da Luca Meloni nonostante il mancato consenso e che vi sia
> questo disinteresse diffuso di cui parla Federico: alla fine ognuno dice la
> sua ma a pochissimi interessa davvero se la situazione resterà questa o
> cambi!
>
> In tal senso, vista l'inerzia, ho già contattato chi di dovere per
> risolvere, entro questo mese, la situazione, quindi in un modo o nell'altro
> la cosa si dovrà definire.
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Da:* Federico Cortese 
> *Inviato:* giovedì 25 agosto 2016 09.22
> *A:* openstreetmap list - italiano
> *Oggetto:* Re: [Talk-it] Edit war Sardegna
>
> 2016-08-25 8:29 GMT+02:00 Francesca Valentina :
> > Fayor il tuo "molti" non esiste, sono alcuni, e gran parte di chi é
> > contrario al tuo senso di giustizia nei confronti della sardegna, si é
> giá
> > espressa e non continua.
>
> Ciao Francesca, credo stessi rispondendo a me ma forse mi hai confuso
> con fayor ;)
> Ho scritto così perchè mi pare appunto ci siano molti che non
> apprezzano il doppio nome messo in name con lo slash, per i vari
> motivi già ampiamente esposti, poi posso anche sbagliarmi per carità,
> per questo avevo proposto una votazione per contarci, ma a quanto pare
> non c'è interesse in merito.
> Rispetto certamente le idee di voi "locals", io non conosco
> personalmente la situazione sarda nel dettaglio e non ci sono mai
> stato, mi spiace che continuerete a vedere di tanto in tanto cambiare
> i nomi finché non si arriverà ad una decisione netta. Fate una
> votazione Doodle sulla lista sarda se volete e mostrateci i risultati,
> ma fate qualcosa!
> Ciao
> Federico
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
> Pagina di informazioni della lista Talk-it
> 
> lists.openstreetmap.org
> Lista dedicata agli utenti di lingua italiana di OpenStreetMap. Un luogo
> dove discutere progetti, eventi e altro. Per consultare la raccolta dei
> messaggi ...
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Jack Burke]

Thus my problem.  The wiki doesn't consider what to do when there's a
branching exit.  It's a complete hole in the tagging schema, even though
it's probably the most common type of freeway exit in the U.S.

So, since there is no "through" indication, I resorted to
"none;slight_right" even though the usage of "none" is technically
incorrect because there *is* a signed indication of a slight_right.  But
being incorrect that way seemed better than being incorrect by using
"through;slight_right".

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:58 PM, David Mease  wrote:

>
> From the wiki:
>
> The *turn*=* key can be used to specify the *indicated* direction in
> which a way or a lane will lead. It is used on the way segment from the
> first indication via *road markings*, *signposts* or similar indications
> to the junction or completion of merge. If you instead want to specify
> legal turning restrictions please see the article about the restriction
> relation .
>
> The turn:lanes schema is for identifying the painted/signed lane marking
> arrows, not for describing where you can legally go from that lane. That's
> what the turn restriction relation is for.
>
> Putting "through" on a lane means that there is a straight arrow painted
> on it. Putting "none" on a lane means that there is no marking.
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Jack Burke  wrote:
>
>> Even if the road isn't signed that way?  The use of "through" when there
>> is no explicit marking to that effect seems to be contraindicated by the
>> wiki.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong--I don't see why we _couldn't_ use it when that is the
>> obvious traffic direction, even with the lack of explicit signage.  But if
>> that's how we want to use "through" then shouldn't we update the wiki to be
>> more clear?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Paul Johnson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
>>>
 An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check out what
 I reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called "to-fix"
 that is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values (and
 maybe other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough).

 The problem is, it's breaking the values instead.  I found a section of
 road that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance at an
 exit.  My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slight_right"
 was replaced by "slight_right".

>>>
>>> You may want to try through|through|through|through|through;slight_right
>>> as the value; I've noticed routers that actually use this data struggle
>>> with null or none values, which isn't *entirely* unreasonable, but the
>>> former does describe the allowed movements even if the DOT doesn't feel the
>>> need to explicitly paint it out.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Jack Burke]

So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is
deficient for branching exits like this one:  http://mapillary.com/map/im/
7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw

Your Osmand "invention" example is a perfect case-study of what I'm working
on.  I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia and Florida tagged with
destination and lane guidance so that Osmand can show proper guidance, and
hopefully other OSM-based navigation apps will add that feature, too.  As
it stands, I use Osmand to test my tags.




On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jack Burke  wrote:
>
>> Even if the road isn't signed that way?  The use of "through" when there
>> is no explicit marking to that effect seems to be contraindicated by the
>> wiki.
>>
>
> I'm considering the ground truth in this case to be how the lane can
> actually be legally used, since (at least in North America where the
> direction of travel is obviated by the yellow centerline) lane arrows are
> much less common than in some other parts in the world.  Otherwise most
> intersections with turn pockets would end up as none|none|none|none instead
> of left|through|through|right.  Low-angle intersections are especially
> tricky for routing engines; in absense of anything other than a lane count,
> for example, Osmand will "invent" a new lane for the departing ramp
> (indicating say, the right most of through|through|through) instead of the
> correct through|through;slight_right (with the slight_right highlighted).
>
>
>> Don't get me wrong--I don't see why we _couldn't_ use it when that is the
>> obvious traffic direction, even with the lack of explicit signage.  But if
>> that's how we want to use "through" then shouldn't we update the wiki to be
>> more clear?
>>
>
> I think the wiki should be updated, yes, since the wiki's not describing
> how it's been implemented in the real world right now.  Though, to be fair,
> the only consumer I know that's actually doing anything with this data
> right now is Osmand.
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-08-25 04:53 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
>
> … The polygons will need to be either merged
> or redrawn to conform with the underlying land use.

Or, dare I suggest, deleted completely. If they take a huge amount of
work to fix and they add little value by being based on elderly data, I
question their need to be in OSM.

I know it's considered politically inexpedient to have huge blank areas
in your country's map: it gives ambitious neighbours expansionist ideas.
You can't find anything interesting in these polygons, and they don't
help you to find anything, either. Maybe we should just have the legend
“hic sunt sciuri”* every few square kilometres instead?

cheers,
 Stewart

*: “here be squirrels”

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

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[David Mease]

>From the wiki:

The *turn*=* key can be used to specify the *indicated* direction in which
a way or a lane will lead. It is used on the way segment from the first
indication via *road markings*, *signposts* or similar indications to the
junction or completion of merge. If you instead want to specify legal
turning restrictions please see the article about the restriction relation
.

The turn:lanes schema is for identifying the painted/signed lane marking
arrows, not for describing where you can legally go from that lane. That's
what the turn restriction relation is for.

Putting "through" on a lane means that there is a straight arrow painted on
it. Putting "none" on a lane means that there is no marking.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Jack Burke  wrote:

> Even if the road isn't signed that way?  The use of "through" when there
> is no explicit marking to that effect seems to be contraindicated by the
> wiki.
>
> Don't get me wrong--I don't see why we _couldn't_ use it when that is the
> obvious traffic direction, even with the lack of explicit signage.  But if
> that's how we want to use "through" then shouldn't we update the wiki to be
> more clear?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
>>
>>> An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check out what I
>>> reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called "to-fix" that
>>> is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values (and maybe
>>> other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough).
>>>
>>> The problem is, it's breaking the values instead.  I found a section of
>>> road that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance at an
>>> exit.  My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slight_right" was
>>> replaced by "slight_right".
>>>
>>
>> You may want to try through|through|through|through|through;slight_right
>> as the value; I've noticed routers that actually use this data struggle
>> with null or none values, which isn't *entirely* unreasonable, but the
>> former does describe the allowed movements even if the DOT doesn't feel the
>> need to explicitly paint it out.
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jack Burke  wrote:

> Even if the road isn't signed that way?  The use of "through" when there
> is no explicit marking to that effect seems to be contraindicated by the
> wiki.
>

I'm considering the ground truth in this case to be how the lane can
actually be legally used, since (at least in North America where the
direction of travel is obviated by the yellow centerline) lane arrows are
much less common than in some other parts in the world.  Otherwise most
intersections with turn pockets would end up as none|none|none|none instead
of left|through|through|right.  Low-angle intersections are especially
tricky for routing engines; in absense of anything other than a lane count,
for example, Osmand will "invent" a new lane for the departing ramp
(indicating say, the right most of through|through|through) instead of the
correct through|through;slight_right (with the slight_right highlighted).


> Don't get me wrong--I don't see why we _couldn't_ use it when that is the
> obvious traffic direction, even with the lack of explicit signage.  But if
> that's how we want to use "through" then shouldn't we update the wiki to be
> more clear?
>

I think the wiki should be updated, yes, since the wiki's not describing
how it's been implemented in the real world right now.  Though, to be fair,
the only consumer I know that's actually doing anything with this data
right now is Osmand.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto 24-8-2016 centro Italia

[mircozorzo]

Scusate qualcuno per favore può cambiare il titolo, perché il mese è
sbagliato



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Terremoto-24-9-2016-centro-Italia-tp5880697p5880711.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Luca Delucchi]

Il 25/ago/2016 18:03, "Stefano"  ha scritto:
>
> Ciao a tutti,

Ciao ste,

Ti scrivo in privato coscientemente

> abbiamo messo su l'immagine di Massimo
> Il link del wms da inserire in josm (c'è solo un livello da selezionare) è
>
http://osmit3.wmflabs.org/cgi-bin/qgis_mapserv.fcgi?map=/srv/Amatrice/amatrice.qgs=WMS=GetCapabilities=1.3
>
> Occhio che è molto shiftata (-130 in verticale a sinistra), non sono
riuscito a riproiettarla bene perché mi è partito il pc in fase di
elaborazione con qgis.
>
> Se ci riesco riprovo a georeferirla.
>

Non è difficile, non usare qgis ma direttamente GDAL (gdalwarp), che
sistema di proiezione è?

