[talk-cz] Mapování odbočení cesty

[dsk...@volny.cz]

Ahoj,
mám takový nováčkovský dotaz, na který jsem nenašel žádnou radu.
Mapuji tak, že když někde jdu a cesta není na mapě, tak ji dokreslím.
Pokud přijdu ke křižovatce, kde z té cesty odbočuje další cesta, jak to 
zakreslit?
Ignorovat  tu odbočující cestu? Nebo zakreslit prvních pár metrů, abych 
naznačil, že tam je nějaká odbočka? Nebo jak by se mělo řešit?

David

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

Re: [talk-au] "Hidden" National Park boundary

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Solved!!! (& I'm an idiot! :-()

Just realised that I had previously selected to hide boundaries, to stop
admin boundaries cluttering up the screen while doing things. Switched
boundaries back on, refreshed & there you are!

So, today's new thing that I have learned is that "boundaries" are all type
of boundaries, not just admin!

Thanks everyone!

Graeme


On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 10:17, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 23/04/2019 00:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > ...
> > But I still can't "see" the National Park / nature_reserve boundary to
> > be able to edit it?
> >
> > Would that be purely an iD problem? That just doesn't sound right?
> >
> >
>
> Maybe you can describe what you can see?  If I edit
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.09605/153.45895 in iD the
> national park boundary is pretty obvious - especially as it currently
> has a natural=wood tag on it as well, so you can see "trees on the
> beach".  If I click on "view on openstreetmap.org" in iD it opens
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104759342 up in a new browser tab.
>
> That said, iD wouldn't be my first choice to edit something that's
> fairly complicated, and perhaps move some tags to another feature
> (mainly due to my unfamiliarity with it).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data for Airdrie AB

[john whelan]

I believe Toronto has been waiting a couple of years for approval from the
LWG to give you some idea of time frames.

Cheerio John

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 18:05, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

> Hi Joshua,
>
> Welcome to OSM, and thank you for your contributions!
>
> To answer your first question: the non-building data sets (parks,
> address points, bus stops, etc) are not currently importable without
> further effort: we would have to get that exact licence (with text
> including "City of Airdrie") approved by the OSM Licensing Working
> Group. I don't know if the LWG would object to the attribution
> requirements, possibly not, but the approval itself might take quite a
> while anyway, as lawyer things don't move fast.
>
> --Jarek
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 15:42, Joshua Kenney  wrote:
> >
> > Hello everybody!
> > Relatively new mapper here.  I've been working on mapping my home town,
> and a couple of other places I've been, for the past 3 or 4 months.
> >
> > I have found that my city of Airdrie, AB has a number of datasets
> available under an Open Data Licence:
> >
> > http://data-airdrie.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/our-open-licence
> > The licence terms look straight forward enough, are there any additional
> steps I need to take to confirm compatibility with OSM?
> >
> > One of the datasets includes building footprints.  Would importing that
> get in the way of the import of the national data? Where can I access the
> national data to compare the quality?
> >
> > --Joshua
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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-au] "Hidden" National Park boundary

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks everyone!

You convinced me not to try to move the boundary!

I'm tempted to do as you suggest Warin & delete the natural=wood cover for
the whole area, then re-do it just for the actual tree coverage, which
would / should then make the other details visible.

But I still can't "see" the National Park / nature_reserve boundary to be
able to edit it?

Would that be purely an iD problem? That just doesn't sound right?

What do you people who use JOSM see when you go to edit this area - can you
see the boundary?

(I've tried to get into JOSM a couple of times, but can't even get it to
download to my laptop!)

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 16:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The national park way 104759342 is tagged
>
> natural=wood
>
> this will probably cover any other land cover tags you add under the
> national park.
>
> Delete the tag natural=wood for the national park way - as I have done for
> various national parks and you can then add the land covers without getting
> pasted to the background.
> You will get complaints about it no longer being mapped for trees .. so
> you might want to see to that as another way or relation.
>
> It follows the OSM guide of 'one feature one OSM entry - national park on
> this way and no other features.
>
>
> On 22/04/19 14:15, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 14:11, nwastra  wrote:
>
>> Geez…and a proper link to Protected areas of Queensland dataset
>>
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=Protected+areas+of+Queensland
>>
>
> The original link does work, just only if you click through twice.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Démontage partiel ligne haute tension

[François Lacombe]

Bonsoir à tous

Le consensus suivant semble s'établir pour les cas suivants :
* Ligne électrique hors tension et toujours présente : disused:power=line
* Ligne électrique visible sur les vues aériennes, mais supprimée du
terrain : removed:power=line

TOUTEFOIS :
Avec le mécanisme (complexe) des circuits sous forme de relation, nous
devrions laisser power=line et supprimer la relation représentant le
passage du courant à l'intérieur de la ligne
Un peu comme si une route n'était plus empruntée par les lignes de
transport en commun. La route est toujours présente, mais les bus n'y
passent plus.
Vu que cela concerne encore un nombre restreint de lignes, et les plus
grosses, nous ne pouvons pas nous baser là-dessus pour l'instant.
Explications :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Power_networks/France#Circuits_et_routage_sur_le_r.C3.A9seau

Au titre du principe de vérifiabilité, si l'ouvrage a disparu du terrain
(ce qui ne semble pas correspondre au cas de départ de la discussion), il
faudrait le supprimer (removed:power=line est un non sens au regard de ce
principe)
Je suis pour conserver une part d'historique, mais là ça va être difficile
à justifier.

A+

François

Le mer. 17 avr. 2019 à 21:23, Yves Pratter via Talk-fr <
talk-fr@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

> *removed:power=line* est bien aussi (cf.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix)
>
> _
> Yves
>
> D'après TagInfo :
> 1 540
>
>- removed*:power*
>
>
>
>
>
>1. 1 124
>
>
>- disused*:power*
>
>
> 924
>
>- demolished*:power*
>
>
> 620
>
>- was*:power* 
>
> 209
>
>- dismantled*:power*
>
>
>
>
> 201
>
>- razed*:power* 
>
>
>
> Le mer. 17 avr. 2019 à 21:00, marc marc  a
> écrit :
>
>> Le 17.04.19 à 20:43, Laurent Combe a écrit :
>> > Bonjour dans mon secteur j'ai une ligne 63000 V dont les cables
>> > viennent d'être déposés
>> >
>> > si j'enleve le cable j'ai peur qu'ils reviennent suite à une
>> > contribution malheureuse
>> > quel tag mettre dans cette situation ?
>>
>> was:power=line ou n'importe quel cycle de vie du genre removed:
>> + end_date si tu le souhaites (éventuellement limité au mois
>> ou à l'année si tu sais pas précisément quand)
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
>> idem sur les poteaux le jour où ils sont démonté
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data for Airdrie AB

[Jarek Piórkowski]

Hi Joshua,

Welcome to OSM, and thank you for your contributions!

To answer your first question: the non-building data sets (parks,
address points, bus stops, etc) are not currently importable without
further effort: we would have to get that exact licence (with text
including "City of Airdrie") approved by the OSM Licensing Working
Group. I don't know if the LWG would object to the attribution
requirements, possibly not, but the approval itself might take quite a
while anyway, as lawyer things don't move fast.

