Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Tagging laadpalen auto in Nederland

[Richard Duivenvoorde via Talk-nl]

Ik ben nog wel een oude mailing list liefhebber :-)

Ik ben/was hier ook in geinteresseerd,
Er staat wel het een en ander op de wiki

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station

Mijn hoop was namelijk ook dat de EVSE nummers allemaal goed in OSM kwamen.
Er werd namelijk gewerkt met wat standaardisatie rond het melden van het bezet 
zijn van palen etc. Ik ging ervan uit dat die met EVSE nummers zouden werken, 
en dat we dan misschien vanuit de OSM gegevens de bezetting op de een of andere 
manier (live) zouden kunnen visualiseren...

Maar waarschijnlijk een beetje luchtfietserij :-)

Groet,

Richard Duivenvoorde

On 5/18/23 11:51, Hugo hölscher wrote:

Dag allemaal,

Bij het taggen van laadpalen die "los" op straat staan(voor elektrische auto's) 
loop ik tegen de naamgeving aan. Ik gebruik nu als name: de code die op de paal staat: bv 
cch0012334. Dat is een unieke code en deel van de ESVE (Europese officiele tag). Die 
lijkt langzaam te verdwijnen.

Soms zie je ook een adres waar de paal bij in de buurt staat, maar dat lijkt me 
niet beter.

Is hier al eerder over gedacht, ik heb in deze mail list niets gevonden.

Groet Hugo

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Richard Fairhurst]

Courtney wrote:
> Or is it going to keep doing the same old flame wars?

To be honest, the mailing lists have been on the way out for a long time now, 
and talk@ is no exception. Some once busy lists are now basically dead (dev@, 
legal-talk@, talk-de@). Others are noticeably quieter (talk@, talk-fr@, 
osmf-talk@). A few local communities still prefer mailing lists but they're 
fewer in number every year. Generally, the vital new stuff in OSM doesn't 
happen on mailing lists.

So I wouldn't suggest worrying too much about the lists. Theory and practice of 
community interaction elsewhere in OSM is absolutely a valid and interesting 
topic, but the lists belong to pretty much the same period in OSM history as 
IRC and Potlatch, and I say that as someone who still uses both. :)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Public Rights of Way overlay missing

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jas Ranasinghe wrote:
> Is anyone able to provide any information about the missing Public
> Rights of Way overlay? It is still currently in the overlay list, but the
> Rights of Way do not show up on the map.

I'm guessing this refers to one of the tile layers I host at osm.cycle.travel. 
Unfortunately one of the hosts I use let me down (repeated outages and very 
little support), so I had to move a bunch of stuff at short notice on New 
Year's Eve. I haven't had chance to move a few of the tile layers yet but 
should be able to in the next few days.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Tag pour un transformateur

[Florent Richard]

Bonjour Ludovic,

C'est documenté dans le wiki dans le chapitre "Poste de transformation locaux" 
de cette page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_networks/France#Postes_de_transformation_locaux
La photo ressemble beaucoup au modèle "RS - Rural Poste Socle" en fin de 
tableau.


Florent


De : Ludovic Hirlimann 
Envoyé : vendredi 29 avril 2022 18:03
À : Discussions sur OSM en français 
Objet : [OSM-talk-fr] Tag pour un transformateur

Salut,


aujourd'hui dans ma tournée de je chope des données je suis tombé sur ça
https://drop.chapril.org/download/c1be2086bcd58db3/#JVFFgtuDsREzkdopj9HceA .


Y a rien dans le wiki qui s'en approche, je le tag comment ?


Ludovic

--

https://ludovic.hirlimann.net
___
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-au] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether
> that's something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from
> the OSM wiki, or pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags.

With the best will in the world, that's not going to happen.

I can point you to a well-known bike routing app that has 75+ employees, was 
backed by a government funding office to the tune of seven figures, and has an 
install base of millions, and yet it still gets path access across the UK very 
very wrong because (basically) it applies German defaults. So the idea that 
every single router is going to write state-specific processing is unrealistic, 
I'm afraid, whatever you think _should_ happen.

(Personally I do have a whole bunch of country, state and even county-specific 
adaptions for cycle.travel's routing, but I'm very aware that I'm the outlier. 
And I've never even heard of "def:*" tags.)

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

[talk-au] Queensland railway stations

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi folks,

There appear to be a _lot_ of bogus rail stations on the map in Queensland:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/-21.0650/148.8397=T
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-23.5706/150.1838=T

I think these are historic halts that haven't had service for many years but 
have mistakenly been added. They mostly seem to have been mapped by TheOldMiner 
who hasn't been active for four years.

Any rail enthusiasts or Queenslanders on this list who fancy cleaning them up?

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

Re: [talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route hierarchy

[Richard Sota]

Thanks for the replies. It confirms that my original approach was 
correct and that the other mapper's changes were a bit misguided.


I guess I need to get in touch with him to change things back.

Richard


-- Original Message --
From: "Andrew Harvey" 
To: "Richard Sota" 
Cc: "OSM Australian Talk List" 
Sent: 21/11/2021 6:40:19 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route 
hierarchy


Based on the wiki I understand highway=pedestrian to be for roads that 
pedestrians freely walk on and some vehicles can drive on, but mostly 
vehicles don't drive on them because there are too many pedestrians or 
restrictions limit vehicle access.


It's a common misstagging to use it as a more important 
highway=footway.


highway=pedestrian + area=yes is almost a completely different tag 
which is used on plazas, malls, squares or other open pedestrian 
surfaces. This is what the wiki is referring to by the "wide expanses 
of hard surfaces".


To some extent width and name can be indicators of how major a footway 
is.


On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Richard Sota  wrote:

Hello all,

I'm a relatively new mapper (1.5 years) using iD, and am hoping to get 
some clarification on the use of pedestrian streets after some changes 
were made to my edits. In these changes, pedestrian streets have been 
used to imply a hierarchy in the footway network, in spite of their 
physical appearance on the ground. Is this okay?