Penso sia meglio usare mapserver piuttosto che qgis-mapserver ;-)

> Ciao,
> Stefano
>

PS
Se serve una mano basta che scrivete

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

[Talk-de] Editor für Ipad

[Eifelhunde]

Ich suche einen Editor für OSM fürs iPad. Ich brauchs im Moment nur fürs 
eintragen von ein paar Häusern. So etwa wie Josm. Ich habe GoMap ist 
aber viel zu unhandlich


caronna


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

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Jack Burke]

Even if the road isn't signed that way?  The use of "through" when there is
no explicit marking to that effect seems to be contraindicated by the wiki.

Don't get me wrong--I don't see why we _couldn't_ use it when that is the
obvious traffic direction, even with the lack of explicit signage.  But if
that's how we want to use "through" then shouldn't we update the wiki to be
more clear?



On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
>
>> An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check out what I
>> reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called "to-fix" that
>> is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values (and maybe
>> other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough).
>>
>> The problem is, it's breaking the values instead.  I found a section of
>> road that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance at an
>> exit.  My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slight_right" was
>> replaced by "slight_right".
>>
>
> You may want to try through|through|through|through|through;slight_right
> as the value; I've noticed routers that actually use this data struggle
> with null or none values, which isn't *entirely* unreasonable, but the
> former does describe the allowed movements even if the DOT doesn't feel the
> need to explicitly paint it out.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Stefano]

Ciao a tutti,
abbiamo messo su l'immagine di Massimo
Il link del wms da inserire in josm (c'è solo un livello da selezionare) è
http://osmit3.wmflabs.org/cgi-bin/qgis_mapserv.fcgi?map=/srv/Amatrice/amatrice.qgs=WMS=GetCapabilities=1.3


Occhio che è molto shiftata (-130 in verticale a sinistra), non sono
riuscito a riproiettarla bene perché mi è partito il pc in fase di
elaborazione con qgis.

Se ci riesco riprovo a georeferirla.

Ciao,
Stefano


Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 17:54, Massimo Zotti  ha
scritto:

> Ricevuto. Provvedo, grazie.
>
> Nel frattempo abbiamo avuto altri dati... ma senza licenza :/
> Ma ce la farò.
>
> m.
>
>
> Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 17:40, Maurizio Napolitano 
> ha scritto:
>
>> Il consiglio e' di scriverlo anche su una sezione del wiki di OSM fra
>> le sorgenti dati :)
>>
>> 2016-08-25 17:09 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
>> > Alla mia richiesta
>> > "I simply need that you herewith authorize the OpenStreetMap
>> contributors to
>> > use the image captured by EUSI yesterday morning over the city of
>> Amatrice
>> > for the derivation of information that will enrich the OpenStreetMap
>> > database."
>> >
>> > Hanno risposto "alright, go ahead in this case due to the
>> circumstances."
>> >
>> > Lo scambio di mail è conservato nei server di Planetek.
>> >
>> > Dovrebbe essere sufficiente.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 15:50, Maurizio Napolitano 
>> ha
>> > scritto:
>> >>
>> >> 2016-08-25 15:19 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
>> >> > Ciao Luigi,
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> C'è un permesso di uso e derivazione (scritto) verso la licenza di
>> OSM
>> >> >> che
>> >> >> è molto diversa dalla CC-BY-NC?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > mi faccio mandare una mail dal fornitore European Space Imaging.
>> Credo
>> >> > possa
>> >> > essere sufficiente, giusto?
>> >>
>> >> Se loro aggiungono una nota che danno il permesso per il ricalco su
>> >> openstreemap
>> >> questo e' possibile.
>> >> Se vogliamo rimanere in ambito creative commons dovrebbero usare la
>> >> creative
>> >> commons plus (che serve ad estendere le creative commons a casi
>> >> particolari)
>> >> non mi fascerei la testa
>> >> Quello che pero vieni fuori e' un po' una contraddizione, ma se
>> andiamo a
>> >> guardare la storia di openstreetmap in Italia molti dati sono stati
>> aperti
>> >> in
>> >> quel modo (la famosa licenza "ad simone")
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Maurizio "Napo" Napolitano
>> http://de.straba.us
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[OSM-talk-fr] Mission courte à Paris 8 début septembre

[Vincent de Château-Thierry]

Bonjour,

je relaie la demande faire via le forum, car le délai est assez court :
http://forum.openstreetmap.fr/viewtopic.php?f=22=2180=7fedb29367f1f86a999818bc9d09#p13463

vincent

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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Massimo Zotti]

Ricevuto. Provvedo, grazie.

Nel frattempo abbiamo avuto altri dati... ma senza licenza :/
Ma ce la farò.

m.


Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 17:40, Maurizio Napolitano  ha
scritto:

> Il consiglio e' di scriverlo anche su una sezione del wiki di OSM fra
> le sorgenti dati :)
>
> 2016-08-25 17:09 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
> > Alla mia richiesta
> > "I simply need that you herewith authorize the OpenStreetMap
> contributors to
> > use the image captured by EUSI yesterday morning over the city of
> Amatrice
> > for the derivation of information that will enrich the OpenStreetMap
> > database."
> >
> > Hanno risposto "alright, go ahead in this case due to the circumstances."
> >
> > Lo scambio di mail è conservato nei server di Planetek.
> >
> > Dovrebbe essere sufficiente.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 15:50, Maurizio Napolitano 
> ha
> > scritto:
> >>
> >> 2016-08-25 15:19 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
> >> > Ciao Luigi,
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> C'è un permesso di uso e derivazione (scritto) verso la licenza di
> OSM
> >> >> che
> >> >> è molto diversa dalla CC-BY-NC?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > mi faccio mandare una mail dal fornitore European Space Imaging. Credo
> >> > possa
> >> > essere sufficiente, giusto?
> >>
> >> Se loro aggiungono una nota che danno il permesso per il ricalco su
> >> openstreemap
> >> questo e' possibile.
> >> Se vogliamo rimanere in ambito creative commons dovrebbero usare la
> >> creative
> >> commons plus (che serve ad estendere le creative commons a casi
> >> particolari)
> >> non mi fascerei la testa
> >> Quello che pero vieni fuori e' un po' una contraddizione, ma se andiamo
> a
> >> guardare la storia di openstreetmap in Italia molti dati sono stati
> aperti
> >> in
> >> quel modo (la famosa licenza "ad simone")
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Maurizio "Napo" Napolitano
> http://de.straba.us
>
> ___
> 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] Terremoto Rieti

[Maurizio Napolitano]

Il consiglio e' di scriverlo anche su una sezione del wiki di OSM fra
le sorgenti dati :)

2016-08-25 17:09 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
> Alla mia richiesta
> "I simply need that you herewith authorize the OpenStreetMap contributors to
> use the image captured by EUSI yesterday morning over the city of Amatrice
> for the derivation of information that will enrich the OpenStreetMap
> database."
>
> Hanno risposto "alright, go ahead in this case due to the circumstances."
>
> Lo scambio di mail è conservato nei server di Planetek.
>
> Dovrebbe essere sufficiente.
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 15:50, Maurizio Napolitano  ha
> scritto:
>>
>> 2016-08-25 15:19 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
>> > Ciao Luigi,
>> >
>> >>
>> >> C'è un permesso di uso e derivazione (scritto) verso la licenza di OSM
>> >> che
>> >> è molto diversa dalla CC-BY-NC?
>> >
>> >
>> > mi faccio mandare una mail dal fornitore European Space Imaging. Credo
>> > possa
>> > essere sufficiente, giusto?
>>
>> Se loro aggiungono una nota che danno il permesso per il ricalco su
>> openstreemap
>> questo e' possibile.
>> Se vogliamo rimanere in ambito creative commons dovrebbero usare la
>> creative
>> commons plus (che serve ad estendere le creative commons a casi
>> particolari)
>> non mi fascerei la testa
>> Quello che pero vieni fuori e' un po' una contraddizione, ma se andiamo a
>> guardare la storia di openstreetmap in Italia molti dati sono stati aperti
>> in
>> quel modo (la famosa licenza "ad simone")
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
Maurizio "Napo" Napolitano
http://de.straba.us

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Zuzanka

[Jakub Sýkora]

Ahoj,

Pokud dobře koukám, tak na ofoto je nápis miluju tě a jméno je jiné 
(něco jako Símo) - určitě tam není Zuzanko. 16m v lomu není zrovna mnoho 
- GPSkou bys to musel trasovat naněkolikrát a beztak by ten výsledek 
podle mě byl nevalný.. To už by bylo lepší to "zaměřit" svinovacím 
metrem, namalovat si to JOSM 1:1 a pak to prsknout zhruba tam, kam to 
patří v tom lomu.


Tedy se jedná o věc vcelku asi v čase proměnnou, tak je otázka, zda to 
vůbec mapovat.


To už bych spíš zmapoval v Harrachově vysázené modříny do cifry 10, 
které tam byly vysazeny k desátému výročí vzniku republiky v roce 1928. 
Dodnes je to krásně patrné obzvlášť z čerťáku. Což mě napadá, že asi 
udělám :-)


K


Dne 25.8.2016 v 17:24 Mikoláš Štrajt napsal(a):

Zdravím OSM komunitu,

pro dnešek mám takové odlehčené téma.

Na dovolené jsme mimo jiné navštívil Solvayovy lomy (blízko Berouna), 
kde jsem v prostoru bývalého lomu paraple zahlédl poměrně velký nápis 
"Miluju tě, Zuzanko" vyskládaný z kamenů.


Když jsem to uviděl, říkal jsem si, že by to mohlo být vidět na 
ortofotomapě - a skutečně - https://mapy.cz/s/10xKP


Je to tedy vidět jen na té od mapy.cz, ostatní poskytovatelé nemají 
tak podrobné/aktuální ortofoto.


Mám dva takový troufalý dotazy:

 - je to mapovatelné pomocí normálních nástrojů OSM (tj. mobily, GPS, 
případně tracing z ortofota), nebo to chce něco přesnějšího. Samotný 
nápis "Miluju" má dle měření na mapy.cz délku 16m, tedy asi jednu tramvaj
 - jak to značit? Třeba stonehenge jsou building=yes, historic=stone a 
natural=stone. Tohle asi moc historic nebude (tuším, že tam byl rok 1998).