--Jarek

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 15:42, Joshua Kenney  wrote:
>
> Hello everybody!
> Relatively new mapper here.  I've been working on mapping my home town, and a 
> couple of other places I've been, for the past 3 or 4 months.
>
> I have found that my city of Airdrie, AB has a number of datasets available 
> under an Open Data Licence:
>
> http://data-airdrie.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/our-open-licence
> The licence terms look straight forward enough, are there any additional 
> steps I need to take to confirm compatibility with OSM?
>
> One of the datasets includes building footprints.  Would importing that get 
> in the way of the import of the national data? Where can I access the 
> national data to compare the quality?
>
> --Joshua
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Wochennotiz Nr. 456 09.04.2019–15.04.2019

[Wochennotizteam]

Hallo,

die Wochennotiz Nr. 456 mit vielen wichtigen Neuigkeiten aus der
OpenStreetMap-Welt ist da:

http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2019/04/wochennotiz-nr-456/

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

Viel Spaß beim Lesen

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data for Airdrie AB

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

John, that was an outstanding overview of and answer to today's quite workable process.  I can only dream that this be written up in whatever now guides this effort in OSM (BC2020 wiki, whatever).  Congratulations on developing what looks like it now does allow and will eventually better allow nationwide building data to properly and further enter OSM.  Good luck with your efforts, I genuinely mean that.Best regards,SteveA

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data for Airdrie AB

[john whelan]

For building footprints there are two sources of open data that are
correctly licensed.  One is Microsoft's building footprints and the other
is the Stat Can released data.  The Stats Canada data is basically the
municipal data released under the federal government's licence.

I suggest you first check with James and ask him if your city's data is in
the Stat Can data set.

The next step having sorted out a source of open data that has an approved
licence is to work out a process to include the data.

There is a single import of the Stat Can buildings in progress.  However a
Toronto mapper took exception to a million buildings being added mainly in
the West of Canada and asked the DWG to remove them.

A group of three mappers are looking at ways to "cleanse" the data using
open source software.  Once they have arrived at an agreed acceptable
solution then I assume the Canada wide building import will continue in
some way.

So you can hang on or you can submit your own import plan.  To do this the
local mappers have to be in agreement.  In Ottawa this meant we met over
coffee.

Then you need to formally write up an import plan in the wiki.  Submit it
to the import mailing list and answer any queries they may have.  In this
case Nate will probably say it is already covered in the current Canada
wide import plan so why introduce yet another plan.  It also has to be
listed somewhere or other as an import.

It also has to be discussed in this mailing group.

The City of Ottawa was kind enough to adopt the municipal version of the
federal government's open data licence.  It took about five years from
start to finish to get them to be nice and adopt it.  It has been formally
approved by the legal working group.  If you can get your city to adopt the
same licence great.  In Ottawa it meant we could bring in bus stops etc.

Any other licence should either be approved by the Legal Working Group or
you can put your own interpretation on it.  If challenged at a later date
your imported data could be removed so I don't recommend this route.

In short if you have a couple of local mappers in agreement that they would
like to import the data, and if it is available via Stat Can and they find
the data quality acceptable then ask to be permitted to import it on this
mailing list.  James maybe able to assist.  Only if this route is not
available should you think about doing something else.

Cheerio John

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 3:42 PM Joshua Kenney,  wrote:

> Hello everybody!
> Relatively new mapper here.  I've been working on mapping my home town,
> and a couple of other places I've been, for the past 3 or 4 months.
>
> I have found that my city of Airdrie, AB has a number of datasets
> available under an Open Data Licence:
>
> http://data-airdrie.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/our-open-licence
> The licence terms look straight forward enough, are there any additional
> steps I need to take to confirm compatibility with OSM?
>
> One of the datasets includes building footprints.  Would importing that
> get in the way of the import of the national data? Where can I access the
> national data to compare the quality?
>
> --Joshua
>
>
> ___
> 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-se] Changeset 69441387

[egil]

Tack för heads up här.

Jag har börjat jobba med datan för Härnösands kommun. Det finns så många
konflikter att jag vald att inte importera delar av den (landuse=forest)
som redan täcker 95% av all skog i kommunen och bara ta scrub och annat med.

Återstår att se om detta resterande går lätt att importera

On 2019-04-22 09:57, Snusmumriken wrote:
> Hej listan
>
> Jag tog och reverterade importen som gjordes i morse
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69441387
>
> Orsaken var de omfattande konflikter som uppstod med befintlig data.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se



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

Re: [Talk-it] RELAZIONE COMUNI CON ENTE NON AMMINISTRATIVO

[Damjan Gerl]

liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu je 22.4.2019 ob 17:47 napisal:

Il 22/04/19 16:04, Bertu90 ha scritto:

Concordo, però occorrerebbe ragionare ulteriormente sul termine
"administrative" dato che comunque il GAL ha un ruolo di sostegno delle
strategie di sviluppo locale e quindi tramite strumenti di programmazione
europea condivide progetti tra operatori pubblici e privati.

Nel caso invece in cui questo ente non sia considerato di tipo
amministrativo, come lo posso trattare? occorre istituire una relazione
anche solamente con i vari enti che ne fanno parte e non con i confini
territoriali?

Non lo so, se è un'amministrazione pubblica con funzioni tali ha senso,
se invece è come penso, una fondiaria con soci privati e pubblici con
intendo di monetizzare localmente progetti e bandi locali, in sostanza
un fondo dove i comuni attingono in mancanza di contributi o fondi
pubblici, non è un'amministrazione pubblica.


Siccome il gal non è un amministrazione pubblica e può finanziare sia i 
privati che le amm. pubbliche non vedo la necessità di taggarla, neanche 
come relazione. Al massimo si potrebbe taggarla come ufficio...


Damjan

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data for Airdrie AB

[James]

While I don't see anything in the license that wouldn't be compatible with
OSM except maybe the attribution placement: as osm maintains licenses on
the wiki and not in the data it's kind of "not the same project" and you'd
have to ask city if attribution in the wiki would be sufficient then go
through the LegalWorkingGroup(4-6 months later) you might get an answer.

It would be simpler if as Kevin said, they contribute to Statstics Canada
open building database as the federal license has already been approved

On Mon., Apr. 22, 2019, 3:46 p.m. Kevin Farrugia, 
wrote:

> Hi Joshua,
>
> The national data that gets mentioned here is actually municipal data
> rolled up into one federated Federal dataset to avoid licensing issues
> since the federal license has been approved by OSM.
>
> As for the national import, that's for others to update you on 
>
> ---
> Kevin (Kevo)
>
> On Mon., Apr. 22, 2019, 3:42 p.m. Joshua Kenney, 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello everybody!
>> Relatively new mapper here.  I've been working on mapping my home town,
>> and a couple of other places I've been, for the past 3 or 4 months.
>>
>> I have found that my city of Airdrie, AB has a number of datasets
>> available under an Open Data Licence:
>>
>> http://data-airdrie.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/our-open-licence
>> The licence terms look straight forward enough, are there any additional
>> steps I need to take to confirm compatibility with OSM?
>>
>> One of the datasets includes building footprints.  Would importing that
>> get in the way of the import of the national data? Where can I access the
>> national data to compare the quality?
>>
>> --Joshua
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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-se] Changeset 69441387

[Snusmumriken]

Ingen fara

On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 21:43 +0300, Grigory Rechistov via Talk-se wrote:
> Jo, det var inte något gammalt basdata, det var mitt eget misstag.
> Jag förväxlade nämligen mellan de mängder filer  som hade "Stockholm"
> i namnet och laddade upp en tidigare version som hade kvar alla dumma
> artefakter. JOSM-valideringen hjälpte inte (det granskar inte att t
> ex en byggnad korsar en skog), och dessutom orkade jag inte sålla
> genom alla 14 tusen varningar som nuförtiden finns nära Stockholm.
> 
> Det är ett bevis till att tätorterna skulle man helst undvika vid den
> pågående importen. Det går inte att kartlägga gräs mellan byggnaderna
> om datat har upplösningen bara 10 meter, det kräver mycket manuellt
> arbete, och sedan förväxlar man filen :-( . Det var tur att den
> felaktiga ändringsuppsättningen var liten.
> 
> Snusmumriken, tack så hemskt mycket och förlåt igen för besväret.
> 
> > Понедельник, 22 апреля 2019, 20:49 +03:00 от Grigory Rechistov
> > :
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hej, det var jag som gjorde morgonens import. Förlåt för besväret
> > det skapade. Antagligen var mitt exportdata för gammalt som
> > användas som areans basskikt. Låt mig granska lokalt konflikternas
> > natur och återvända med fler detaljer.
> > 
> > 
> > >   Понедельник, 22 апреля 2019, 10:59 +03:00 от Snusmumriken <
> > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > > Hej listan
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Jag tog och reverterade importen som gjordes i morse
> > > 
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69441387
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Orsaken var de omfattande konflikter som uppstod med befintlig
> > > data.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ___
> > > 
> > > Talk-se mailing list
> > > 
> > > Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> > > 
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > >   
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > С наилучшими пожеланиями,
> > Григорий Речистов.
> > Med vänliga hälsningar,
> > Grigory Rechistov
> > With best regards,
> > Grigory Rechistov
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> С наилучшими пожеланиями,
> Григорий Речистов.
> Med vänliga hälsningar,
> Grigory Rechistov
> With best regards,
> Grigory Rechistov
> 
> ___Talk-se mailing 
> listtalk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
> 
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data for Airdrie AB

[Kevin Farrugia]

Hi Joshua,

The national data that gets mentioned here is actually municipal data
rolled up into one federated Federal dataset to avoid licensing issues
since the federal license has been approved by OSM.