Some background -

Lately I've been focusing on updating the pedestrian footpath network 
within Monash University Clayton, using Bing aerials and my own walks 
around the campus. On the ground, some roads and footpaths have been 
upgraded into high quality pedestrian routes, however this has led to 
a patchwork effect with some ped streets leading into ordinary roads 
or footpaths and vice-versa.


In my attempt to accurately reflect this patchwork in OSM, I've been 
guided by the definition of the "highway=pedestrian 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=pedestrian>" tag 
being:


"a road or an area mainly or exclusively for pedestrians in which some 
vehicle traffic may be authorized (e.g. emergency, taxi, delivery, 
...)" and "where wide expanses of hard surface are provided for 
pedestrians to walk."


I also noted that "For narrow paths which are too small for cars to 
pass (not proper streets) use highway=footway 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway> instead." 
i.e. footpaths.


The example images for these tags have also informed my choices.


A few days ago another mapper (Bob42nd) created two changesets that 
converted some of the footpaths into pedestrian streets. This has 
'tidied' up the render somewhat but it is no longer an accurate 
representation of what's on the ground:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114013893 - "Reclasses some 
footways and unclassified to pedestrian."


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114014311 - "Pedestrian 
Highways, official "walks""


In the first changeset, I can see that converting the unclassified 
roadways into ped streets is somewhat justified as on the ground they 
are bollarded and only accessible by service vehicles. Although to 
pedestrians these still look like traditional roads with asphalt 
surfaces and concrete kerbs, in contrast to the 'true' ped streets 
with stone paving and no kerbs. This difference led me to retain the 
original 'unclassified' street tags they had. See College Walk 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403774582#map=19/-37.91023/145.13578> 
as an example.


In the second changeset, the conversion to ped streets appears to be 
based on "official walks" (although the source for what makes an 
"official walk" hasn't been included). More so these ped streets don't 
reflect their appearance on the ground. For instance Chancellors Walk 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1004615769#map=19/-37.91209/145.13077> 
in reality is a narrow covered footpath that couldn't accommodate a 
vehicle, while the central portion of Rainforest Walk 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996587081#map=18/-37.91134/145.13151> 
is comprised of a concrete footpath that doesn't look or feel like a 
wide 'street' on the ground.


So repeating the question, can pedestrian streets be used to imply a 
perceived hierarchy in the footway network, in spite of their physical 
appearance on the ground? Can it be justified for the purpose of 
improving route-finding on the ground? Thanks for any discussion.


And apologies for the lengthy post!

Thanks,
Richard







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

[talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route hierarchy

[Richard Sota]

Hello all,

I'm a relatively new mapper (1.5 years) using iD, and am hoping to get 
some clarification on the use of pedestrian streets after some changes 
were made to my edits. In these changes, pedestrian streets have been 
used to imply a hierarchy in the footway network, in spite of their 
physical appearance on the ground. Is this okay?


Some background -

Lately I've been focusing on updating the pedestrian footpath network 
within Monash University Clayton, using Bing aerials and my own walks 
around the campus. On the ground, some roads and footpaths have been 
upgraded into high quality pedestrian routes, however this has led to a 
patchwork effect with some ped streets leading into ordinary roads or 
footpaths and vice-versa.


In my attempt to accurately reflect this patchwork in OSM, I've been 
guided by the definition of the "highway=pedestrian 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=pedestrian>" tag being:


"a road or an area mainly or exclusively for pedestrians in which some 
vehicle traffic may be authorized (e.g. emergency, taxi, delivery, ...)" 
and "where wide expanses of hard surface are provided for pedestrians to 
walk."


I also noted that "For narrow paths which are too small for cars to pass 
(not proper streets) use highway=footway 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway> instead." i.e. 
footpaths.


The example images for these tags have also informed my choices.


A few days ago another mapper (Bob42nd) created two changesets that 
converted some of the footpaths into pedestrian streets. This has 
'tidied' up the render somewhat but it is no longer an accurate 
representation of what's on the ground:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114013893 - "Reclasses some 
footways and unclassified to pedestrian."


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114014311 - "Pedestrian 
Highways, official "walks""


In the first changeset, I can see that converting the unclassified 
roadways into ped streets is somewhat justified as on the ground they 
are bollarded and only accessible by service vehicles. Although to 
pedestrians these still look like traditional roads with asphalt 
surfaces and concrete kerbs, in contrast to the 'true' ped streets with 
stone paving and no kerbs. This difference led me to retain the original 
'unclassified' street tags they had. See College Walk 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403774582#map=19/-37.91023/145.13578> 
as an example.


In the second changeset, the conversion to ped streets appears to be 
based on "official walks" (although the source for what makes an 
"official walk" hasn't been included). More so these ped streets don't 
reflect their appearance on the ground. For instance Chancellors Walk 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1004615769#map=19/-37.91209/145.13077> 
in reality is a narrow covered footpath that couldn't accommodate a 
vehicle, while the central portion of Rainforest Walk 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996587081#map=18/-37.91134/145.13151> 
is comprised of a concrete footpath that doesn't look or feel like a 
wide 'street' on the ground.


So repeating the question, can pedestrian streets be used to imply a 
perceived hierarchy in the footway network, in spite of their physical 
appearance on the ground? Can it be justified for the purpose of 
improving route-finding on the ground? Thanks for any discussion.


And apologies for the lengthy post!

Thanks,
Richard




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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Richard Fairhurst]

Robert Whittaker wrote:
> On the basis that it's a required part of each address, I
> would recommend that we do store the post town in OSM
> addresses. There are significant advantages to storing it
> in a consistent way, and the best existing tag to do this
> would be addr:city. (We wouldn't want to invent a new tag
> (e.g. addr:posttown), since as a UK-only term that
> will simply be ignored by most international data
> consumers.