Severák


___
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-it] Tag Sentieri

[Gianmario Mengozzi]

Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 16:15, Alfredo Gattai 
ha scritto:

> Ciao Bruno,
>
> Il numero del sentiero va solo in ref.
> Oltre ad essere una duplicazione di per se, molte applicazioni finirebbero
> per mostrarlo doppio (osmand ad esempio).
> Il nome CAI non va citato perché non tutti i sentieri sono CAI.
>
> I sentieri sono quasi tutti lwn come network.
>
> Quelli di lunga percorrenza di importanza regionale sono rwn tipo l'alta
> via dei monti liguri.
>
> Lo 00 che citi tu è on effetti un rwn ma solo perché è di lunga
> percorrenza e attraversa più regioni.
>
> Vai a dare un'occhiata alla wiki della liguria, a come sono codificate le
> relazioni in provincia di spezia e di pisa.
>
> Il CAI sta attivamente collaborando per delle linee guida che saranno
> disponibili fra non molto.
>
> sac_scale è solo per le way.
>

+1




> Ciao
> Alfredo
>
> Il 25 Ago 2016 11:03 AM, "Bruno"  ha scritto:
>
> Stavo guardando un po' di sentieri montani.
>
> Spessa ho trovato alcune classificazioni delle relazioni un po' sommarie.
>
> Io ho provato a classificare così
>
> Ho utilizzato OSMC perché vedo che molti servizi web lo utilizzano.
>
> Un dubbio. Ho letto che il nome non dovrebbe includere il numero percorso.
> Io l'ho comunque messo perchè vedo che normalmente tra gli utilizzatori
> viene indicato sia il nome che il numero e la maggior parte della
> cartellonistica indica il numero, quindi lo inserirei, anche se è una
> duplicazione del REF, in base al principio di tenere le informazioni che uo
> cerca sinteticamnete nel nome.
> Inoltre il mettere CAI nel name può tornare utile perché può succedere che
> un sentiero sia classificato CAI ma gestito da altri enti/associazioni.
>
>
> Ovviamente classificazioni più di dettaglio su condizioni terreno pendenze
> ecc, sono dei vari tratti della relazione.
>
> Altri tag:
> Dovrei aggiungere Network? e nel caso quali? nel caso dell'appennino
> settentrionale credo che sarebbe iwn (italiano) il sentiero 00 e rwn la
> maggior parte degli altri sentieri CAI
>
> Infine  sac_scale per voi è un tag più della way o della relation? io lo
> metterei nei singoli tratti.
>
> Come fonte per capire i tag ho utilizzato questa: http://wiki.openstreet
> map.org/wiki/IT:Hiking
>
> name CAI 615 Rescadore - Passo di Lama Lite
> operator Club Alpino Italiano
> osmc:symbol red:red:white_stripe:615:black
> ref 615
> route hiking
> symbol:it strisce orizzontali rosso-bianco-rosso
> type route
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>


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

[Talk-cz] Zuzanka

[Mikoláš Štrajt]

Zdravím OSM komunitu,

pro dnešek mám takové odlehčené téma.

Na dovolené jsme mimo jiné navštívil Solvayovy lomy (blízko Berouna), kde 
jsem v prostoru bývalého lomu paraple zahlédl poměrně velký nápis "Miluju 
tě, Zuzanko" vyskládaný z kamenů.

Když jsem to uviděl, říkal jsem si, že by to mohlo být vidět na ortofotomapě
- a skutečně - https://mapy.cz/s/10xKP

Je to tedy vidět jen na té od mapy.cz, ostatní poskytovatelé nemají tak 
podrobné/aktuální ortofoto.

Mám dva takový troufalý dotazy: 

 - je to mapovatelné pomocí normálních nástrojů OSM (tj. mobily, GPS, 
případně tracing z ortofota), nebo to chce něco přesnějšího. Samotný nápis 
"Miluju" má dle měření na mapy.cz délku 16m, tedy asi jednu tramvaj
 - jak to značit? Třeba stonehenge jsou building=yes, historic=stone a 
natural=stone. Tohle asi moc historic nebude (tuším, že tam byl rok 1998).

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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Massimo Zotti]

Alla mia richiesta
"I simply need that you herewith authorize the OpenStreetMap contributors
to use the image captured by EUSI yesterday morning over the city of
Amatrice for the derivation of information that will enrich the
OpenStreetMap database."

Hanno risposto "alright, go ahead in this case due to the circumstances."

Lo scambio di mail è conservato nei server di Planetek.

Dovrebbe essere sufficiente.




Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 15:50, Maurizio Napolitano  ha
scritto:

> 2016-08-25 15:19 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
> > Ciao Luigi,
> >
> >>
> >> C'è un permesso di uso e derivazione (scritto) verso la licenza di OSM
> che
> >> è molto diversa dalla CC-BY-NC?
> >
> >
> > mi faccio mandare una mail dal fornitore European Space Imaging. Credo
> possa
> > essere sufficiente, giusto?
>
> Se loro aggiungono una nota che danno il permesso per il ricalco su
> openstreemap
> questo e' possibile.
> Se vogliamo rimanere in ambito creative commons dovrebbero usare la
> creative
> commons plus (che serve ad estendere le creative commons a casi
> particolari)
> non mi fascerei la testa
> Quello che pero vieni fuori e' un po' una contraddizione, ma se andiamo a
> guardare la storia di openstreetmap in Italia molti dati sono stati aperti
> in
> quel modo (la famosa licenza "ad simone")
>
> ___
> 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-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:

> An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check out what I
> reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called "to-fix" that
> is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values (and maybe
> other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough).
>
> The problem is, it's breaking the values instead.  I found a section of
> road that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance at an
> exit.  My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slight_right" was
> replaced by "slight_right".
>

You may want to try through|through|through|through|through;slight_right as
the value; I've noticed routers that actually use this data struggle with
null or none values, which isn't *entirely* unreasonable, but the former
does describe the allowed movements even if the DOT doesn't feel the need
to explicitly paint it out.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Présentation OSM lors Semaine de l'innovation à Nancy ?

[Romain MEHUT]

Bonjour,

On (nous étions quatre contributeurs  + une personne du Grand Nancy en
charge de l'application G-Ny) a eu une réunion le 8 juillet à la mairie
avec l'équipe mission Nancy Ville Numérique.

Cette réunion avait pour objectif de nous présenter les projets et
réflexions en matière de cartographie et de nouveau site internet de la
ville et de mieux connaitre OSM...

Visiblement il y a un fort intérêt pour OSM et il nous a été proposé un
inventaire des données cartographique attendues pour le bon fonctionnement
du futur site internet de la ville. En retour, nous avons complété cet
inventaire avec les données disponibles via OSM cf.
https://framacalc.org/j7jjixfqeb

Aussi, l'idée d'une journée autour du libre avait effectivement été abordée
mais nous n'en savons pas plus pour le moment.

Romain

Le 25 août 2016 à 16:19, Brice MALLET  a écrit :

> Bonjour,
>
> Dans le cadre de la "Semaine de l'innovation publique" (
> http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/la-semaine-de-linnovation-publique) du
> 14 au 20 novembre 2016 de nombreuses interventions sont envisagées sur tout
> le territoire.
> A voir la place d'OSM dans un tel cadre dans les régions (plus que les
> années précédentes, il est envisagé plus d'évènements hors Paris) ?
>
> Particulièrement dans le cas de la ville de Nancy, celle-ci envisage une
> journée autour du libre avec potentiellement des actions OSM (cartopartie,
> ...).
>
> Pê que les mappeurs nancéens (Romain Méhut ?) peuvent les contacter en
> direct ; si ceux-ci n'ont pas de contacts, je suis disponible pour une mise
> en relation avec les bon interlocuteurs de la ville de Nancy (je travaille
> à titre professionnel avec eux).
>
> --
> Brice Mallet
>
> ___
> 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-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Bryan Housel]

This was discussed extensively on the tagging mailing list 2 months ago:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029335.html 


The consensus at the time was that combinations including ‘none’ are not valid, 
and people should use `transit:lanes` style tags to indicate what happens to a 
lane - whether it branches, forks, or ends.

see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/transit 
  for more 
details.

At the time of that thread, I did use taginfo to search for values like 
`none;left` or `none;slight_right`, and there were only a handful of such lanes 
worldwide - maybe 10 or so.

Thanks, Bryan



> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:48 AM, Jack Burke  wrote:
> 
> I have to disagree. If that's how to interpret the tags, then the tagging 
> definition is deficient. 
> 
> Under that interpretation, how do you tag a lane that both continues and 
> branches off as an exit, but doesn't have signage that it continues? 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology
> 
> On August 25, 2016 1:22:58 AM EDT, David Mease  wrote:
> According to the wiki, "none" means that there are no indications on the 
> lane. The value "none;slight_right" says that there are both no indications 
> and a slight right indication on the lane, which is of course impossible. 
> These "scripted" edits are therefore a correct interpretation of the original 
> tagging. The problem here is that the original tagging was incorrect.
> 
> On Aug 24, 2016, at 7:24 PM, Jack Burke  > wrote:
> 
>> And I, too, have a preference for using "none" instead of leaving and 
>> endless line of "|" to try to parse.  My eyesight isn't getting 
>> better as I get older.
>> 
>> Having said that, if that had been the only thing they did, I wouldn't have 
>> bothered saying anything.  But when their edits turned continuing lanes into 
>> exit-only lanes...well, then it became a *problem*.
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Tod Fitch > > wrote:
>> I’m of half a mind to use a script to find the edits in my area where they 
>> changed something like “left|none|none|” to “left||” and then revert them 
>> manually.
>> 
>> I know they are both officially acceptable variations but for those of us 
>> editing by hand counting the occurrences of “|none” to make sure the lane 
>> count is correct and matches what is on the ground is harder than counting 
>> the “|” occurrences. At least it is for me and I’ve had decades of practice 
>> counting open and close parens to make sure compilers wouldn’t squawk at me 
>> because they weren’t balanced.
>> 
>> And while I haven’t seen a “none;slight_right”, it looks syntacticly correct 
>> and I can imagine cases where it might be used and would defer to the local 
>> mapper who used it. (The ones in my area are much more likely to be 
>> “through;slight_right”.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Jack Burke >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> No, it's https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/193 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> And they appear to be telling me that the combination "none;slight_right" 
>>> isn't valid.
>>> 
>>> Also, in their reply to me, they do specifically mention that they know 
>>> none is valid, yet they're replacing it anyway.  And the worst part of it 
>>> is that while they're using a script to *find* what they think is invalid, 
>>> they're *manually* making the changes.
>>> 
>>> --jack
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Hans De Kryger >> > wrote:
>>> The link Jack's talking about,
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 24, 2016 4:09 PM, "Toby Murray" >> > wrote:
>>> Mind sharing the link to the GitHub issue?
>>> 
>>> Do they think that "none" is an invalid option and are replacing it
>>> with a blank globally? If so, this should be shut down immediately.
>>> "none" and blank are both valid values and while I wouldn't mind
>>> seeing it be consistent, any such edit would need to be discussed
>>> before it is done.
>>> 
>>> Toby
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke >> > wrote:
>>> > An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check out what I
>>> > reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called "to-fix" that
>>> > is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values (and maybe
>>> > other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough).
>>> >
>>> > The problem is, it's breaking the 