As for the national import, that's for others to update you on 

---
Kevin (Kevo)

On Mon., Apr. 22, 2019, 3:42 p.m. Joshua Kenney, 
wrote:

> Hello everybody!
> Relatively new mapper here.  I've been working on mapping my home town,
> and a couple of other places I've been, for the past 3 or 4 months.
>
> I have found that my city of Airdrie, AB has a number of datasets
> available under an Open Data Licence:
>
> http://data-airdrie.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/our-open-licence
> The licence terms look straight forward enough, are there any additional
> steps I need to take to confirm compatibility with OSM?
>
> One of the datasets includes building footprints.  Would importing that
> get in the way of the import of the national data? Where can I access the
> national data to compare the quality?
>
> --Joshua
>
>
> ___
> 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] Open Data for Airdrie AB

[Joshua Kenney]

Hello everybody!
Relatively new mapper here.  I've been working on mapping my home town, and a 
couple of other places I've been, for the past 3 or 4 months.

I have found that my city of Airdrie, AB has a number of datasets available 
under an Open Data Licence:

http://data-airdrie.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/our-open-licence
The licence terms look straight forward enough, are there any additional steps 
I need to take to confirm compatibility with OSM?

One of the datasets includes building footprints.  Would importing that get in 
the way of the import of the national data? Where can I access the national 
data to compare the quality?

--Joshua


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

Re: [Talk-se] Changeset 69441387

[Karl-Johan Karlsson]

Det är min iakttagelse också. Det är helt enkelt bäst att undvika att
importera i tätorter. Jag tror inte att man förlorar speciellt mycket
heller då de flesta tätorter redan är bra mappade. Det är nog relativt
enkelt att bara plocka bort den data manuellt som överlappar med tätorter
då man går igenom data med taggen nmd2018-conflict.

Den mån 22 apr. 2019 kl 20:43 skrev Grigory Rechistov via Talk-se <
talk-se@openstreetmap.org>:

> Jo, det var inte något gammalt basdata, det var mitt eget misstag. Jag
> förväxlade nämligen mellan de mängder filer som hade "Stockholm" i namnet
> och laddade upp en tidigare version som hade kvar alla dumma artefakter.
> JOSM-valideringen hjälpte inte (det granskar inte att t ex en byggnad
> korsar en skog), och dessutom orkade jag inte sålla genom alla 14 tusen
> varningar som nuförtiden finns nära Stockholm.
>
> Det är ett bevis till att tätorterna skulle man helst undvika vid den
> pågående importen. Det går inte att kartlägga gräs mellan byggnaderna om
> datat har upplösningen bara 10 meter, det kräver mycket manuellt arbete,
> och sedan förväxlar man filen :-( . Det var tur att den felaktiga
> ändringsuppsättningen var liten.
>
> Snusmumriken, tack så hemskt mycket och förlåt igen för besväret.
>
> Понедельник, 22 апреля 2019, 20:49 +03:00 от Grigory Rechistov <
> ggg_m...@inbox.ru>:
>
> Hej, det var jag som gjorde morgonens import. Förlåt för besväret det
> skapade. Antagligen var mitt exportdata för gammalt som användas som areans
> basskikt. Låt mig granska lokalt konflikternas natur och återvända med fler
> detaljer.
>
>
> Понедельник, 22 апреля 2019, 10:59 +03:00 от Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
>
> Hej listan
>
> Jag tog och reverterade importen som gjordes i morse
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69441387
>
> Orsaken var de omfattande konflikter som uppstod med befintlig data.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
>
>
> С наилучшими пожеланиями,
> Григорий Речистов.
> Med vänliga hälsningar,
> Grigory Rechistov
> With best regards,
> Grigory Rechistov
>
>
>
> С наилучшими пожеланиями,
> Григорий Речистов.
> Med vänliga hälsningar,
> Grigory Rechistov
> With best regards,
> Grigory Rechistov
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

[Talk-GB] April Nottingham pub meeting

[SK53]

A reminder that our April meeting will be at the Lincolnshire Poacher from
19:30 tomorrow evening. We'll be meeting at Left Lion at 18:30 to check for
& map any changes in the city centre. I'll try & think a bit about areas
most needing an update.

More on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup

Regards,

Jerry
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 21, 2019, 11:03 PM by i...@zverev.info:

> Please, could we have a deletion policy in our wiki that clearly states "No 
> obsolete pages here", forbidding deletion of anything except spam or 
> otherwise harmful pages? Deleting our history is plain vandalism
>
Please note that by using "vandalism" you claim that this action was malicious.
Unless you have really, really good reason to claim that whoever did it was 
deliberately
doing this to damage OSM the please avoid such claims.

>
> , no better than physically destroying pieces of human history displayed in 
> museums.
>
And that is frankly a bizarre claim. For start a typical piece displayed in 
museum is not
possible to be unbroken with a single click and is worth far more 
than an outdated wiki page.

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

Re: [Talk-se] Changeset 69441387

[Grigory Rechistov via Talk-se]

Jo, det var inte något gammalt basdata, det var mitt eget misstag. Jag 
förväxlade nämligen mellan de mängder filer  som hade "Stockholm" i namnet och 
laddade upp en tidigare version som hade kvar alla dumma artefakter. 
JOSM-valideringen hjälpte inte (det granskar inte att t ex en byggnad korsar en 
skog), och dessutom orkade jag inte sålla genom alla 14 tusen varningar som 
nuförtiden finns nära Stockholm.

Det är ett bevis till att tätorterna skulle man helst undvika vid den pågående 
importen. Det går inte att kartlägga gräs mellan byggnaderna om datat har 
upplösningen bara 10 meter, det kräver mycket manuellt arbete, och sedan 
förväxlar man filen :-( . Det var tur att den felaktiga ändringsuppsättningen 
var liten.

Snusmumriken, tack så hemskt mycket och förlåt igen för besväret.

>Понедельник, 22 апреля 2019, 20:49 +03:00 от Grigory Rechistov 
>:
>
>Hej, det var jag som gjorde morgonens import. Förlåt för besväret det skapade. 
>Antagligen var mitt exportdata för gammalt som användas som areans basskikt. 
>Låt mig granska lokalt konflikternas natur och återvända med fler detaljer.
>
>
>>Понедельник, 22 апреля 2019, 10:59 +03:00 от Snusmumriken < 
>>snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com >:
>>
>>Hej listan
>>
>>Jag tog och reverterade importen som gjordes i morse
>>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69441387
>>
>>Orsaken var de omfattande konflikter som uppstod med befintlig data.
>>
>>
>>___
>>Talk-se mailing list
>>Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
>
>С наилучшими пожеланиями,
>Григорий Речистов.
>Med vänliga hälsningar,
>Grigory Rechistov
>With best regards,
>Grigory Rechistov


С наилучшими пожеланиями,
Григорий Речистов.
Med vänliga hälsningar,
Grigory Rechistov
With best regards,
Grigory Rechistov
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[mmd]

Am 22.04.19 um 12:37 schrieb Simon Poole:
> The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year
> ago, in March 2018.
> 
> Implying for rhetorical purposes that "nothing has changed" is rather
> disingenuous.
> 
> Simon
> 
> Am 22.04.2019 um 11:59 schrieb Ilya Zverev:
>> This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there isn’t 
>> any; you can do your thing without OSM infrastructure so why bother; nobody 
>> died, stop your hype and comply” — is why we’re still with API 0.6 ten years 
>> after it was introduced.
>>

If you read his most recent blog post on
http://shtosm.ru/all/desyat-let-api/, Ilya isn't exactly suggesting that
nothing has changed since API 0.6 was introduced.