I quite strongly disagree with this.

My address is x Market Street, Charlbury, Oxfordshire. My addr:city is 
therefore Charlbury.

This suggestion would see my house tagged with addr:street=Market Street, 
addr:city=Chipping Norton, because Chipping Norton is the Royal Mail post town.

If a letter is addressed to x Market Street, Chipping Norton, it will end up at 
x Market Street, Chipping Norton (and yes, there is one). Not x Market Street, 
Charlbury. You suggest using addr:town to get around this, but that seems to 
fall foul of your “ignored by most data consumers” point.

A post town isn’t a required part of an address. It’s an occasionally suggested 
part of an address for customers of Royal Mail, useful only in circumstances 
where the postcode is omitted. Royal Mail themselves don’t make any reference 
to it in their own consumer-facing recommendations, they just say “the town” 
(https://personal.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/81/~/how-to-address-your-mail-%28clear-addressing%29).

Royal Mail is one privately-owned delivery business which is heading rapidly 
towards being a minority provider, and by some measures already is. Other 
providers are not beholden to PAF and are increasingly looking outside it to 
their own datasets. Post towns are in any case superfluous for addresses 
derived directly from PAF (e.g. via an autocomplete mechanism on a website), 
because you have the postcode in that case. And that’s just the delivery market 
- addresses serve other purposes, principally around geocoding/routing, for 
which post towns are irrelevant.

More philosophically, post towns violate the “on the ground” principle. No one 
here writes their address as Chipping Norton unless PAF autocompletes it for 
them. No one has Chipping Norton on their letterhead. Trusting some remote 
third-party database in preference to local knowledge is not what OSM does, and 
particularly not OSM in the UK.

By all means namespace it (royal_mail:addr:city) or use a bespoke tag for what 
is a bespoke concept (addr:post_town). But let’s not remove useful information 
(the actual town/city) in favour of it, and let’s not tag as if post towns are 
an intrinsic part of UK addresses, because they’re not.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Hain wrote:
> What distinction would you make between this and the cycle
> route over steps that was discussed recently or the
> signposted cycle route past cycle barriers in Barnes,
> London?

"Cycle routes" as a distinct concept don't have any legal force, other than 
authorised forms of signage in TSRGD. It would be nice if they did (in my patch 
as an NCN co-ordinator there's two notorious sections where the council 
pedestrianised the route…), but they don't.

Obstructing "free passage" along a PRoW is a criminal offence (Highways Act 
1980). Installing a stile or gate can only be done with the consent of the 
highway authority (same act).

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[Richard Fairhurst]

Neil Matthews wrote:
> Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from
> bridleways

Um, no there hasn't?

The changeset you've pointed to (which is one of mine) has a single stile moved 
to the side of a bridleway. I've done this a handful of times in the past, too, 
usually where the stile is clearly misplaced at a footpath/bridleway junction 
node rather than off to the side on a footpath, but occasionally at an isolated 
bridleway location like this.

A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. 
Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW 
officers are pretty hot on this. You will sometimes see a stile placed to the 
side of a gate: in OSM this is usually mapped as a highway=footway through the 
stile and highway=bridleway through the gate, though of course there's no 
distinct public footpath PRoW in this case.

OSM is an iterative process of fixup and improvement, and shouting "mechanical 
edit!" every time someone makes a change that hasn't been surveyed in walking 
boots and then manually etched onto the hard disc platters of a server 
somewhere in Amsterdam is not hugely helpful. I mean, just change it back and 
say "put back pending survey" if you feel that strongly, it doesn't need an 
entire mailing list thread.

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

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

Blake Girardot wrote:
> I will just point out a common pattern:

Céline posted an eloquent opening statement that talks about "this dominant 
profile" and the thread has, true to form, largely descended into the same 
dominant profile arguing and "just pointing out" things.

It might therefore be incumbent on us all to shut up and let women be heard. 
Their experiences do not need to be mediated through our mansplaining.

In that spirit I'll post no more on this.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] British Waterways

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Should we have an automated edit to update all instances of "British 
>Waterways"?

Scotland's canals are still run by the British Waterways Board (trading as 
Scottish Canals), so any edit would need to be geographically constrained.

TBH there's only 170 operator=British Waterways tags according to taginfo, so 
it could be polished off pretty quickly with an Overpass query and a manual 
edit.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Richard Fairhurst]

Michal Migurski wrote:
> FB’s attribution approach in keeping with best practices
> seen from other commercial users of display maps.

In the spirit of Twitter footnoting one of Donald Trump's "I won the election" 
tweets, this is your respectful reminder that Google, Bing, Here, Tencent, 
ViaMichelin, TomTom, Mapquest, Esri, and Qwant all have on-map attribution.

http://www.systemed.net/osm/attribution.png

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

Re: [Talk-us] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

[Richard Fairhurst]

[cross-posted to talk-us@ and tagging@, please choose your follow-ups wisely]

Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> It seems that we are increasingly doing things to simplify the
> model because certain tooling can't handle the real level of
> complexity that exists in the real world.  I'm in favor of fixing
> the tooling rather than neutering the data.

I sincerely hope "I'm in favor of fixing" translates as "I'm planning to fix", 
though I fear I may be disappointed.

More broadly, we need to nip this "oh just fix the tools" stuff in the bud.

OSM optimises for the mapper, because mappers are our most valuable resource. 
That's how it's always been and that's how it should be.

But that does not mean that volunteer tool authors should rewrite their tools 
to cope with the 0.1% case; nor that it is reasonable for mappers to make stuff 
ever more complex and expect developers to automatically fall in line; nor that 
any given map has a obligation to render this 0.1%, or indeed, anything that 
the map's creator doesn't want to render.