Re: [Talk-it] Tag Sentieri

[Alfredo Gattai]

Ciao Ivo,

La lombardia e la liguria usano gia' il catasto regionale ma solo
internamente, la segnaletica a terra rimarrà quella standard CAI, lo so per
certo perchè sono coinvolto come CAI ed anche in Regione. Quindi ci sono
solo i numeri o sigle storicamente conosciute tipo AVML.

Quindi se la sigla intera del catasto regionale è effettivamente riportata
per intero sul cartello, allora quella è il suo ref, se invece come nella
maggior parte delle regioni c'è solo il numero, ci va solo quello. Ad
esempio il ETON332B in Liguria sarebbe solo 332B, rispetto al vecchio
numero si è aggiunto solo il settore.

Ciao Alfredo


Il 25 Ago 2016 3:54 PM, "Ivo Reano"  ha scritto:

>
>
> Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 15:37, Ivo Reano  ha scritto:
>
>> Un dubbio. Ho letto che il nome non dovrebbe includere il numero
>> percorso. Io l'ho comunque messo perchè vedo che normalmente tra gli
>> utilizzatori viene indicato sia il nome che il numero e la maggior parte
>> della cartellonistica indica il numero, quindi lo inserirei, anche se è una
>> duplicazione del REF, in base al principio di tenere le informazioni che uo
>> cerca sinteticamnete nel nome.
>>
>>> Inoltre il mettere CAI nel name può tornare utile perché può succedere
>>> che un sentiero sia classificato CAI ma gestito da altri enti/associazioni.
>>>
>>>
>>> name  CAI
>>> 615 Rescadore - Passo di Lama Lite
>>> operator  
>>> Club
>>> Alpino Italiano
>>> osmc:symbol
>>> 
>>> red:red:white_stripe:615:black
>>> ref  615
>>> route 
>>> hiking
>>> symbol:it strisce orizzontali rosso-bianco-rosso
>>> type  route
>>>
>>
>>
> Scusate l'invio frettoloso.
>
> Volevo chiedere di quale regione stiamo parlando?
> Io sono un rilevatore regionale del Piemonte e vorrei contribuire, ma mi
> sono trovato spiazzato da questi tag. (sarà l'età?).
> Comunque non capisco perché chiamare "numero CAI". Almeno in Piemonte
> esiste un catasto regionale, gestito dalla regione Piemonte, quindi il
> numero assegnato ha validità Nazionale se completo
> Esempio:
> ETON332B Bivio 332, Colle San Giacomo - Bivio 403, Curdumpero
> E = Piemonte
> TO = Torino (area provinciale)
> N = Settore Torino Nord
> 3 = Zona 3 ovvero Valle Grande di Stura
> 32 = numero sentiero principale (fino a 100 possibili nella zona)
> B = indica che è una variante o derivata del principale
> " Bivio 332, Colle San Giacomo - Bivio 403, Curdumpero" è il nome del
> sentiero, in questo caso come la maggioranza è descrittivo di partenza ed
> arrivo e allacciamenti con gli altri sentieri della rete.
> E questo in base ad una legge regionale
> So che la Vallè ha una sua numerazione, mentre Liguria e Lombardia
> usano/useranno questo sistema e dovrebbero convergere anche per la
> segnaletica.
>
>
> ___
> 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

[OSM-talk-fr] Présentation OSM lors Semaine de l'innovation à Nancy ?

[Brice MALLET]

Bonjour,

Dans le cadre de la "Semaine de l'innovation publique" 
(http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/la-semaine-de-linnovation-publique) du 
14 au 20 novembre 2016 de nombreuses interventions sont envisagées sur 
tout le territoire.
A voir la place d'OSM dans un tel cadre dans les régions (plus que les 
années précédentes, il est envisagé plus d'évènements hors Paris) ?


Particulièrement dans le cas de la ville de Nancy, celle-ci envisage une 
journée autour du libre avec potentiellement des actions OSM 
(cartopartie, ...).


Pê que les mappeurs nancéens (Romain Méhut ?) peuvent les contacter en 
direct ; si ceux-ci n'ont pas de contacts, je suis disponible pour une 
mise en relation avec les bon interlocuteurs de la ville de Nancy (je 
travaille à titre professionnel avec eux).


--
Brice Mallet

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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[James]

Yeah forests are not an easy task to handle, I've been trying to tackle
this from time to time in rural areas as to no put a forest in the city,
but it's a long process as you need to validate a lot of things before you
can upload a small portion of land.

I've tackled a few today:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41689490
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41689128
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41688785

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Gordon Dewis  wrote:

> Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in
> the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
> compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I
> was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.
>
>   --Gordon (Keeper of Maps)
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Alan Richards 
> wrote:
>
>> I believe these are the result of importing Canvec landuse data for some
>> areas and not for others. Because the data is in square chunks, you end up
>> with these unnatural looking squares on the map. Really it's just a case of
>> the other areas don't have detail yet.
>>
>> Across the border it looks like the US just has parks and national
>> forests, etc. mapped, and not the general natural=forest that you see
>> across Canada.
>>
>> Alan (alarobric)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Antoine Beaupré > > wrote:
>>
>>> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>>>
>>> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
>>> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>>>
>>> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
>>> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
>>> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
>>> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>>>
>>> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
>>> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
>>> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>>>
>>> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
>>> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>>>
>>> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
>>> anyways?
>>>
>>> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
>>> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
>>> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>>>
>>> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>>>
>>> A.
>>>
>>> --
>>> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
>>> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
>>> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
>>> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-it] Tag Sentieri

[Alfredo Gattai]

Ciao Bruno,

Il numero del sentiero va solo in ref.
Oltre ad essere una duplicazione di per se, molte applicazioni finirebbero
per mostrarlo doppio (osmand ad esempio).
Il nome CAI non va citato perché non tutti i sentieri sono CAI.

I sentieri sono quasi tutti lwn come network.

Quelli di lunga percorrenza di importanza regionale sono rwn tipo l'alta
via dei monti liguri.

Lo 00 che citi tu è on effetti un rwn ma solo perché è di lunga percorrenza
e attraversa più regioni.

Vai a dare un'occhiata alla wiki della liguria, a come sono codificate le
relazioni in provincia di spezia e di pisa.

Il CAI sta attivamente collaborando per delle linee guida che saranno
disponibili fra non molto.

sac_scale è solo per le way.

Ciao
Alfredo

Il 25 Ago 2016 11:03 AM, "Bruno"  ha scritto:

Stavo guardando un po' di sentieri montani.

Spessa ho trovato alcune classificazioni delle relazioni un po' sommarie.

Io ho provato a classificare così

Ho utilizzato OSMC perché vedo che molti servizi web lo utilizzano.

Un dubbio. Ho letto che il nome non dovrebbe includere il numero percorso.
Io l'ho comunque messo perchè vedo che normalmente tra gli utilizzatori
viene indicato sia il nome che il numero e la maggior parte della
cartellonistica indica il numero, quindi lo inserirei, anche se è una
duplicazione del REF, in base al principio di tenere le informazioni che uo
cerca sinteticamnete nel nome.
Inoltre il mettere CAI nel name può tornare utile perché può succedere che
un sentiero sia classificato CAI ma gestito da altri enti/associazioni.


Ovviamente classificazioni più di dettaglio su condizioni terreno pendenze
ecc, sono dei vari tratti della relazione.

Altri tag:
Dovrei aggiungere Network? e nel caso quali? nel caso dell'appennino
settentrionale credo che sarebbe iwn (italiano) il sentiero 00 e rwn la
maggior parte degli altri sentieri CAI

Infine  sac_scale per voi è un tag più della way o della relation? io lo
metterei nei singoli tratti.

Come fonte per capire i tag ho utilizzato questa: http://wiki.
openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Hiking

name CAI 615 Rescadore - Passo di Lama Lite
operator Club Alpino Italiano
osmc:symbol red:red:white_stripe:615:black
ref 615
route hiking
symbol:it strisce orizzontali rosso-bianco-rosso
type route



___
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-trentino] formazione su mapping per il terremoto?

[Luca Delucchi]

2016-08-25 15:58 GMT+02:00 Maurizio Napolitano :
>> ok, decidiamo una data a sto punto :-)
>
> Ho sentito sia biblioteca che thehub e, piu' o meno, da entrambi c'e' spazio
> Tu da che ora potresti?
>

pomeriggio sono abbastanza libero, a parte il 29 e il 31 gli altri
giorni vanno bene fino al 8 settembre (magari no nel weekend o venerdì
pomeriggio)

--
ciao
Luca

www.lucadelu.org

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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Gordon Dewis]

Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in
the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I
was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.