I'm quoting the English translation below:

"Is it possible to somehow change small things?

The modern API 0.6 is noticeably different from what we got ten years
ago. Around 2012, additional functions began to be attached to it that
did not affect the data model. In May 2012, applications were able to
find out what rights they have. In August, hiding versions of objects
was added to the API for relicensing. In April 2013 , notes appeared .
In November 2014 , comments were added to the editing packages . The
last time the protocol was improved six months ago, when they improved
the search for notes through / notes / search.
"


-- 





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

[OSM-talk-be] Fwd: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Awards 2019 Call for Nominees is open!

[joost schouppe]

-- Forwarded message -
Van:Ilya Zverev 
Date: do 18 apr. 2019 23:26
Subject: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Awards 2019 Call for Nominees is open!
To: Talk Openstreetmap 


Hi folks,

'Tis that time of the year: only a week until SotM Call for Papers
closes, and time to think not only of your talk, but to remember
everybody who has inspired you over the past year. We are preparing the
next installment of the OSM Awards: please help us collect a long list
of people worth honouring.

http://awards.osmz.ru

As always, please sumbit people and projects you have noticed to the
website. Do not choose between who to mention and who isn't "worthy":
this is a call for a long list, which will be shortened later by a
closed voting. You can nominate yourself. You can nominate a friend.
Please do. The only limitation is that the person or a project must have
done something public after the 1st of June 2018. Basically, in the past
year. A link would be great.

This year, there are some changes:

* Gone are the three regional categories. Sorry. On the other hand, I'm
happy to notice people from less represented countries being very active
in the community, and receiving awards in the general categories.

* Now only people are accepted to the six main categories. One or a
pair, real names or OSM nicknames: not teams and not companies. Please
google authors of the software you'd like to nominate (though if you
insist, we can do it ourselves).

* Teams, groups and companies go to a separate category: Team
Archievement Award. SotM organizing teams, Esri and like, JOSM
developers and groups like that, all go here. If you want to nominate a
single leader or a developer, consider other categories. If you want to
nominate a vague group of people who did something great, this is the
category.

The call for nominees ends in July. Which does not mean you can postpone
and eventually forget about the call. Please read the next WeeklyOSM
with the idea of nominating people in mind. Look at tools you use and
blogs you read. While saying thanks to a neighbouring mapper, consider
nominating them. By doing that, you validate their efforts and make
their year a little brighter. We all need that.

Please nominate: http://awards.osmz.ru

And if you have time, please contribute to the website translations:

https://www.transifex.com/openstreetmap/osm-awards/dashboard/


Ilya

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

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 4/22/19 11:59, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there isn’t 
> any; you can do your thing without OSM infrastructure so why bother; nobody 
> died, stop your hype and comply” — is why we’re still with API 0.6 ten years 
> after it was introduced.

I'm tired of this gatekeeper nonsense. Your "OSM must grow up" talk at
SOTM in Aizu-Wakamatsu was full of examples where you personally would
like OSM to change direction (or perhaps, start moving in a direction of
your choice), and others didn't, and you framed all this as "stagnation"
like you're doing here, again.

Someone has made a decision to do something (delete a wiki page), you
don't like it, and somehow you manage to accuse the spirit that led to
the decision of being responsible for stagnation.

In the next minute, when you suggest that something should be introduced
and someone else says "not so fast, let's think of the negative effects
first" you'll accuse them of being responsible for stagnation.

It's just not credible any more, coming from you. All those evil gate
keepers you're seeing everywhere, holding OSM back from realising its
full potential, the old guard of secret power brokers that stands in the
way of greatness, blah blah blah. It's just cheap rhetorics to give your
personal vision more weight.

Make your statement, say what you like or dislike, just like everyone
else, without resorting to "SEE, THIS IS WHY THERE IS NO PROGRESS"
at every opportunity.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-se] Changeset 69441387

[Grigory Rechistov via Talk-se]

Hej, det var jag som gjorde morgonens import. Förlåt för besväret det skapade. 
Antagligen var mitt exportdata för gammalt som användas som areans basskikt. 
Låt mig granska lokalt konflikternas natur och återvända med fler detaljer.


>Понедельник, 22 апреля 2019, 10:59 +03:00 от Snusmumriken 
>:
>
>Hej listan
>
>Jag tog och reverterade importen som gjordes i morse
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69441387
>
>Orsaken var de omfattande konflikter som uppstod med befintlig data.
>
>
>___
>Talk-se mailing list
>Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se


С наилучшими пожеланиями,
Григорий Речистов.
Med vänliga hälsningar,
Grigory Rechistov
With best regards,
Grigory Rechistov
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

[Talk-us] Reminder - Mappy Hour this Wednesday!

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all, 
The next OSM US Virtual Mappy Hour is this Wednesday at 6pm PT / 9PM ET!
If you want to do a 5 minute presentation / lightning talk / discussion starter 
about anything OSM related, yes please! Please feel free to add your topic to 
the wiki[1] or just email me and we will make it happen.
The dial-in and Zoom connect information are also on that same wiki page.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
I hope you can make it!
Martijn

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Virtual_Mappy_Hours#Presentations



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

Re: [talk-cz] Fotky rozcestníků - aktuálnost/zastarávání fotek

[Jan Skala]

Ahoj,
tak první nástřel je v souboru czech_republic_ee.map a je k tomu třeba i 
aktualizace vzhledu, zatím jen v paws_4 a paws_4_LE. Beru všechna id 
uzlů co jsou v JSON a ikonka rozcestníku má pak červený okraj. Až 
proběhne aktualizace tak to bude i v czech_republic_gccz.map i v 
ostatních vzhledech. Bude to asi pro takové lenochy jako já :)


Ještě nápad pro Locusáky: 
locus-actions://https/osm.paws.cz/osmhicheck-locus-action.xml


Honza

On 18. 04. 19 10:00, Tom Ka wrote:

Ahoj, jak psal Marian, nejjednodusi je asi to vytahnout z json nebo
gpx, ktere je k dispozici, ale podle mne je tohle lepsi mit extra aby
to clovek mohl zapinat a vypinat. Aspon mne osobne to pouziti jako GPX
naimportovane do Locusu maximalne vyhovuje, ale samozrejme klidne
vyzkousej, pokud to bude znamenat vice fotek, tak jsem rozhodne pro
:-)

(v obou zdrojich je i duvod "chyby", mozna to bude vhodne nejak rozlisovat)

Bye

st 17. 4. 2019 v 21:27 odesílatel Jan Skala  napsal:

Ahoj,
mám dotaz trochu mimo téma. Tome máme nějaký výstup kde budou třeba jen
čísla uzlů v OSM od rozcestníků, které nemají fotku, nebo mají jiný
problém? Dal bych je do mapy třeba s červeným okrajem na ikonce, aby se
člověk nemusel párat se stahováním a importem GPX. Může být jakýkoliv
zdroj, který půjde automaticky stáhnout a získat z něj ID uzlů. Jsem i
pro další aplikace do mapy, které pomohou při mapování.