The Tongass National Forest is not "in the real world", it is an artificial 
administrative construct drawn up on some bureaucrat's desk. It's not an actual 
forest where the boundaries represent a single contiguous mass of trees. 
Nothing is lost or "neutered" by mapping it as several relations (with a 
super-relation for completeness if you insist), just as nothing is lost by 
tagging Chesapeake Bay with the series of letters 
"c","o","a","s","t","l","i","n" and "e".

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Projet du mois Décembre

[Florent Richard]

Bonjour,
Mais en regardant ce soir j'ai trouvé que la concentration de supports radio 
fantomes autour des stades est assez bizarre :
J'en ai vu beaucoup autours de stades. Ils sont sur les mâts d'éclairage et du 
coup doivent financer les clubs, à moins que ce ne soit les mairies 
(propriétaires des terrains ?).

C'est bien ça : une certaine somme d'argent est versée tous les ans, répartie 
entre propriétaire et locataire du terrain (quand ce n'est pas le même). J'ai 
entendu parler de sommes autour de 2 000 euros annuels dans ma campagne du 44.
Lorsque les communes voient passer l'info sur les demandes de permis de 
construire, elles demandent souvent à ce que le projet d'antenne soit déplacé 
sur leur terrain (plutôt que le proprio privé d'à côté), et les stades sont de 
bons candidats (proche du bourg, espace dégagé, ...).

On en voit également pousser sur les clochers des églises (pas trop anciennes, 
non classées) : là aussi le propriétaire est la mairie et pas besoin de 
construire un mat.
En revanche, celles-ci seront plus compliquées à localiser sans se déplacer : 
pas de mat et généralement une couche de peinture camoufle un peu les appareils.


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

Re: [Talk-at] Gefahr durch Internet-Bergrouten

[Richard]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:02:13AM +0100, Robert Grübler wrote:
> Am 11. November 2020 20:02 schrieb Richard:
> 
> > das Problem sind die Nichtwanderkarten die niemals vorhatten 
> > sac_scale, via_ferrata_scale, uiaa uvm auszuwerten,
> > wie soll das jemals funktionieren.
> 
> Sie darauf ansprechen - und dann vergessen, für den eigenen Seelenfrieden.
> Als Mapper gehört das Kartendesign nicht zu unseren Aufgaben. Wir schauen auf 
> die Richtigkeit der Daten.

Richtigkeit? Das ist ein Witz wenn jemand Kletteruouten als highway=path
mapt obwohl dafür seit über einem jahrzent ein Proposal existiert.

Richard


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

Re: [Talk-at] Gefahr durch Internet-Bergrouten

[Richard]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 08:21:47PM +0100, Robert Grübler wrote:

> Ich denke, man sollte zwischen Wanderkarten – richten sich ausdrücklich an 
> Wanderer -  und Nichtwander-Karten unterscheiden. 
> Die *Nichtwander-Karten* sollten die alpine Pfade (>T2) nicht oder nur sehr 
> unauffällig rendern. Toursprung 
> https://maptoolkit.net/#/@11.78448,47.44822,15,0,0,terrain/themes  macht das 
> mMn recht gut. Andernfalls sie darauf ansprechen, so wie du es vorhast.

das Problem sind die Nichtwanderkarten die niemals vorhatten sac_scale, 
via_ferrata_scale,
uiaa uvm auszuwerten,wie soll das jemals funktionieren.
Im Carto Tracker vergammelt das entsprechende Ticket seit einem halben Jahrzent 
und 
vermutlich dient Carto als Vorbild für viele andere Projekte.

Solange es Spezialisten gibt die schwierige Kletterrouten und Ferratas als 
highway=path einzeichnen sollten "Nichtwanderkarten" eigentlich überhaupt keine
path auswerten um auf der sicheren Seite zu sein.

Richard


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

Re: [Talk-at] Gefahr durch Internet-Bergrouten

[Richard]

On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 01:56:56AM +0100, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 30.10.20 23:44, Richard wrote:
> >>Tatsache ist, dass jede Versicherung einen Steig einfacher und
> >>ungefährlicher macht, und dass es von einem Steig mit einem einzigen
> >>Trittstift bis zu einem von oben bis unten durchgängig versicherten Steig
> >>alle Übergänge gibt.
> >
> >trotzdem sind manche Klettersteige extrem schwierig und kein highway.
> >Es ist kein Argument, daß sie ohne Versicherung noch schwieriger wären,
> >dann wären es eben Kletterrouten und die werden auch nicht als
> >highway gemappt.
> 
> Ich mappe sehr wohl auch Kletterrouten als highway.

Ach so.. macht das Viele in Ö so? Ist das irgendwo dokumetiert? 
Es gibt Leute die sich bemühen sowas wie Klettersoftware zu bauen,
die würde das sicher interessieren.

Solltest Du vielleicht mal auf osm-talk erwähnen.

Richard

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

[OSM-talk] Big Blue Button email outage?

[Richard Welty]

trying to either 1) recover a BBB account or 2) setup a new one,
there seems to be an email outage.

can someone reach out to the admins for the OSM BBB server to get
the problem resolved?

thanks,
   richard
-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Talk-at] Gefahr durch Internet-Bergrouten

[Richard]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:04:59PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

> 
> Tatsache ist, dass jede Versicherung einen Steig einfacher und
> ungefährlicher macht, und dass es von einem Steig mit einem einzigen
> Trittstift bis zu einem von oben bis unten durchgängig versicherten Steig
> alle Übergänge gibt.

trotzdem sind manche Klettersteige extrem schwierig und kein highway.
Es ist kein Argument, daß sie ohne Versicherung noch schwieriger wären,
dann wären es eben Kletterrouten und die werden auch nicht als
highway gemappt.

> Darum kann ich euch nur eindringlich ersuchen, alle highway=via_ferrata,
> denen ihr begegnet, auf highway=path zurückzuändern.