  --Gordon (Keeper of Maps)

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Alan Richards  wrote:

> I believe these are the result of importing Canvec landuse data for some
> areas and not for others. Because the data is in square chunks, you end up
> with these unnatural looking squares on the map. Really it's just a case of
> the other areas don't have detail yet.
>
> Across the border it looks like the US just has parks and national
> forests, etc. mapped, and not the general natural=forest that you see
> across Canada.
>
> Alan (alarobric)
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
> wrote:
>
>> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>>
>> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
>> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>>
>> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
>> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
>> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
>> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>>
>> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
>> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
>> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>>
>> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
>> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>>
>> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
>> anyways?
>>
>> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
>> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
>> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>>
>> A.
>>
>> --
>> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
>> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
>> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
>> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[David Mease]

According to the wiki, "none" means that there are no indications on the lane. 
The value "none;slight_right" says that there are both no indications and a 
slight right indication on the lane, which is of course impossible. These 
"scripted" edits are therefore a correct interpretation of the original 
tagging. The problem here is that the original tagging was incorrect.

> On Aug 24, 2016, at 7:24 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
> 
> And I, too, have a preference for using "none" instead of leaving and endless 
> line of "|" to try to parse.  My eyesight isn't getting better as I 
> get older.
> 
> Having said that, if that had been the only thing they did, I wouldn't have 
> bothered saying anything.  But when their edits turned continuing lanes into 
> exit-only lanes...well, then it became a *problem*.
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>> I’m of half a mind to use a script to find the edits in my area where they 
>> changed something like “left|none|none|” to “left||” and then revert them 
>> manually.
>> 
>> I know they are both officially acceptable variations but for those of us 
>> editing by hand counting the occurrences of “|none” to make sure the lane 
>> count is correct and matches what is on the ground is harder than counting 
>> the “|” occurrences. At least it is for me and I’ve had decades of practice 
>> counting open and close parens to make sure compilers wouldn’t squawk at me 
>> because they weren’t balanced.
>> 
>> And while I haven’t seen a “none;slight_right”, it looks syntacticly correct 
>> and I can imagine cases where it might be used and would defer to the local 
>> mapper who used it. (The ones in my area are much more likely to be 
>> “through;slight_right”.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
>>> 
>>> No, it's https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/193
>>> 
>>> And they appear to be telling me that the combination "none;slight_right" 
>>> isn't valid.
>>> 
>>> Also, in their reply to me, they do specifically mention that they know 
>>> none is valid, yet they're replacing it anyway.  And the worst part of it 
>>> is that while they're using a script to *find* what they think is invalid, 
>>> they're *manually* making the changes.
>>> 
>>> --jack
>>> 
 On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Hans De Kryger 
  wrote:
 The link Jack's talking about,
 
 https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180
 
 Regards,
 Hans
 
 
> On Aug 24, 2016 4:09 PM, "Toby Murray"  wrote:
> Mind sharing the link to the GitHub issue?
> 
> Do they think that "none" is an invalid option and are replacing it
> with a blank globally? If so, this should be shut down immediately.
> "none" and blank are both valid values and while I wouldn't mind
> seeing it be consistent, any such edit would need to be discussed
> before it is done.
> 
> Toby
> 
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
> > An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check out what I
> > reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called "to-fix" 
> > that
> > is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values (and 
> > maybe
> > other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough).
> >
> > The problem is, it's breaking the values instead.  I found a section of 
> > road
> > that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance at an 
> > exit.
> > My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slight_right" was 
> > replaced by
> > "slight_right".
> >
> > While, per the wiki, there's nothing particularly wrong with a null 
> > value
> > for a field vs. specifying "none" as the value, it *does* make a 
> > difference
> > when there are two values in the field, as in my example above.  They 
> > turned
> > a continue-on-or-exit lane into an exit-only lane.
> >
> > So if you find broken lane guidance like that, with empty fields where
> > "none" would also be appropriate, that's probably what happened.  Check 
> > the
> > history on the way and see if you can backtrack what happened 
> > (fortunately,
> > the group involved here included a url to a github issue where they are
> > tracking what they're doing).
> >
> > Now I have 200 miles of Interstate to go back through and re-check.
> >
> > --jack
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>> 
>>> 

[OSM-talk-be] The "opening_hours" plugin in josm is it out of use ?

[Jakka]

Hi,

The "opening_hours" plugin in josm is it out of use ?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/OpeningHoursEditor


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

Re: [Talk-it] Edit war Sardegna

[Fayor Uno]

Se avrete il tempo e la voglia di rileggervi tutta la discussione, sia questa 
che quelle precedenti in merito alla doppia denominazione, scoprirete che la 
maggioranza di chi è intervenuto è favorevole a mantenere in name solo la sola 
denominazione ufficiale stabilità da chi di competenza: cioè quella unica (non 
"in italiano", non è una questione di lingua ma di rispetto delle norme) uguale 
per tutto il territorio nazionale con l'eccezione del bilinguismo in Alto Adige.

Solo in questa discussione ho contato 13 opinioni in tal senso e 9 per la 
doppia denominazione (tra queste alcune sono per il sardo/italiano, altri per 
l'italiano/sardo).

La cosa comunque assurda e inaccettabile è che ancora rimangano le modifiche 
fatte da Luca Meloni nonostante il mancato consenso e che vi sia questo 
disinteresse diffuso di cui parla Federico: alla fine ognuno dice la sua ma a 
pochissimi interessa davvero se la situazione resterà questa o cambi!

In tal senso, vista l'inerzia, ho già contattato chi di dovere per risolvere, 
entro questo mese, la situazione, quindi in un modo o nell'altro la cosa si 
dovrà definire.





Da: Federico Cortese 
Inviato: giovedì 25 agosto 2016 09.22
A: openstreetmap list - italiano
Oggetto: Re: [Talk-it] Edit war Sardegna

2016-08-25 8:29 GMT+02:00 Francesca Valentina :
> Fayor il tuo "molti" non esiste, sono alcuni, e gran parte di chi é
> contrario al tuo senso di giustizia nei confronti della sardegna, si é giá
> espressa e non continua.

Ciao Francesca, credo stessi rispondendo a me ma forse mi hai confuso
con fayor ;)
Ho scritto così perchè mi pare appunto ci siano molti che non
apprezzano il doppio nome messo in name con lo slash, per i vari
motivi già ampiamente esposti, poi posso anche sbagliarmi per carità,
per questo avevo proposto una votazione per contarci, ma a quanto pare
non c'è interesse in merito.
Rispetto certamente le idee di voi "locals", io non conosco
personalmente la situazione sarda nel dettaglio e non ci sono mai
stato, mi spiace che continuerete a vedere di tanto in tanto cambiare
i nomi finché non si arriverà ad una decisione netta. Fate una
votazione Doodle sulla lista sarda se volete e mostrateci i risultati,
ma fate qualcosa!
Ciao
Federico

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

Pagina di informazioni della lista 
Talk-it
lists.openstreetmap.org
Lista dedicata agli utenti di lingua italiana di OpenStreetMap. Un luogo dove 
discutere progetti, eventi e altro. Per consultare la raccolta dei messaggi ...



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

Re: [Talk-it-trentino] formazione su mapping per il terremoto?

[Luca Delucchi]

2016-08-25 12:10 GMT+02:00 Maurizio Napolitano :

>
> Concordo pienamente.
> Gia' avere pero' un relatore come te e' ottimo.
> Per gli spazi ho gia' due contatti: Biblioteca Comunale di Trento oppure 
> TheHub.

ok, decidiamo una data a sto punto :-)

> Conosco diverse persone collegate al soccorso alpino trentino che, tra
> l'altro, sono
> anche in attesa di chiamata.
> Potremmo far girare la notizia fra di loro.
>

io anche conosco qualcuno, anzi ho sentito un ragazzo di lavis che
dovrebbe partire (se parte, parte oggi) per i primi soccorsi e gli ho
già accennato dell'evento.

> Ciao
>

-- 
ciao
Luca

www.lucadelu.org

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

Re: [Talk-it] Tag Sentieri

[Ivo Reano]

Un dubbio. Ho letto che il nome non dovrebbe includere il numero percorso.
Io l'ho comunque messo perchè vedo che normalmente tra gli utilizzatori
viene indicato sia il nome che il numero e la maggior parte della
cartellonistica indica il numero, quindi lo inserirei, anche se è una
duplicazione del REF, in base al principio di tenere le informazioni che uo
cerca sinteticamnete nel nome.

> Inoltre il mettere CAI nel name può tornare utile perché può succedere che
> un sentiero sia classificato CAI ma gestito da altri enti/associazioni.
>
>
> name  CAI 615
> Rescadore - Passo di Lama Lite
> operator  Club
> Alpino Italiano
> osmc:symbol
> 
> red:red:white_stripe:615:black
> ref  615
> route  hiking
> symbol:it strisce orizzontali rosso-bianco-rosso
> type  route
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Tag Sentieri

[Ivo Reano]

Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 15:37, Ivo Reano  ha scritto:

> Un dubbio. Ho letto che il nome non dovrebbe includere il numero percorso.
> Io l'ho comunque messo perchè vedo che normalmente tra gli utilizzatori
> viene indicato sia il nome che il numero e la maggior parte della
> cartellonistica indica il numero, quindi lo inserirei, anche se è una
> duplicazione del REF, in base al principio di tenere le informazioni che uo
> cerca sinteticamnete nel nome.
>
>> Inoltre il mettere CAI nel name può tornare utile perché può succedere
>> che un sentiero sia classificato CAI ma gestito da altri enti/associazioni.
>>
>>
>> name  CAI 615
>> Rescadore - Passo di Lama Lite
>> operator  Club
>> Alpino Italiano
>> osmc:symbol
>> 
>> red:red:white_stripe:615:black
>> ref  615
>> route  hiking
>> symbol:it strisce orizzontali rosso-bianco-rosso
>> type  route
>>
>
>
Scusate l'invio frettoloso.