Honza

On 15. 04. 19 8:19, Tom Ka wrote:

Ahoj, zatim jsem se k tomu nedostal, ale jak uz jsem nekde psal,
planuju v OsmHiCheck krome tvrdych chyb jako neni zavest i mekke chyby
jako je starsi nez. Zatim jsem udelal jen prvni krok a to je histogram
vsech fotek aby bylo videt, jak na tom jsme celkove v ramci Fody:

https://osm.fit.vutbr.cz/fody/?stat.histo

Kazdopadne osobne to resim tak, ze pokud cestou narazim na nejaky
rozcestnik (a nefotil jsem ho ja sam pred mene nez rokem), tak ho
vyfotim, specialne pokud ma rok vyroby nejaky novejsi (2-3 roky
zpatky). Pri nahravani pak nahraju pokud fotka neexistuje, je spatna
(rozmazana, spatne viditelne casti apod.) nebo je starsi nez 2-3 roky.
Stare fotky pak ve Fody zakazu s komentarem "nahrazeno novejsi fotkou"
aby bylo jasne proc je zakazana.

Ted postupne resim verifikaci dat, protoze primarne u starsich fotek
jsou tam casto hodne velke nesmysly, jak se dostanu pres 50%, tak
planuju upravit zobrazovani na osmap.cz v ikonach a take dalsi kroky.
Prace se starim je jedna z prvnich na seznamu.

Toz tak :-)

čt 11. 4. 2019 v 19:08 odesílatel majka  napsal:

Mám dotaz spíš jen na Toma:
Protože na rozdíl od většiny národa mám už víkend, zajela jsem si na kole 
vyfotit pár rozcestníků. Náhodou jsem pak po jejich nahrání narazila na to, že 
v okolí jsou rozcestníky sice vyfocené, ale podle mě dost staré - viz např. 
https://osm.fit.vutbr.cz/fody/?id=632 a https://osm.fit.vutbr.cz/fody/?id=605 
(ukazují rok 2009, a je to na nich vidět - září novotou).

Máme nějakou hranici toho, kdy považujeme tu fotku za natolik starou, že bychom 
jí chtěli tak jako tak vyfotit?
Jde mi jen o to, že tou stranou máme poměrně dost rozcestníků nevyfocených, 
takže se tam budu zase někdy brzy vydávat. Takže jestli mám automaticky fotit a 
nahrávat vše na co přijdu, nebo zkrátka jet podle toho GPX chybných rozcestníků 
a ten zbytek neřešit.

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

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

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

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Dave F via talk]

Was this new/improvement additions or bug/maintenance fix?

DaveF

On 22/04/2019 11:37, Simon Poole wrote:

The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year
ago, in March 2018.

Implying for rhetorical purposes that "nothing has changed" is rather
disingenuous.

Simon

Am 22.04.2019 um 11:59 schrieb Ilya Zverev:

This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there isn’t 
any; you can do your thing without OSM infrastructure so why bother; nobody 
died, stop your hype and comply” — is why we’re still with API 0.6 ten years 
after it was introduced.

Ilya


On 22 Apr 2019, at 09:35, Jochen Topf  wrote:

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:03:40AM +0300, Ilya Zverev wrote:

In my research of API 0.6 (which turned ten years old yesterday) I've
stumbled on this page:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6/Crowd_sourced_Testing

It was deleted 7 years ago. And this is a disaster. The page was an
important milestone in our history: authors, dates, items on it could bring
some more information on how our current API was rolled out. Nothing is
left.

It was deleted an yet you have found it. So not a huge desaster after
all.


Please, could we have a deletion policy in our wiki that clearly states "No
obsolete pages here", forbidding deletion of anything except spam or
otherwise harmful pages? Deleting our history is plain vandalism, no better
than physically destroying pieces of human history displayed in museums.

Isn't that a bit of hype here...


It's not like we're pressed for disk space there.

No, we aren't. But we are pressed for time and human attention. Of we
had curators who keep important things organized and findable we could
keep things forever. But as it is, all the obsolete crap keeps us from
finding and working with what we need now.


Thank internet gods for the Internet Archive,

Not the gods but some good people who had a good idea. Let them do their
job and keep the history and lets do our job and keep the momentum in
the project instead of spending our time looking back.

Jochen
--
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

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



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Roger Calvert]

The surveyors are volunteers who are trained by the National Park to 
undertake periodic surveys of PROWs, monitoring the condition of paths, 
stiles, bridges, surface etc and reporting back to the Ranger team. I do 
not have a link - it is a leaflet issued to surveyors on the training 
course, and has no address or web link on it, just an internal file 
address.


I am not defending this approach - simply reporting what the 
instructions are. My personal view is that both should be mapped in OSM. 
The issue is to determine which way the PROW should go in cases of doubt.


If the right of way is deemed by the appropriate authority to go through 
the gate, the landowner should (ideally) not block it. If it is blocked, 
this will be reported by the footpath surveyors on their next trip.


Roger

On 22/04/2019 16:48, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 22/04/2019 15:34, Roger Calvert wrote:
The Lake District National Park instructions to footpath surveyors 
recommends:


"Where there are two items of furniture for the same crossing (for 
example, a gate and a stile alongside each other), then it is the one 
highest up the hierarchy .. or the one definitely on the definitive 
line, that is the most important."


The gate is higher in their hierarchy than the stile, and thus would 
normally be considered to be the one on the PROW where there is doubt 
about the definitive line.


Roger



But that would mean, if the landowner wished to close or remove the 
gate, there would be no official PROW access.


Could you clarify who these footpath surveyors are?
Do you have a link to this statement?

DaveF

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


--


Roger Calvert

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

Re: [Talk-us] Footway tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:31 PM Michael Sidoric via Talk-us
 wrote:
> Another consideration is accessibility.
> Not taking sides but besides aesthetics and nomenclature seems there needs to 
> be some way for routing and tags to reflect whether a route is ‘safe’ or 
> accessible.
>
> I map for several blind friends and many paths have unexpected (and 
> dangerous) overhead hazards that a cane cannot detect.
>
> Thoughts?

Accessibility for people with impairments, of whatever sort, is really
complicated to characterize, because it depends so strongly not only
on the nature of the impairment, but on the compensating abilities of
the individual, and the other available resources.  For instance, a
blind person who works with a dog may have no trouble with the
overhead hazards if the dog is trained to alert at them.

I have heard of profoundly blind hikers completing some of the longest
and toughest trails in the USA with the assistance of their assistive
devices and dogs. On the other hand, I know other partially sighted
individuals who have trouble with the most trivial of barriers and
will hardly leave their homes without a health aide.

For many paths, which have had no attention paid to accessibility, it
would mean characterizing the specific hazards, their location and
dimensions, or else the system would degenerate into, 'this path
wasn't designed for accessibility, so persons with any (unspecified)
impairment shouldn't be there." Which is like far too many busybody
social workers telling people, "people with your impairment can't do
that!" instead of working out what they *can* do and what sort of
accommodation can make it possible.

I don't know enough about the field to characterize what the obstacles
and hazards are, but it's surely more than a binary "blind people
should/shouldn't do this".

Alas, with the state of the map as far as I can foresee, the default
for many paths will almost have to be that virtually any barrier or
hazard may exist until asserted otherwise, so the tagging would have
to be 'free of barrier XYZ (except as noted?)' rather than 'warning:
barrier XYZ here.' Too many mappers are like me and wouldn't know how
to make the assessment.

Unfortunately, that isn't the sort of path that I mostly map, except
in my own neighbourhood. Many of the paths that I've mapped have
guidebook descriptions that include language like 'Grade 2. The trail
is relatively level, but stout waterproof boots are recommended in all
but the driest of seasons, and hikers should be prepared to detour
around beaver activity,' or 'Grade 3+/4. The rock is sound, holds are
plentiful, and route-finding is easy. Nevertheless, the exposure is
dramatic and less confident parties may wish to bring a rope.'