Nein bitte nichts "zurückändern", keine Massenänderungen und keine Edit-wars. 
Ihr könnt Eure Klettersteige mappen wie Ihr wollt aber lasst die anderen in
Ruhe. 
Insbesondere halte ich es für *sehr* schlecht wenn manch einer Couchmapper
ferratas im Ausland umändert.

MfG
Richard




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

Re: [OSRM-talk] OSRM does not use date restrictions in conditional access?

[Richard Fairhurst]

michael spreng wrote:
> It currently does not. There is an update cycle of about 4 days. I think
> such date ranges would make sense to use at the time of generation
> (however day time ranges would still be ignored). But that is not yet
> implemented as far as I know. It could be implemented in the lua
> profile, so probably no deeper knowledge of osrm is necessary to
> implement this.

Implementing a full opening hours parser in Lua is probably not trivial though 
;)

There is actually a C++ OpeningHours class in OSRM, which is used for parsing 
conditional turn restrictions. It's not fully featured but might be enough. It 
could be given a Lua binding, I guess, to avoid duplication.

Richard
___
OSRM-talk mailing list
OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk

Re: [Talk-us] Import licensing waiver

[Richard Welty]

i'm personally wary of "no objection"; it's not really an explicit
grant and there is no certainty about whether an objection might
arise later. i would say that probably there were no lawyers involved
in phrasing that statement.

richard

On 10/9/20 2:05 PM, lobstereat...@airmail.cc wrote:
> Ok, thank you for the guidance. I will forward to legal-talk, and I
> apologize if this wasn't the correct mailing list.
> 
> On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 15:44 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> AFAIK "makes no claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness"
>> is not a problem, whoever is doing imports must do this part anyway.
>>
>> But what is the license of the data?
>> Maybe "Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections"
>> is sufficient (I am not a lawyer) - but only  if that agency holds
>> full rights to the dataset
>>
>> As usual, legal-talk has greater chance to get response with someone
>> with greater
>> legal knowledge.
>>
>> Oct 9, 2020, 14:38 by lobstereat...@airmail.cc:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
>>> Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing
>>> of a
>>> building footprint layer they have. My intention was to import this
>>> layer after further review by the OSM community and myself. After
>>> contacting the agency head about a possible waiver for OSM use (
>>> along
>>> the lines of
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission#Letter_Template_1
>>> ), I received this response:
>>>
>>> The Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections to
>>> geodata derived in part from the "Onondaga County Building
>>> Footprints"
>>> layer being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
>>> database and displayed publicly on the map. By using the data,
>>> however, the OpenStreetMap project agrees that Onondaga County
>>> makes no
>>> claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness of the
>>> county's
>>> building footprint file, and the county will not be held
>>> responsible
>>> for any omissions or inaccuracies. This data is provided as is and
>>> there is no guarantee that it is suitable for any particular
>>> purpose. 
>>> Your use of the data is at your own risk. 
>>>
>>> Is this licensing favorable for use by the OSM community?
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 


-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Richard Fairhurst]

Could I suggest that, rather than second-guessing what some putative router 
might or might not do, people actually try these scenarios with one of the many 
real-world routers to see if they actually happen?

I see an awful lot of "may" and "might" in this thread, together with a liberal 
sprinkling of unsourced assertions, but no actual evidence that any router has 
ever sent anyone round one of these roundabout flares.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

[Richard Welty]

On 9/28/20 12:39 PM, Jack Burke wrote:

> Related: if it's I-## or I-###, shouldn't it be a highway=motorway,
> period? (Unless those, for some reason, are ever *not* freeways?)

in the lower 48, most of the time an Interstate designation is a
motorway. but there can be exceptions. and in Alaska and Hawaii, the
roads have to be examined on a case by case basis. congress choose to
give those two states latitude so they could get funds from the program
even though they were unlikely to actually build real "motorways".

richard
-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

[Richard Welty]

On 9/28/20 12:39 PM, Jack Burke wrote:
>   I *am* trying to say that they should be highway=trunk.  My
> use of the term "freeway" to describe them was artistic in nature, to
> describe how it feels actually driving on them.   That's all.

sometimes, such as in NYS, the formal road classification uses the term
Freeway to describe things that most of us would consider trunk.

for example, Washington Avenue Extension in Albany, NY has an extended
section with frontage roads and a limited number of grade level,
traffic light controlled intersections. in NYS DOT parlance, it is an
Urban Freeway.

richard
-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval

[Richard Fairhurst]

SteveA wrote:
> With both of us in agreement about tag "proposed:route=bicycle"
> (especially as it co-exists with "state=proposed") can we gain
> some more consensus (here, soon?) allowing us to move closer towards
> recommending in our wiki that we tag proposed USBRs with
> "proposed:route=bicycle"?

Honestly, please don't. state=proposed has been around since the very first 
days of route relations and everything supports it.

proposed:route=bicycle is wordier and has no advantage other than some people 
appear to think tags with a colon in are automatically superior, because XML 
has namespaces and therefore we must too.

Changing the tags will achieve nothing; will mean that data consumers have to 
support two schemes instead of one; and will needlessly break stuff.

On the positive side, great to see all these USBRs going into OSM as ever!

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NCN 231 and NCN 235 Isle of Wight

[Richard Fairhurst]

[apologies for broken threading, Nabble is still down]

Jon Pennycook wrote:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821036 and
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821037 (claiming to be
> National Cycle Network Route 231 and 235) have been listed on
> OpenStreetMap for some time. They appear to mostly duplicate
> Regional Cycle Network route 67
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2742) aka "Round The Island"
> or "Taste the Wight".

Around 10 years ago, most (but not all) regional routes were
renumbered to become National Routes. NCN numbers 231 and 235 were
assigned to the RR67/Round the Island route as part of this.