Volevo chiedere di quale regione stiamo parlando?
Io sono un rilevatore regionale del Piemonte e vorrei contribuire, ma mi
sono trovato spiazzato da questi tag. (sarà l'età?).
Comunque non capisco perché chiamare "numero CAI". Almeno in Piemonte
esiste un catasto regionale, gestito dalla regione Piemonte, quindi il
numero assegnato ha validità Nazionale se completo
Esempio:
ETON332B Bivio 332, Colle San Giacomo - Bivio 403, Curdumpero
E = Piemonte
TO = Torino (area provinciale)
N = Settore Torino Nord
3 = Zona 3 ovvero Valle Grande di Stura
32 = numero sentiero principale (fino a 100 possibili nella zona)
B = indica che è una variante o derivata del principale
" Bivio 332, Colle San Giacomo - Bivio 403, Curdumpero" è il nome del
sentiero, in questo caso come la maggioranza è descrittivo di partenza ed
arrivo e allacciamenti con gli altri sentieri della rete.
E questo in base ad una legge regionale
So che la Vallè ha una sua numerazione, mentre Liguria e Lombardia
usano/useranno questo sistema e dovrebbero convergere anche per la
segnaletica.
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Maurizio Napolitano]

2016-08-25 15:19 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
> Ciao Luigi,
>
>>
>> C'è un permesso di uso e derivazione (scritto) verso la licenza di OSM che
>> è molto diversa dalla CC-BY-NC?
>
>
> mi faccio mandare una mail dal fornitore European Space Imaging. Credo possa
> essere sufficiente, giusto?

Se loro aggiungono una nota che danno il permesso per il ricalco su openstreemap
questo e' possibile.
Se vogliamo rimanere in ambito creative commons dovrebbero usare la creative
commons plus (che serve ad estendere le creative commons a casi particolari)
non mi fascerei la testa
Quello che pero vieni fuori e' un po' una contraddizione, ma se andiamo a
guardare la storia di openstreetmap in Italia molti dati sono stati aperti in
quel modo (la famosa licenza "ad simone")

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

[OSM-talk] Artwork problems

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 25.08.2016 11:10, Svavar Kjarrval napisał(a):

My artwork changesets would like to thank you for this update. It's now
a little easier to impress the tourism boards. :)


Great! =} I was planning to create such icon long time ago, but it was 
hard to find something good enough for such a generic type until we had 
a brainstorm lately.


While I like the rendering in some places:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.80610/2.11513
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/41.90212/12.45535

there are some places, where the indoor artworks just make noise and I 
still don't know how to avoid this clutter in general:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/48.86064/2.33631

***

I've also noticed that the line between artworks and memorials is 
blurred, especially with statues - like this one:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104212302

How should we tag them - as an artwork, memorial or both? And what about 
saints or just fictional creatures, like this one, which is commonly 
known as a "monument":


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaid_of_Warsaw#Monuments_and_carvings_of_the_Warsaw_mermaid

Description for both types are too short and general for me to decide, 
and the result is that our data are not consistent:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dartwork
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmemorial

--
"To co ludzie zwą marskością wątroby/ Tak naprawdę jest śmiercią z 
tęsknoty" [Afro Kolektyw]


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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Begin Daniel]

Bon points Jean-Denis,
Les descriptions techniques aident souvent. Dans les cas où j’ai utilisé cette 
source de données, elle référait souvent aux lotissements mais la carte des 
lotissements (matrice graphique) ne peut être utilisée dans OSM (licences).
L’autorisation expresse du/des Ministère(s) concerné(s) serait parfaite! On 
peut toujours espérer …

Bonne chance Antoine
Daniel

From: Jean-Denis Giguere [mailto:jdenisgigu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 August, 2016 08:18
To: Antoine Beaupré
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

Bonjour Antoine,

Pour la limite des parcs, les descriptions techniques des délimitations font 
partie des règlements sur l’établissement des parcs nationaux [1]. Il y a là 
des repères susceptibles d'aider à leur cartographie.
Une autre alternative consisterait à transmettre une demande au Ministère des 
Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs pour obtenir les données géospatiales de leur 
délimitation avec l'autorisation expresse d'intégrer les données dans 
OpenStreetMap.


Salutations cordiales,


Jean-Denis


[1] Voir par exemple, http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cr/P-9,%20r.%201

2016-08-16 17:04 GMT-04:00 Antoine Beaupré 
>:
hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)

one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
Canada is this ugly forest display:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916

Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.

I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.

I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).

Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
anyways?

In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
*all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..

Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).

A.

--
We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
- John Perry Barlow, 1996
A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace

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

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

[Talk-cz] spolek

[Jakub Sýkora]

Ahoj,

vznikl vlastně nějaký spolek, který zastřešuje osm.cz ? Jde mi o to, že 
vedu doménu mtbmap.cz a v případě, že by spolek existoval, tak bych ho 
nastavil jako vlastníka. Dnes jsem u domény veden jako vlastník já...


K


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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Massimo Zotti]

Ciao Luigi,


> C'è un permesso di uso e derivazione (scritto) verso la licenza di OSM
> che è molto diversa dalla CC-BY-NC?


mi faccio mandare una mail dal fornitore European Space Imaging. Credo
possa essere sufficiente, giusto?


Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 13:42, Luigi Toscano  ha
scritto:

> On Thursday, 25 August 2016 12:35:47 CEST Massimo Zotti wrote:
> > Siamo riusciti ad ottenere finalmente l'immagine satellitare acquisita
> ieri
> > mattina alle 11:20 su Amatrice e dintorni.
> > Ci ho messo più tempo a far digerire la CC-BY-NC al fornitore che ad
> > ottenere il dato..
> > Sarò contento se siamo stati utili. Qui il link
> > http://out.planetek.it/Amatrice-Earthquake_24ago2016.zip
>
> Devo fare la domanda™: c'è un permesso di uso e derivazione (scritto)
> verso la
> licenza di OSM che è molto diversa dalla CC-BY-NC?
>
> --
> Luigi
>
> ___
> 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] Terremoto 24-9-2016 centro Italia

[Dino Michelini]

  +1 Assolutamente SI. Solo mappando sul posto con GPS si potrà avere
in tempo reale la cartaografia delle are critiche, in particolare le
reti tecnologiche (strade, ponti, antenne di comunicazione, rete
letrica, acquedotti, ecc.). Scaricare mappe sempre aggiornate è
fondamentale per il cordinamento dei soccorsi e per arrivare sui
posti.

Il 25.08.2016 13:59 Matteo Zaffonato ha scritto: 

> Il
25/08/2016 13:45, Francesco Pelullo ha scritto:
> 
>> Rimane sempre
valida la mia vecchia proposta di costituire (legalmente) un gruppo di
volontari della protezione civile, da arrivare in casi come questi per
il mapping remoto o sul posto. Ciao /niubii/
> 
> La cosa potrebbe
essere interessante.
> 
> Matteo
> 
>
___
> Talk-it mailing list
>
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org [1]
>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it [2]
 



Con Smart 3 Giga a 9 euro/4 sett navighi veloce, chiami e invii SMS dal tuo 
smartphone verso tutti i fissi e mobili in Italia. Passa a Tiscali Mobile! 
http://casa.tiscali.it/mobile/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 144, Issue 40

[Simon Poole]

Am 24.08.2016 um 21:51 schrieb Federico:
>
> Thanks Nicolás for bringing this into attention.
> Indeed SearchAroundBot follows the same approach of Wheelmap: Wheelmap.org is 
> a community project – everyone can get involved. You don’t even need to 
> register to map places!
> ___
>
It should be noted that wheelmap was given this permission after some
deliberation and as an exception (due to the special nature of the project).

Simon




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

Re: [Talk-it] Articolo La Stampa

[Maurizio Napolitano]

Segnalo anche questo che mi riguarda di persona

http://thenexttech.startupitalia.eu/56603-20160825-openstreetmap-terremoto-soccorsi-mappe-dati

La notizia piu' bella pero' e' sapere che CopernicusEMS sta usando i
dati di OSM in quelli che
sta redistribuendo e che (suppongo) sono usati dalla protezione civile

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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Maurizio Napolitano]

BELLISSIMO


PS:
ho un dubbio sul fatto di come ri-licenziano i dati, ma non mi
sembra il caso di fare polemiche in questa situazione

2016-08-25 14:55 GMT+02:00 Stefano :
> Ciao,
> abbiamo la conferma che Copernicus sta utilizzando i nostri dati per la
> produzione delle mappe degli edifici
> https://twitter.com/CopernicusEMS/status/768787888993607680
>
> Vi riporto il messaggio del coordinatore del lavoro.
> "Definitely we are using the information that the OSM community is
> providing, we have downloaded the last shapefile of the buildings today
> aroung 11:00 am our time!! Thank you for your precious help"

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

[Talk-it] Articolo La Stampa

[Gianluca Boero]

Vi segnalo l'articolo de La Stampa online sull'emergenza di questi giorni.

http://www.lastampa.it/2016/08/25/tecnologia/news/con-la-mappa-open-source-un-aiuto-ai-paesi-terremotati-Cq8dsfBzEMGBJzKcomi0dP/pagina.html

--
Gianluca Boero

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

Re: [Talk-at] Maps.ME User: Private Nodes auf OSM-Server

[Robin Däneke]

Hallo nochmal,

> Also, zumindest in dem Punkt mit den falschen "name"-Tags scheint der
> Entwickler bereits nachgebessert haben: Wenn ich das richtig sehe,
> kann man seit einiger Zeit (zumindest auf Android) über die
> Maps.Me-Editierfunktion nur noch die "name:xx"-Tags bearbeiten. Dabei
> werden offenbar immer die Sprache des jeweiligen Benutzers und die
> Sprache des jeweiligen Landes standardmäßig angezeigt. 
 
Das stimmt, es wird nur ein Sprache-Name Tag hinzugefügt, und da offenbar OSM 
Carto wenn ein name in der Sprache in der man die Karte verwendet verfügbar ist 
wird dieser name angezeigt, sonst der generelle name Tag. Insofern ist das 
schon etwas besser als wenn der echte Name überschrieben würde.

> Ich empfehle dringend, euch mal die App zumindest zu Testzwecken zu
> installieren, um euch ein wenigstens grobes Bild über dessen
> Bearbeitungs-Funktion zu machen. 
 
Habe ich nun auch gemacht. Das Problem ist, dass die App als Offline Map App 
beworben wird, und nur als das. Von OSM findet sich zumindest im Apple App 
Store kein Wort. Die User haben also keine Ahnung, dass sie sich da eigentlich 
auch einen Editor runtergeladen haben.