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

Re: [Talk-de] Verkehrsberuhigter Bereich - maxspeed

[Michael Brandtner via Talk-de]

Parkraumbewirtschaftung ist unter bestimmten Umständen schon möglich,  siehe 
Beschluss des VG Gelsenkirchen vom 23.01.2014, Az.: 14 L 1856/13.
Wird z.B. im Hafengebiet Eckernförde praktiziert. 

 
  Am Fr., März 29, 2019 at 9:55 schrieb Florian Lohoff:   On Thu, 
Mar 28, 2019 at 10:46:28PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> > On 28. Mar 2019, at 22:42, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > 
> > Das ist schon im highway=living_street. Das ist nach der bisherigen
> > tagging praxis ein verkehrsberuhigt und damit Zeichen 325 und damit
> > Schrittgeschwindigkeit.
> > 
> > Mehr ist einfach falsch weil du alles was du zusätzlich taggst falsch
> > ist.
> 
> vermutlich dürfen dort keine weiteren Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungen
> (explizit) aufgestellt werden, oder? Weil das Argument für das
> explizite taggen eines impliziten Limits ist normalerweise, dass man
> so angibt, dass kein explizites Limit besteht (im Gegensatz zu: man
> weiß es nicht, im Fall von keinen weiteren tags).

Korrekt - Es darf keine weiteren Straßenschilder geben, das Parken ist
nur in markierten Flächen erlaubt, er darf keine
"Parkraumbewirtschaftung" geben d.h. keine Parkscheinautomaten etc.
Fußgänger haben "vorfahrt" d.h. Priorität auf der "Fahrbahn"

Deshalb sind in Gütersloh in der Innenstadt viele Verkehrsberuhigungen
zu Zone 20 gemacht worden weil man DA Parkscheinautomaten aufstellen
darf.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                f...@zz.de
        UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away  
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:46:28PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> > On 28. Mar 2019, at 22:42, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > 
> > Das ist schon im highway=living_street. Das ist nach der bisherigen
> > tagging praxis ein verkehrsberuhigt und damit Zeichen 325 und damit
> > Schrittgeschwindigkeit.
> > 
> > Mehr ist einfach falsch weil du alles was du zusätzlich taggst falsch
> > ist.
> 
> vermutlich dürfen dort keine weiteren Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungen
> (explizit) aufgestellt werden, oder? Weil das Argument für das
> explizite taggen eines impliziten Limits ist normalerweise, dass man
> so angibt, dass kein explizites Limit besteht (im Gegensatz zu: man
> weiß es nicht, im Fall von keinen weiteren tags).

Korrekt - Es darf keine weiteren Straßenschilder geben, das Parken ist
nur in markierten Flächen erlaubt, er darf keine
"Parkraumbewirtschaftung" geben d.h. keine Parkscheinautomaten etc.
Fußgänger haben "vorfahrt" d.h. Priorität auf der "Fahrbahn"

Deshalb sind in Gütersloh in der Innenstadt viele Verkehrsberuhigungen
zu Zone 20 gemacht worden weil man DA Parkscheinautomaten aufstellen
darf.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Yuri Astrakhan]

If the whole issue is optimizing search results, lets just create an
"Archive" namespace that is not included in search by default.  Moving to
archive is different from deleting because only admins can see deleted
content.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:11 AM Lester Caine  wrote:

> On 22/04/2019 11:45, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> > It’s history.
> Ilya ... it's the same problem we have with with a lot of the historic
> material. Personally I'd prefer to see the history accessible in some
> way, be it the history of the development of a area of mapping data, or
> the history of how we got to a particular style of recording that data.
> The data is in reality not totally lost, all that is missing is some
> general consensus on making it visible when appropriate.
>
> There has been a request for 'namespaces' in the wiki to help manage
> such things as the historic discussions on how tags have evolved and why
> some have been rejected. I'm not sure that it is the appropriate way to
> manage it, but an historic time line view of wiki pages is something
> that would not require 'manual management' and with a switch to display
> or not deleted pages would fill the gap? People investigating a
> particular tagging development could then see the past history of
> related pages.
>
> Doing the same with the map data is somewhat more difficult, but I still
> think it's a development that would replace the need to marry OSM with
> OHM for material that is substantially linked to current live data?
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-it] RELAZIONE COMUNI CON ENTE NON AMMINISTRATIVO

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Il 22/04/19 16:04, Bertu90 ha scritto:
> Concordo, però occorrerebbe ragionare ulteriormente sul termine
> "administrative" dato che comunque il GAL ha un ruolo di sostegno delle
> strategie di sviluppo locale e quindi tramite strumenti di programmazione
> europea condivide progetti tra operatori pubblici e privati.
> 
> Nel caso invece in cui questo ente non sia considerato di tipo
> amministrativo, come lo posso trattare? occorre istituire una relazione
> anche solamente con i vari enti che ne fanno parte e non con i confini
> territoriali?

Non lo so, se è un'amministrazione pubblica con funzioni tali ha senso,
se invece è come penso, una fondiaria con soci privati e pubblici con
intendo di monetizzare localmente progetti e bandi locali, in sostanza
un fondo dove i comuni attingono in mancanza di contributi o fondi
pubblici, non è un'amministrazione pubblica.



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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 22/04/2019 15:34, Roger Calvert wrote:
The Lake District National Park instructions to footpath surveyors 
recommends:


"Where there are two items of furniture for the same crossing (for 
example, a gate and a stile alongside each other), then it is the one 
highest up the hierarchy .. or the one definitely on the definitive 
line, that is the most important."


The gate is higher in their hierarchy than the stile, and thus would 
normally be considered to be the one on the PROW where there is doubt 
about the definitive line.


Roger



But that would mean, if the landowner wished to close or remove the 
gate, there would be no official PROW access.


Could you clarify who these footpath surveyors are?
Do you have a link to this statement?

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-it] restaurant:type:it

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Il 22/04/19 16:48, Andrea Enzo ha scritto:
> Buongiorno, 
> Per una friggitoria può essere utilizzato oltre ad amenity=restaurant 
> restaurant:type:it=* proposto nel 2012 da Martin?''
> Grazie.
> Andreas

esiste cuisine=fried_food, oppure cuisine=friture.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cuisine


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 15:34 +0100, Roger Calvert wrote:
> The Lake District National Park instructions to footpath
> surveyors
> recommends:
> 
> 
> 
> "Where there are two items of furniture for the same crossing
> (for
> example, a gate and a stile alongside each other), then it is the
> one highest up the hierarchy .. or the one definitely on the
> definitive line, that is the most important." 
> 
> 
> 
> The gate is higher in their hierarchy than the stile, and thus
> would
> normally be considered to be the one on the PROW where there is
> doubt about the definitive line.
> 
> 
I would totally disagree with the above statement. At least assuming it
is a public footpath and would tend to map both as Jerry has
recommended. 

However if mapping a single object I would map the stile.
1. The gate may be open the day I survey, but could well be closed
depending on what livestock is in the fields.
2. A walker with mobility issues may find the stile a problem, if we
map the gate then finding the stile could be an issue.   If we map a
stile and the walker encounters a gate then its a bonus.
Fortunately we are rapidly getting rid of stiles, but its not unusual
to find this situation with a kissing gate next to a larger gate.
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-it] restaurant:type:it

[Andrea Enzo]

Buongiorno, 
Per una friggitoria può essere utilizzato oltre ad amenity=restaurant 
restaurant:type:it=* proposto nel 2012 da Martin?''
Grazie.
Andreas
-- 
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Perdonate la brevità.___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-us] trail tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 7:22 PM Rihards  wrote:
> On 19.04.19 19:34, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > (There's also a law that snowshoes or skis are required
> > once the snow is 20 cm deep, but I follow "don't tag the local
> > legislation". There's nothing in that law regarding crampons, but any
> > time I've been using crampons and met a ranger, the ranger was also
> > using them and said nothing about it.)
> This seems a bit uncommon (the law, not you meeting the rangers). Got
> any reference or more detail on it?