As part of the NCN review underway, the route has now been dropped
from the NCN entirely, due to high motor traffic levels on some
sections.

I'd suggest deleting these two NCN relations and keeping the RR67
relation, though with the expectation that the latter may need to be
retagged if/when the Regional Route number is lost.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] [talk-gb] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Richard Fairhurst]

Robert Whittaker wrote:
> Sustrans' NCN data is available from
> http://livingatlas-dcdev.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/54a66fa3c15d4e118e085fbd9b141aae
> as vector tiles under the ODbL. However, note that the "removed"
> sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the
> dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where
> the route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that
> some of the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and
> will quickly be filled back in as volunteers review the new network.

It's in friendlier formats at https://data-sustrans-uk.opendata.arcgis.com
:)

Many of the changes are fairly unambiguous and could be made directly
using this data as a guide. For example, the Wiltshire Cycleway is no
longer NCN 254, so can be changed to network=rcn and the ref= tag
removed. The parts of NCN 20 between Crawley and the outskirts of
Brighton can be removed entirely from the relation. And so on.

There are a few cases where it's not immediately clear what will
happen to the route - in Shropshire, for example, where several routes
are being reclassified or removed. In these cases then we can probably
make tentative changes but will need to keep an eye on the ground for
signage to see the future fate of both these routes and other nearby
ones (which might be renumbered?). And, as you say, there may be
some small gaps that have inadvertently arisen.

I would also encourage people to look carefully at the sections that
are being removed, and consider whether the way tagging is appropriate.
It's plausible that there are some highway=unclassifieds in there that
would better be highway=tertiary. It would also often be helpful to
add a lanes= tag.

> We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be
> more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes
> that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM?

Precedent is generally that non-Sustrans routes are network=rcn, even
long-distance ones like the National Byway. I'd suggest we continue to
follow this for most redesignated routes. The alternative would be to
retain as network=ncn and make use of the operator= tag, but (being
blunt) this will probably not be understood by most mappers apart from
the small hard core of us who really care about cycle route designation,
so it will be broken repeatedly and end up as a maintenance burden.

One slight nuance is what we do about redesignated sections of a long-
distance cycle route. For example, Hartside will no longer be part of
NCN 7 or NCN 68, but will continue to be part of the C2C and Pennine
Cycleway. The answer is probably to maintain two separate relations,
which is a bit of a maintenance faff but at least understandable.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch

[Richard Fairhurst]

mmd wrote:
> I'm wondering if some of the changes that are now needed for AIR
> would make it more difficult to switch to Ruffle later on.

The short answer is (based on the POC work I've done so far) no. :)
The slightly longer answer is that I hope, as part of this project,
to make a number of changes that are not directly AIR-related but
will make P2 maintenance more sustainable into the future.

> I'm a bit worried about AIR being (too) difficult to install
> and run for an average Potlatch user, but that's just a gut feeling.

Couple of things here. One is that AIR isn't any more difficult to
install than Flash Player, but with the difference that it doesn't
break every time there's a browser upgrade and the browser
manufacturer tries to get you to switch it off. The other is that
2020's P2 users, contrary to the cliche of 2010, are actually pretty
skilled and experienced (by definition the beginner users use iD
these days) - many of them have a four-figure number of
changesets - so installing AIR shouldn't be beyond them.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2

[Richard Fairhurst]

Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think using any funds at all to
> continue support for a tool that 1% of editors use would be wasteful.
> Flash is, for all intents and purposes, a dead technology. This
> money is better spent on other uses.

The entire point is to move away from a dead technology (Flash Player) to a 
supported one (AIR).

On the percentage stat, it's worth bearing in mind that the P2 project is by a 
long chalk the smallest sum (€2500) of the three that OSMF is proposing here. 
As a point of comparison, iD was initially developed with a $575,000 grant from 
the Knight Foundation in 2012, so roughly $646,000 now. Very conservatively 
estimating the cost of employing 1-2 developers to code on iD since then, you 
get a development cost of roughly €0.004 per (2020) changeset for iD vs $0.0002 
for P2, which is kind of fun.

(I'm actually pleasantly surprised that P2 still has so many changesets - 20 
million last year, and I'm guessing high teens this year - given how difficult 
it is to get Flash Player running in most browsers these days. That suggests 
that P2's users are using it because they want to do so, not because they are 
magically unaware of the existence of other editors. I suspect if you could 
find another way of getting 20 million edits for €2500 then we would snap your 
hand off.)

Looking forward, and continuing the theme of ROI, the other benefit of the 
project is that it enables development work to continue on P2. The reason I 
have bid for funding for this, for the first time in 14 years of developing 
editors for OpenStreetMap, is that it will take a solid chunk of sustained work 
to do the AIR conversion and a bunch of other stuff I believe will make P2 more 
sustainable into the future, and there is a hard deadline for that sustained 
work (i.e. Flash Player switch-off at the end of the year). It's not a project 
that can just be done in evenings here and there. That enables further, 
unfunded developments in the future, and in turn I hope the tradition of other 
editors taking inspiration from P2 can continue - it's not for nothing that 
JOSM has a Potlatch 2 style and a "Potlatch mode" for editing.

But you are, of course, welcome to develop and put forward a project to OSMF 
which you believe will have more bang for the buck. "Other uses" is easy to 
type but doesn't actually mean anything until you identify what those uses are, 
and crucially, find someone who is prepared to do them.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2

[Richard Fairhurst]

Sören Reinecke wrote:
> So far as I understood Adobe dropped Linux support for its
> AIR plattform. If that is right, then I am in doubt that
> supporting the development of Potlatch 2 is not that in
> a sustainable manner.

AIR is not maintained by Adobe, but by Harman, a Samsung subsidiary. AIR for 
Linux is still supported at version 2.6 but not updated 
(https://airsdk.harman.com/faq): Harman is considering future updates. P2 will 
still run on 2.6 - there are explicit workarounds in the code (e.g. in 
net/systemeD/potlatch2/collections/Imagery.as) to ensure backward compatibility.