> > Es scheint aber, dass die App dem User nicht sagt, was mit den Daten 
> > passiert.
> 
> Das kann ich nicht bestätigen. Nach der ersten Bearbeitung eines
> Objekts bekommt der User einen riesigen Dialog zu Gesicht, der in
> großen Lettern erklärt: „Melden Sie sich an, damit andere Benutzer
> Ihre Änderungen sehen können“. 
 
Das mit riesig ist aber eine Übertreibung. 
Der Dialog ist zwar farbig, die Schrift teils fett, aber halt sonst ein 0815 
Login Dialog. Auch weiß der User ja nicht, inwiefern andere User dann seine 
Sachen sehen können. Der Wortlaut erinnert mich eher an so ein"Friends"-System, 
wo dann die Freunde die man irgendwann hinzufügen kann, oder so in der Art von 
Social Network, die Punkte sehen können. Von Openstreetmap ist da nicht die 
Rede. Es ist nur ein weiterer Anmeldeknopf mit OpenStreetMap beschriftet. Das 
sagt noch nicht, dass man sich hier echt zur OSM einloggt. 
Vor allem, da man sich ja auch mit FB und Google einloggen kann. Ein normaler 
User schaut nicht was da steht sondern drückt instinktiv auf den Button, der 
ihm am bekantesten vorkommt. Das wird wohl ein Login mittels Google oder 
Facebook sein. Der User glaubt, er loggt sich privat bei Maps.ME, bzw 
"mapswithme" wie es auch heißt, ein. Dass er sich damit bei der OSM registriert 
und die Änderungen in die Produktion lädt wird dieser User, der ja OFFLINE 
Karten will, nicht erlesen aus dem Dialog.
 
Hab ein paar Screenshots ( [0] ) gemacht, mit denen ich eventuell einen 
Blogpost erstellen werde um zukünftige User zu warnen. Werde auch den 
Developern die kritischen Punkte schreiben. Die sollten die Offline Karte und 
den Editor noch besser trennen. 
 
Was mir auch auffiel: Wenn mann einmal bei einer Node auf "´Sichern" gedrückt 
hat und dann in der Dialogbox die aufpoppt ("Wollen Sie sie an alle Benutzer 
senden"), bestätigt (und sich wenn noch nicht gemacht einloggt, (dazu wird man 
ja quasi "gezwungen", obwohl man nur unschuldig auf Sichern klickte) dann 
scheint das noch immer so, als ob man die Änderung in das Maps.ME Netz kommen. 
(dass es ja offensichtlich nicht gibt, die hauen einfach alles in OSM...). 
 
Auch dass diese Dialogbox nur "Senden" und "Abbrechen" hat ist irreführend. Der 
User will logischerweise die Node die er grad gesetzt hat in der Offline map 
speichern. "Abbrechen" würde heißen, dass die Node verworfen wird. Das will der 
User ja nicht! Somit drückt er auf Senden. Und schon hat man die "Coffee with 
Aunt Augusta" Node in der OSM. 
Im Dialog steht zwar auch, dass die Nodes überprüft werden, aber was da alles 
in der OSM landet, kann dieses "Überprüfen" nicht sonderlich toll sein. Oder 
sie machen es erst seit gestern??? Müsste schauen wann die App das letzte 
Update hatte...
 
Dennoch, dem User wird nie wirklich gesagt, dass das nicht nur in so eine Art 
Soziales Ort-Netzwerk geht, wo halt andere Leute drauf zugreifen können, 
sondern dass hier echt alle Daten auf die OSM geladen werden.
 
Auch sind wohl OSM-Mapper hier etwas betriebsblind. Wenn man MAPS.ME aus dem 
OSM-Kontext kennt, und dann so ein login kommt ist "unsereins" ja alles klar. 
Einem User der die OSM nicht mal kennt, der insofern einen Vertrag mit MAPS.ME 
hat und nicht mit OSM, der weiß dann alles, was hier offenbar als normales 
Wissen angesehen wird nicht. Auch weiß man nicht wie gut (oder schlecht) die 
verschiedenen Translations der App sind. Da kann von Sprache zu sprache nochmal 
Info verloren gehen.
 
Ich denke die Developer von Maps.ME dachten, dass die User ihrer Karten mit 
korrekten Nodes die verwendete Karte (OSM-Daten) verbessern würden, dass aber 
viele solche Nodes wie "Ferienhaus", "Meetingpoint mit Tante Rose" oder 
"Busstop: Maschiene hier" mappen würden war den Devs wohl nicht klar. 
 
Entweder man bietet Offline Maps an (wo User sowas halt machen), oder einen 

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Stefano]

Ciao,
abbiamo la conferma che Copernicus sta utilizzando i nostri dati per la
produzione delle mappe degli edifici
https://twitter.com/CopernicusEMS/status/768787888993607680

Vi riporto il messaggio del coordinatore del lavoro.
"Definitely we are using the information that the OSM community is
providing, we have downloaded the last shapefile of the buildings today
aroung 11:00 am our time!! Thank you for your precious help"

Grazie a tutti,
Stefano

Il giorno 25 agosto 2016 14:38, Maurizio Napolitano  ha
scritto:

> 2016-08-25 12:35 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
> > Siamo riusciti ad ottenere finalmente l'immagine satellitare acquisita
> ieri
> > mattina alle 11:20 su Amatrice e dintorni.
> > Ci ho messo più tempo a far digerire la CC-BY-NC al fornitore che ad
> > ottenere il dato..
> > Sarò contento se siamo stati utili. Qui il link
> > http://out.planetek.it/Amatrice-Earthquake_24ago2016.zip
>
> Sigh .. immagino sia stata durissima, ma con la "NC" non si puo' usare
> come base per OSM.
> Riesci a farti dare la soluzione in stile "si puo' per OSM" ?
>
> ___
> 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] Terremoto Rieti

[Maurizio Napolitano]

2016-08-25 12:35 GMT+02:00 Massimo Zotti :
> Siamo riusciti ad ottenere finalmente l'immagine satellitare acquisita ieri
> mattina alle 11:20 su Amatrice e dintorni.
> Ci ho messo più tempo a far digerire la CC-BY-NC al fornitore che ad
> ottenere il dato..
> Sarò contento se siamo stati utili. Qui il link
> http://out.planetek.it/Amatrice-Earthquake_24ago2016.zip

Sigh .. immagino sia stata durissima, ma con la "NC" non si puo' usare
come base per OSM.
Riesci a farti dare la soluzione in stile "si puo' per OSM" ?

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

Re: [Talk-dk] Vi har et problem med stier.

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Niels Elgaard Larsen:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=56.08301%2C12.15545%3B56.08268%2C12.15748#map=18/56.08264/12.15816


Det handler om hvordan man skal fortolke access krav, hvis de er angivet
flere gange, og hvordan man fletter hierarkier af begrænsninger.

Det handler især om at mange fejlagtigt tror, at det at sætte et
"access" altid er en begrænsning.

Når man tagger en vej som footway, path, motorway, cycleway, osv, så
sætter man implicit nogle default begrænsninger (access restrictions).
De er forskellige fra land til land. For DK er de:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Denmark

Det er derfor, vi ikke behøver at sætte access:bicycle=no på motorveje
og access:motorcar=no på cykelstier.

Men sagen er, at det er default begrænsninger, som bliver overskrevet,
når man sætter en eksplicit begrænsning på vejen. Og hvis man angiver en
generisk begrænsning, så overskriver den hele hiearkiet af den
tilsvarende default begrænsning (access:motor_vehicle=no" gælder selvom
der er en "access=yes" på samme vej, *men* "access=yes" på en vej
overskriver defaultværdien "access:motor_vehicle=no" for vejen).

Nogle tror, at når man sætter et access tag, så er det en yderligere
begrænsning. Men det er det ikke. Det erstatter default begrænsningen.

Så man fx har en privat stil på sin grund og tagger den som:

highway=footway
access=destination

Så betyder det, at man har tilladt biler med et ærinde at køre på stien.
Og det er jo forkert, hvis biler ikke kan eller må køre på stien

Man skulle have tagget det som:

highway=footway
access:foot=destination


En vej tagget som

highway=footway
access:foot=emergency

betyder, at det til gående, men at en brandbil kan bruge stien, hvis den
evt pløjer lidt træer og hække ned.

Som angivet i http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39656103 så var jeg
i går ude for at OsMand rutede mig ad en vej, der var tagget som (det er
nu rettet):

highway=footway
access=permissive

Og det er OsMand (og OSRM og andre ruteberegnere), som har ret og vores
OSM-data, som er forkert.

Og når man tagger som:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/165807821
så er det jo ikke noget footway tilbage, så er det bare en vej.

Så vi tagger "access" forkert og derfor er der ca 1000 stier og
cykelstier, som vi har tilladt motorkørsel på.


-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Jean-Denis Giguere]

Bonjour Antoine,

Pour la limite des parcs, les descriptions techniques des délimitations
font partie des règlements sur l’établissement des parcs nationaux [1]. Il
y a là des repères susceptibles d'aider à leur cartographie.
Une autre alternative consisterait à transmettre une demande au Ministère
des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs pour obtenir les données géospatiales
de leur délimitation avec l'autorisation expresse d'intégrer les données
dans OpenStreetMap.


Salutations cordiales,


Jean-Denis


[1] Voir par exemple,
http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cr/P-9,%20r.%201

2016-08-16 17:04 GMT-04:00 Antoine Beaupré :

> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>
> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>
> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>
> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>
> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>
> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
> anyways?
>
> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>
> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>
> A.
>
> --
> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Alessandro]

Il 25/08/2016 13:49, Francesco Pelullo ha scritto:



Intanto grazie. Non sono ancora riuscito a scaricare il file, ho una
connessione altalenante. Che cosa contiene lo .zip?