6 CRR-NY 190.13 (f)(3)(vii) "In the High Peaks Wilderness Area, no
person shall [...] fail to possess and use skis or snowshoes when the
terrain is snow-covered with eight or more inches of snow"
https://tinyurl.com/y2bbfjad

There are other areas with similar regulations. Moreover, failing to
use snowshoes is regarded as very poor trail etiquette because it
shows little consideration for the safety of those behind you.
Tripping over a posthole (mountaineer slang for the hole left when
someone's boot breaks through the compacted snow on a trail) could be
very dangerous indeed on a trail like
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tYTfwHvO37c/VJnbELXajCI/Bnc/FdT5BrIX1Is/s1600/DSC_3854.JPG.

You can't always see the postholes. They fill with light drifted snow
that gives no more support than the same quantity of air.

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

[Talk-es] semanarioOSM Nº 456 2019-04-09-2019-04-15

[theweekly . osm]

Hola, el semanario Nº 456, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/11906/

¡Disfruta!

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

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

[Talk-cl] semanarioOSM Nº 456 2019-04-09-2019-04-15

[theweekly . osm]

Hola, el semanario Nº 456, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/11906/

¡Disfruta!

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

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

[OSM-co] semanarioOSM Nº 456 2019-04-09-2019-04-15

[theweekly . osm]

Hola, el semanario Nº 456, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/11906/

¡Disfruta!

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

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

[Talk-cu] semanarioOSM Nº 456 2019-04-09-2019-04-15

[theweekly . osm]

Hola, el semanario Nº 456, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/11906/

¡Disfruta!

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Roger Calvert]

The Lake District National Park instructions to footpath surveyors 
recommends:


"Where there are two items of furniture for the same crossing (for 
example, a gate and a stile alongside each other), then it is the one 
highest up the hierarchy .. or the one definitely on the definitive 
line, that is the most important."


The gate is higher in their hierarchy than the stile, and thus would 
normally be considered to be the one on the PROW where there is doubt 
about the definitive line.


Roger

On 22/04/2019 13:43, Martin Wynne wrote:

Often in my travels I come across something like this:

 http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg

 http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg

Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?

If the latter, which node should the way be connected to?

It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they 
must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see 
on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a 
track passing through a gate.


If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath 
passing over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks 
daft on the map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a 
grassy field.


And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the 
track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation 
(and ref number) is removed?


thanks,

Martin.

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


--


Roger Calvert

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

Re: [Talk-it] RELAZIONE COMUNI CON ENTE NON AMMINISTRATIVO

[Bertu90]

Concordo, però occorrerebbe ragionare ulteriormente sul termine
"administrative" dato che comunque il GAL ha un ruolo di sostegno delle
strategie di sviluppo locale e quindi tramite strumenti di programmazione
europea condivide progetti tra operatori pubblici e privati.

Nel caso invece in cui questo ente non sia considerato di tipo
amministrativo, come lo posso trattare? occorre istituire una relazione
anche solamente con i vari enti che ne fanno parte e non con i confini
territoriali?




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

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

Re: [Talk-it] RELAZIONE COMUNI CON ENTE NON AMMINISTRATIVO

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Il 22/04/19 15:10, Bertu90 ha scritto:
> Buongiorno a tutti e grazie per l'attenzione, mi trovo a dover mappare un
> ente di compartecipazione sia pubblica che privata a cui fanno parte più
> comuni. Essendo stato utilizzato un tag non corretto mi rivolgo a voi per
> capire come mantenere il lavoro fatto ed assegnargli un tag appropriato.
> 
> Ente: GAL Valli di Lanzo, Ceronda e Casternone
> http://www.gal-vallilanzocerondacasternone.it/
> 
> Relazione creata:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9503450#map=10/45.2614/7.3169
> 

Per come l'ho capita leggendo un pò, la vedo come una società a
partecipazione pubblica, non un ente amministrativo tra comune e
regione, come può essere, a paragone, la comunità di valle in Trentino,
qui si tratta di un'organizzazione territoriale a fini economici.

Pertanto non vedo la cosa da configurarsi con una relazione tipo
boundary, ma come una cosa simile al parco o comunque come associazione
privata a fini economici, ed onestamente penso basti la sede ed
eventuali uffici sul territorio, dei confini non mi pare il caso di
metterli in OSM.


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Ed Loach]

I recently found this gate which I think everyone walks around, but I'll 
probably map it as on the route of the footpath when I get around to looking 
through all the photos from that day. 
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/w2kvnsbGoKkhgIKFMsksLg
Ed

From: SK53 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 2:00:25 PM
To: Martin Wynne
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

I will often map both the track through the gate & the path over the stile. 
It's usually a matter of judgement as to whether the line of the PRoW should go 
over the stile or through the gate. It's not unusual to find a moribund stile 
in such circumstances, which I map as a standalone node. Keeping all the 
information is, I think, useful. Landowners change usage, or ownership changes 
with accordingly different attitudes to PRoWs, so there's no guarantee that a 
route will go through the gate in a few years time.

As usual, don't worry about how it looks on Carto-CSS: they can't solve very 
rendering problem, and having both gate & stile visible is useful for people 
updating the data. Specialist use for walking could choose to omit the non-PRoW 
elements, or otherwise generalise the data (not widely done yet, but something 
which is generally needed as OSM becomes more detailed).

Jerry

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 13:45, Martin Wynne 
mailto:mar...@templot.com>> wrote:
Often in my travels I come across something like this:

  http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg

  http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg

Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?

If the latter, which node should the way be connected to?

It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they
must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see
on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a track
passing through a gate.

If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath passing
over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks daft on the
map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a grassy field.

And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the
track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation
(and ref number) is removed?

thanks,

Martin.

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

[Talk-it] RELAZIONE COMUNI CON ENTE NON AMMINISTRATIVO

[Bertu90]

Buongiorno a tutti e grazie per l'attenzione, mi trovo a dover mappare un
ente di compartecipazione sia pubblica che privata a cui fanno parte più
comuni. Essendo stato utilizzato un tag non corretto mi rivolgo a voi per
capire come mantenere il lavoro fatto ed assegnargli un tag appropriato.

Ente: GAL Valli di Lanzo, Ceronda e Casternone
http://www.gal-vallilanzocerondacasternone.it/

Relazione creata:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9503450#map=10/45.2614/7.3169

Ovviamente questo tipo di relazione potrebbe essere utilizzata anche per
mappare ad esempio ASL di appartenenza, Società di gestione acque, ecc ecc

Attendo un vostro parere

Grazie



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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

If I have the patience, I split them:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40349/-2.44502

The PROW ref should go over the stile's way even if the gate is always 
open - it's up the walker to decide which to use (even if the choice is 
obvious)


DaveF

On 22/04/2019 13:43, Martin Wynne wrote:

Often in my travels I come across something like this:

 http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg

 http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg

Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?

If the latter, which node should the way be connected to?

It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they 
must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see 
on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a 
track passing through a gate.


If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath 
passing over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks 
daft on the map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a 
grassy field.


And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the 
track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation 
(and ref number) is removed?


thanks,

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[SK53]

I will often map both the track through the gate & the path over the stile.
It's usually a matter of judgement as to whether the line of the PRoW
should go over the stile or through the gate. It's not unusual to find a
moribund stile in such circumstances, which I map as a standalone node.
Keeping all the information is, I think, useful. Landowners change usage,
or ownership changes with accordingly different attitudes to PRoWs, so
there's no guarantee that a route will go through the gate in a few years
time.

As usual, don't worry about how it looks on Carto-CSS: they can't solve
very rendering problem, and having both gate & stile visible is useful for
people updating the data. Specialist use for walking could choose to omit
the non-PRoW elements, or otherwise generalise the data (not widely done
yet, but something which is generally needed as OSM becomes more detailed).