Nonetheless, even if P2 didn't run on Linux, I'm not sure why this should be an 
issue for other users. No-one says Vespucci isn't sustainable because it 
doesn't run on iOS.

mmd wrote:
> Why aren't we porting Potlatch2 to WebAssembly, then?

I'm not sure who the "we" is in this question, but assuming you're not 
volunteering yourself :), the difficult dependency with P2 is not ActionScript 
3 but the Flash runtime, i.e. the Flash and Flex APIs. There are currently only 
two runtimes capable of running P2: Flash Player and AIR. Ruffle is showing 
promise (https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle) and is under very active 
development, but does not yet support AS3 or the Flash Player features that P2 
needs. I would anticipate that P2 will be able to run as WebAssembly when 
Ruffle reaches feature parity with AIR 2.6.

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

[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi all,

As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to review and 
improve the National Cycle Network.

As part of this, sections of routes which Sustrans thinks have no realistic 
prospect of being brought up to a minimum standard in the near future are being 
either removed from the network entirely, or "reclassified" - which in practice 
means that they might still be signposted as cycle routes, but not with an NCN 
number, and probably maintained/promoted by local authorities rather than by 
Sustrans. Generally, these are minor roads where the level of traffic is too 
high.

For example, the Avon and Wiltshire circular cycleways (currently NCN 410 and 
254 respectively) will be reclassified out of the NCN, while the routes in 
Rutland have been pretty much removed entirely.

Sustrans' own website mapping has just been updated to take account of this, 
which you can see at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn . The dashed lines 
are reclassified, while some sections have been removed entirely.

It's not currently released under an open licence so not suitable for direct 
inclusion into OSM. I will see if I can get permission for the data to be used.

I believe that "re-signing" will be starting imminently so you may start to see 
route signs removed, or the numbers being patched over, or replaced with route 
logos or names. At which point, of course, it's fair game for OSM.

Where a section of route has been removed, it'll be a straightforward case of 
removing it from the relation (or on occasion deleting an entire relation). 
Where one has been reclassified, I suspect the tagging decision is less clear. 
Sometimes we might want to move it to a new relation with network=rcn or 
network=lcn; sometimes I suspect there could be a case for keeping it in the 
existing relation with a 'link' role; sometimes we may want to have two partly 
overlapping relations, one for the now shortened NCN route, another for the 
full named route (e.g. NCN 78 vs the Caledonian Way). There may even be cases 
where a route is removed from the NCN but remains as a EuroVelo route.

cheers
Richard
[writing in a personal capacity only etc. etc.]
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Richard Fairhurst]

[apologies for broken threading, Nabble appears to have fallen over]

Chris Fleming wrote:
> We also have copyright of the route itself, Cycling UK do seem
> to assert copyright and therefore we probably do need them to
> ask them.

I did ask that very question at a recent Facebook webchat with CUK about the 
Great North Trail and King Alfred's Way (more with a cycle.travel hat on than 
an OSM one). They chose not to answer. ;)

It's certainly worth pressing them on it, but I suspect the situation is the 
same as with the (also unsigned) Adventure Cycling routes in the US - they 
don't want to give explicit blanket permission because that could potentially 
remove one of their USPs as an organisation, particularly with regard to 
selling maps/guidebooks, but in practice they'll tolerate it.


Andy Allan wrote:
> Signed, or it should not be in our database.

So much this. People often think in terms of "oh, I'll tag it as 
NCN/RCN/whatever so that it shows up nicely on OCM/WaymarkedTrails/whatever" 
and forget that there are routers out there, not just renderers. Routers use 
relations like this as a crucial component in their turn-by-turn directions. 
They tell people to "turn right onto route 5", which is no use if there are no 
signs here or anywhere for route 5.

In extremis, if you were to follow the same algorithm that Google Maps uses for 
its turn-by-turn directions (follow route numbers above all else), then the 
directions would start at Wirksworth and say "Follow Great North Trail for 825 
miles". That isn't helpful.

> So please don't read too much into the "ncn" tag. The same
> tag is used throughout the world for national cycling
> routes in OSM. It's not entirely a coincidence that the tag
> and the concept of Sustrans' National Cycling Network are
> very similar

…but don't break common expectations for the standard of a route.

In other words, network=ncn routes in Britain are largely homogenous. They will 
be 95% low-traffic and 95% rideable on an average hybrid bike.

If you tag the Great North Trail (or, at the other end of the scale, the Dave 
Brailsford routes in Snowdonia) as network=ncn, that breaks those common 
expectations. Someone will see the route and expect an "NCN" experience. That 
"someone" might be a human planning their route manually, or it might be a 
router that is using the presence of a route relation as a flag that the route 
is low-traffic and rideable.

There will no doubt be someone at this point who says "but it's still a 
NATIONAL CYCLE route", to which I say (a) you are very boring, (b) fine, go tag 
all the Sustrans NCN routes with a distinct Sustrans tag and your preferred 
route with a non-Sustrans tag and report back what you've done, (c) 
personally... I don't actually mind, because I watch these things sufficiently 
closely that cycle.travel will only ever be one profile update behind whatever 
change in tagging there is. But bear in mind that no-one apart from me and 
CycleStreets takes this much interest in tagging subtleties, so you've just 
broken routing for Strava and Komoot and Mapbox and whatever. Actually, wait, 
you should totally do that.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kathleen Lu wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
> does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
> to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
> acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then 
> OSM would be violating others' ODbL licenses.