16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake_LICENSE.TXT
16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake.TIF.ovr
16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake.TIF.aux.xml
16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake.TIF   187Mb
16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake_README.TXT
16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake.XML
16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake.TIL
16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake.RPB
16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake.IMD
16AUG24102117-S2AS-Amatrice-Earthquake-BROWSE.JPG

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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto 24-9-2016 centro Italia

[Matteo Zaffonato]

Il 25/08/2016 13:45, Francesco Pelullo ha scritto:


Rimane sempre valida la mia vecchia proposta di costituire 
(legalmente) un gruppo di volontari della protezione civile, da 
arrivare in casi come questi per il mapping remoto o sul posto.


Ciao
/niubii/


La cosa potrebbe essere interessante.

Matteo


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Cela vaut le coup ?

[Christian Quest]

Le 25/08/2016 à 13:28, David Crochet a écrit :

Bonjour


Le 25/08/2016 à 12:51, Christian Quest a écrit :
OEDB essaye d'ajouter une brique de données de plus, manquante 
actuellement pour envisager des usages utiles, mais bon il faut bien 
commencer !


En gros, il faudrait que le système " d'évènement" puisse accepter des 
contributions en tant qu'interface avec OSM, et que le système puisse 
mettre à jour les données au début d'un évenement et puis inversement 
à la fin de l'événement. C'est comme cela que ce système doit être 
compris ?


Cordialement



Pas vraiment, enfin ce n'est pas l'idée d'origine.

OEDB est une base séparée d'OSM où l'on partage des événements 
comportant 3 infos: "quoi", "où" et "quand".


Pour le format des données, j'ai choisit de reposer sur le geojson. Ceci 
facilite l'interopérabilité avec pas mal d'outil existants.
J'utilise par exemple umap avec pour diffuser plusieurs cartes au 
contenu dynamique servit directement par l'API d'OEDB (carte de 
vigilance de météo-france, carte des incidents routiers, des mesures 
météo des aéroports, etc).


Comme pour OSM, l'API permet à tous de créer, modifier et supprimer des 
événements. Actuellement il n'y a pas d'authentification ou de compte. 
L'essentiel des événements arrivent de façon automatique à l'aide de 
scripts qui vont chercher à intervalle réguliers les infos sur des sites 
publics. OEDB fonctionne un peu comme un moteur de recherche.


C'est assez expérimental et destiné à tester des usages tant pour 
ajouter des événements que pour les utiliser.


Voici un aperçu des catégories actuellement dans la base qui contient 
plus de 11 millions d'événements: 
https://gist.github.com/cquest/abd2162d6e68fac407d4eecc7f0a114a


--
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France


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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Francesco Pelullo]

Il 25 ago 2016 12:37 PM, "Massimo Zotti"  ha
scritto:
>

> Sarò contento se siamo stati utili. Qui il link
http://out.planetek.it/Amatrice-Earthquake_24ago2016.zip
>
> Buon lavoro
> Massimo
>

Intanto grazie. Non sono ancora riuscito a scaricare il file, ho una
connessione altalenante. Che cosa contiene lo .zip?

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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto 24-9-2016 centro Italia

[Francesco Pelullo]

Il 25 ago 2016 1:26 PM, "mircozorzo"  ha scritto:
>
> Ciao, potrebbero essere utili le cose che sappiamo fare? Mi riferisco ai
> rilievi gps e alla produzione di mappe? C'è qualcosa che possiamo fare
nelle
> prossime settimane come ad esempio aggiornare le mappe con sopralluoghi n
> loco? Forse la velocità con cui possiamo aggiornarle potrebbe essere
utile.
> Io forse una settimana potrei dedicarla.
> C'è qualcuno che ha dei contatti con la protezione civile e che può
chiedere
> cosa può servire da questo punto di vista?
>
>

Ciao,

Ormai l'emergenza è "sotto controllo", nel senso che ci sono 5000
soccorritori per 2400 sfollati.

Paradossalmente, altri soccorritori (assieme a giornalisti, curiosi,
sciacalli etc) significa dividere le risorse disponibili per più persone.
Imho meglio aiutare da remoto.

Rimane sempre valida la mia vecchia proposta di costituire (legalmente) un
gruppo di volontari della protezione civile, da arrivare in casi come
questi per il mapping remoto o sul posto.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto 24-9-2016 centro Italia

[Alessandro Palmas]

Il 25/08/2016 13:25, mircozorzo ha scritto:

Ciao, potrebbero essere utili le cose che sappiamo fare? Mi riferisco ai
rilievi gps e alla produzione di mappe? C'è qualcosa che possiamo fare nelle
prossime settimane come ad esempio aggiornare le mappe con sopralluoghi n
loco? Forse la velocità con cui possiamo aggiornarle potrebbe essere utile.
Io forse una settimana potrei dedicarla.
C'è qualcuno che ha dei contatti con la protezione civile e che può chiedere
cosa può servire da questo punto di vista?

Ciao, Mirco


Ottimi interrogativi. La prima cosa da capire sarebbe se il nostro 
operato è usato/utile a qualcuno. Senz'altro le mappe OSM vengono usate, 
non sappiamo come.

C'è qualcuno in ascolto che ha contatti con ProCiv o VVF ?

OT: 
http://www.lastampa.it/2016/08/25/tecnologia/news/con-la-mappa-open-source-un-aiuto-ai-paesi-terremotati-Cq8dsfBzEMGBJzKcomi0dP/pagina.html 



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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto Rieti

[Luigi Toscano]

On Thursday, 25 August 2016 12:35:47 CEST Massimo Zotti wrote:
> Siamo riusciti ad ottenere finalmente l'immagine satellitare acquisita ieri
> mattina alle 11:20 su Amatrice e dintorni.
> Ci ho messo più tempo a far digerire la CC-BY-NC al fornitore che ad
> ottenere il dato..
> Sarò contento se siamo stati utili. Qui il link
> http://out.planetek.it/Amatrice-Earthquake_24ago2016.zip

Devo fare la domanda™: c'è un permesso di uso e derivazione (scritto) verso la 
licenza di OSM che è molto diversa dalla CC-BY-NC?

-- 
Luigi

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] ***SPAM*** Re: Arrivée d'un itinéraire de pélerinage en Bretagne à mapper

[Christian Rogel]

Résumé de la situation sur la construction en cours de l’itinéraire du Tro 
Breizh :

Yvon Autret est le seul acteur et propriétaire des traces qu’il publie sur le 
site de l’association « Les Chemins du Tro Breiz » : 
http://permanent.trobreiz.com. 

Il les met à jour (changements  de voie) et a procédé lui-même au balisage 
spécifique dans les sections n’ayant pas un autre balisage (GR, PR, 
Saint-Jacques…).

Il a découvert, par mon entremise, les possibilités d’OSM et a essayé 
d’exporter les traces GPX sur le site d’OSM

Il se heurte à une difficulté : OSM lui refuse des sections sans horodatage, ce 
qui arrive quand il a rectifié manuellement les traces. Quelle est la meilleure 
méthode ?


En attendant, rien n’empêche ceux qui le souhaite d’ajouter route = hiking aux 
tronçons qu’ils rencontrent sur le terrain ou en ligne.



Christian Rogel


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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Begin Daniel]

Bonjour Antoine,

Pour ajouter aux commentaires d'Alan et d'Adam.

Pour ce qui est de la forêt...
Comparer la forêt US/Canada est un peu injuste.  En général, la forêt n'est pas 
cartographiée du côté US, et elle a été partiellement importée du côté canadien 
- d'où les vides de forme rectangulaire...
Corriger toute la forêt du côté canadien voudrait dire importer ce qui manque 
via Canvec et ce serait possiblement problématique...
Corriger localement de façon manuel est possible. J'ai déjà corrigé plusieurs 
centaines de Km2 de 'trous' au nord et à l'est de Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts. Les 
trous qui apparaissent encore dans cette zone ont été causés  par la suite par 
des éditeurs qui ne sont pas familiers avec les multipolygon.

Pour ce qui est des parcs nationaux du Québec...
Je ne connais pas de sources de données qui permettent l'import légal des 
limites de parc au Québec. 
J'ai ajouté quelques limites de parc dans OSM (Yamaska, Frontenac. Mégantic et 
Bic). Je connaissais bien ces endroits et je me suis servi  de documents 
touristiques pour guider ma photo-interprétation - on ne doit pas copier les 
cartes. Une fois qu'on a compris le territoire, la démarcation visuelle entre 
les terres protégées/non protégées sur les images est généralement asses 
simple, mais j'ajoute quand même une note pour signifier que les  limites sont 
approximatives. 

Daniel


-Original Message-
From: Antoine Beaupré [mailto:anar...@orangeseeds.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August, 2016 17:05
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)

one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in Canada is 
this ugly forest display:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916

Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and Canada. On 
our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests that definitely 
do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south you clearly see national 
parks, forests and no weird square things.

I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long time. I 
feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been there for so long 
that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.

I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything about 
it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).

Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this anyways?

In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
*all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in Ontario, 
and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..

Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).

A.

--
We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane 
and fair than the world your governments have made before.
- John Perry Barlow, 1996
A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Cela vaut le coup ?

[David Crochet]

Bonjour


Le 25/08/2016 à 12:51, Christian Quest a écrit :
OEDB essaye d'ajouter une brique de données de plus, manquante 
actuellement pour envisager des usages utiles, mais bon il faut bien 
commencer !


En gros, il faudrait que le système " d'évènement" puisse accepter des 
contributions en tant qu'interface avec OSM, et que le système puisse 
mettre à jour les données au début d'un évenement et puis inversement à 
la fin de l'événement. C'est comme cela que ce système doit être compris ?


Cordialement

--
David Crochet


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

Re: [Talk-it] Terremoto 24-9-2016 centro Italia

[mircozorzo]

Ciao, potrebbero essere utili le cose che sappiamo fare? Mi riferisco ai
rilievi gps e alla produzione di mappe? C'è qualcosa che possiamo fare nelle
prossime settimane come ad esempio aggiornare le mappe con sopralluoghi n
loco? Forse la velocità con cui possiamo aggiornarle potrebbe essere utile.
Io forse una settimana potrei dedicarla.
C'è qualcuno che ha dei contatti con la protezione civile e che può chiedere
cosa può servire da questo punto di vista?

Ciao, Mirco 



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Terremoto-24-9-2016-centro-Italia-tp5880697p5880709.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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