Jerry

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 13:45, Martin Wynne  wrote:

> Often in my travels I come across something like this:
>
>   http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg
>
>   http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg
>
> Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?
>
> If the latter, which node should the way be connected to?
>
> It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they
> must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see
> on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a track
> passing through a gate.
>
> If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath passing
> over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks daft on the
> map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a grassy field.
>
> And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the
> track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation
> (and ref number) is removed?
>
> thanks,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Martin Wynne]

Often in my travels I come across something like this:

 http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg

 http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg

Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?

If the latter, which node should the way be connected to?

It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they 
must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see 
on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a track 
passing through a gate.


If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath passing 
over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks daft on the 
map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a grassy field.


And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the 
track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation 
(and ref number) is removed?


thanks,

Martin.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Lester Caine]

On 22/04/2019 11:45, Ilya Zverev wrote:

It’s history.
Ilya ... it's the same problem we have with with a lot of the historic 
material. Personally I'd prefer to see the history accessible in some 
way, be it the history of the development of a area of mapping data, or 
the history of how we got to a particular style of recording that data. 
The data is in reality not totally lost, all that is missing is some 
general consensus on making it visible when appropriate.


There has been a request for 'namespaces' in the wiki to help manage 
such things as the historic discussions on how tags have evolved and why 
some have been rejected. I'm not sure that it is the appropriate way to 
manage it, but an historic time line view of wiki pages is something 
that would not require 'manual management' and with a switch to display 
or not deleted pages would fill the gap? People investigating a 
particular tagging development could then see the past history of 
related pages.


Doing the same with the map data is somewhat more difficult, but I still 
think it's a development that would replace the need to marry OSM with 
OHM for material that is substantially linked to current live data?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Ilya Zverev]

It’s history.

Why do we keep buildings and roads in the OSM database, that were demolished 
years ago? They are still there, versions 1 and 2, deleted by an active mapper. 
Why do we keep mailing lists archives from 2004? To argue with points made by 
people that left the project a decade ago?

You haven’t even looked at the archived version of that page. The latest 
revision clearly shows that the testing has ended. That is more than enough: no 
need to delete it so that nobody except a wiki admin could read it.

Ilya

> On 22 Apr 2019, at 13:29, Ed Loach  wrote:
> 
> Of course, being a wiki, it isn't actually deleted, just marked as deleted. 
> But looking at it now I can't see why we'd still want it in the wiki, asking 
> people to use possibly no longer existent api end points to test software 
> that long since has been tested.
> 
> Ed
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Simon Poole]

The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year
ago, in March 2018.

Implying for rhetorical purposes that "nothing has changed" is rather
disingenuous.

Simon

Am 22.04.2019 um 11:59 schrieb Ilya Zverev:
> This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there isn’t 
> any; you can do your thing without OSM infrastructure so why bother; nobody 
> died, stop your hype and comply” — is why we’re still with API 0.6 ten years 
> after it was introduced.
>
> Ilya
>
>> On 22 Apr 2019, at 09:35, Jochen Topf  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:03:40AM +0300, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>>> In my research of API 0.6 (which turned ten years old yesterday) I've
>>> stumbled on this page:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6/Crowd_sourced_Testing
>>>
>>> It was deleted 7 years ago. And this is a disaster. The page was an
>>> important milestone in our history: authors, dates, items on it could bring
>>> some more information on how our current API was rolled out. Nothing is
>>> left.
>> It was deleted an yet you have found it. So not a huge desaster after
>> all.
>>
>>> Please, could we have a deletion policy in our wiki that clearly states "No
>>> obsolete pages here", forbidding deletion of anything except spam or
>>> otherwise harmful pages? Deleting our history is plain vandalism, no better
>>> than physically destroying pieces of human history displayed in museums.
>> Isn't that a bit of hype here...
>>
>>> It's not like we're pressed for disk space there.
>> No, we aren't. But we are pressed for time and human attention. Of we
>> had curators who keep important things organized and findable we could
>> keep things forever. But as it is, all the obsolete crap keeps us from
>> finding and working with what we need now.
>>
>>> Thank internet gods for the Internet Archive,
>> Not the gods but some good people who had a good idea. Let them do their
>> job and keep the history and lets do our job and keep the momentum in
>> the project instead of spending our time looking back.
>>
>> Jochen
>> -- 
>> Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Ed Loach]

Of course, being a wiki, it isn't actually deleted, just marked as deleted. But 
looking at it now I can't see why we'd still want it in the wiki, asking people 
to use possibly no longer existent api end points to test software that long 
since has been tested.

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Ilya Zverev]

This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there isn’t 
any; you can do your thing without OSM infrastructure so why bother; nobody 
died, stop your hype and comply” — is why we’re still with API 0.6 ten years 
after it was introduced.

Ilya

> On 22 Apr 2019, at 09:35, Jochen Topf  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:03:40AM +0300, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>> In my research of API 0.6 (which turned ten years old yesterday) I've
>> stumbled on this page:
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6/Crowd_sourced_Testing
>> 
>> It was deleted 7 years ago. And this is a disaster. The page was an
>> important milestone in our history: authors, dates, items on it could bring
>> some more information on how our current API was rolled out. Nothing is
>> left.
> 
> It was deleted an yet you have found it. So not a huge desaster after
> all.
> 
>> Please, could we have a deletion policy in our wiki that clearly states "No
>> obsolete pages here", forbidding deletion of anything except spam or
>> otherwise harmful pages? Deleting our history is plain vandalism, no better
>> than physically destroying pieces of human history displayed in museums.
> 
> Isn't that a bit of hype here...
> 
>> It's not like we're pressed for disk space there.
> 
> No, we aren't. But we are pressed for time and human attention. Of we
> had curators who keep important things organized and findable we could
> keep things forever. But as it is, all the obsolete crap keeps us from
> finding and working with what we need now.
> 
>> Thank internet gods for the Internet Archive,
> 
> Not the gods but some good people who had a good idea. Let them do their
> job and keep the history and lets do our job and keep the momentum in
> the project instead of spending our time looking back.
> 
> Jochen
> -- 
> Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688


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

[Talk-se] Changeset 69441387

[Snusmumriken]

Hej listan

Jag tog och reverterade importen som gjordes i morse
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69441387

Orsaken var de omfattande konflikter som uppstod med befintlig data.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

[Jochen Topf]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:03:40AM +0300, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> In my research of API 0.6 (which turned ten years old yesterday) I've
> stumbled on this page:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6/Crowd_sourced_Testing
> 
> It was deleted 7 years ago. And this is a disaster. The page was an
> important milestone in our history: authors, dates, items on it could bring
> some more information on how our current API was rolled out. Nothing is
> left.

It was deleted an yet you have found it. So not a huge desaster after
all.

> Please, could we have a deletion policy in our wiki that clearly states "No
> obsolete pages here", forbidding deletion of anything except spam or
> otherwise harmful pages? Deleting our history is plain vandalism, no better
> than physically destroying pieces of human history displayed in museums.

Isn't that a bit of hype here...

> It's not like we're pressed for disk space there.

No, we aren't. But we are pressed for time and human attention. Of we
had curators who keep important things organized and findable we could
keep things forever. But as it is, all the obsolete crap keeps us from
finding and working with what we need now.

> Thank internet gods for the Internet Archive,

Not the gods but some good people who had a good idea. Let them do their
job and keep the history and lets do our job and keep the momentum in
the project instead of spending our time looking back.

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

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

Re: [talk-au] "Hidden" National Park boundary

[Warin]

The national park way 104759342 is tagged

natural=wood

this will probably cover any other land cover tags you add under the 
national park.


Delete the tag natural=wood for the national park way - as I have done 
for various national parks and you can then add the land covers without 
getting pasted to the background.
You will get complaints about it no longer being mapped for trees .. so 
you might want to see to that as another way or relation.


It follows the OSM guide of 'one feature one OSM entry - national park 
on this way and no other features.



On 22/04/19 14:15, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 14:11, nwastra > wrote:


Geez…and a proper link to Protected areas of Queensland dataset

http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=Protected+areas+of+Queensland


The original link does work, just only if you click through twice.


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



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