When data is imported from an attribution-required dataset, OSM takes the
view that a waiver from that requirement should be obtained. For example,
for CC-BY licences:

"...attribution to all such sources on an OpenStreetMap-based map or similar
visual display is impossible. Instead, we provide attribution (including
original license information) to major sources like [entity] on our
Contributors page. OpenStreetMap users are then required to attribute
'OpenStreetMap Contributors' in a collective fashion when using any
OpenStreetMap data... we just need you to confirm that you would consider
OpenStreetMap's attribution method to attribute [entity] in a 'reasonable
manner' in accordance with Section 3(a)(1) of the CC BY 4.0 license."

[linked from https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ ]

ODbL's core attribution requirement ("a notice associated with the Produced
Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses,
interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work") is not
materially different from CC-BY's ("any reasonable manner based on the
medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material"). In
other words, given that OSM believes CC-BY implies on-map attribution unless
a waiver is received, it also believes that for ODbL. OSMF has not issued
any such waivers.


> The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by 
> a company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with 
> but *is not hosted* by an entity.

It really isn't. This has been introduced to the discourse in the last
(AFAICT) three months by Silicon Valley folks. I had never seen it suggested
before then. It certainly wasn't part of the discourse on attribution when
OSM adopted the ODbL and set out its current attribution requirements; you
can go back and ask the major SaaS map providers of the time if you like.

Every single major current webmap, with one exception[1], credits principal
non-OSM _data providers_ on-map on desktop. Google Maps has on-screen
attribution to their principal data providers. Bing does. HERE does (it's
themselves). ViaMichelin does. TomTom (MyDrive) does. Mapquest does. Tencent
does. Qwant does. The USGS National Map does. Esri's ArcGIS "My Map" does.
You can go and check these. I did.

The key word here is "principal". From your previous message:

> Check out HERE's webmap: https://mobile.here.com/?x=ep. It takes 
> 3 clicks to get to this page: https://mobile.here.com/about/notices. 
> And another 4 clicks to get to this page:
> https://legal.here.com/en-gb/terms/general-content-supplier-terms-and-notices

The three clicks take you to a page crediting the public transport authority
for Baden-Wurttemberg for contributing public transport info. Fine. It takes
two clicks on osm.org (Copyright -> Contributors) to get to the equivalent.

That's proportionate. It's not what we are talking about here. We are
talking about maps where 90%+ of the data comes from OSM, yet a credit to
OSM is either missing entirely or deliberately obscured. Please let's not
try to derail the issue of OSM-based maps missing all credit to OSM by
talking about bus timetables in Heidelberg.

Richard

[1] The one exception is Apple Maps, presumably because if you're Apple and
your market cap is $1.2trn you can do what you like. Even then, it's one
click away on mobile, and you could take the view that one click is larger
and more prominent than several other cases under discussion.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [Talk-de] Gewichtung der Straßen im Routing

[Richard]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 03:52:51PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 29. Apr 2020, at 13:12, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> > 
> > Ich halte das mit maxspeed:practical fuer eine ziemliche Kruecke.
> 
> 
> +1, und schlecht verifizierbar (für welche Fahrzeugart ist das denn gedacht? 
> Geht es um verantwortliches Fahren oder um das physische Limit?

schon mal die Doku gesehen? Natürlich für jede Fahrzeugart separat taggen.

> > Habe mich mal umgeschaut, und die meisten Beispiele, die ich gefunden habe,
> > waren Strassen, wo fast alle relevanten tags fehlten:
> > lanes, width, surface, incline, oneway, smoothness, lit
> > Ich halte es fuer besser den Strassenzustand zu beschreiben, und dem Router
> > zu ueberlassen,  was er daraus macht (auch mit der Analyse der Geometrie),
> > als mit fiktiven Werten eine erwuenschtes Verhalten zu errreichen.
> 
> 
> 
> wobei es auch Faktoren wie kurze Sichtweite gibt, die man automatisch nicht 
> feststellen kann.

+1

ich denke man kann das auch übertreiben mit den ganz viele tags die den 
Strassenzustand 
beschreiben sollen. 
Momentan fehlt m.W. jegliche Systematik, Erfahrungen und Vergleichswerte wie 
sich das auf das
Routing auswirken sollte, insbesondere in den vielfältigen Kombinationen mit 
Straßen/wegetypen.
 
Beleuchtung? Gibt es im Wohngebiet, auf Stadtautobahnen oder verlassenen 
Parkwegen, was 
soll ein Router sinnvolles daraus zaubern..
Die ganzen surface, smoothness, incline tags können meiner Erfahrung nach nur 
in 
Ausnahmefällen etwas zum guten Routing beitragen. Eine Autobahn sollte z.B. 
eine 
"schlechtere" smoothness haben als eine kleine Straße im Wohngebiet.

Und solange die allermeisten Straßen linear eingezeichnet sind - also nicht als 
Fläche hilft 
die Analyse der Geometrie auch nur begrenzt.. und andernfalls wäre die Analyse 
vermutlich
aus Gründen der Komplexität nicht durchführbar.

Richard

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

[Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi folks,

You’ll remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted about the work I’m doing to 
look at getting the relevant bits of Transport for London’s openly licensed 
Cycle Infrastructure Database into OSM.

I’ve now pushed the in-progress code to github:

https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion

It takes the TfL CID files, compares them against OSM (by making queries 
against a freshly loaded Postgres database), and outputs a series of files for 
each datatype, all categorised by the type of editing that will be required to 
get them into OSM. So, for example, there’s a script that takes TfL’s cycle 
parking data and compares it against OSM, then outputs three files: one of TfL 
locations that aren’t in OSM, one of those which are in both, and one of those 
which are in OSM only.

It’s pretty in-depth stuff. The cycle parking alone is a 300+ line script. 
There are five separate scripts for different types of traffic calming, another 
300-line script for cycle lanes, and so on. The matching logic is distinct for 
each type of data - because, for example, speed bumps aren’t at junctions, but 
raised tables often are. There’s a script (.rb) and a readme (.md) for each one 
at:

https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/tree/master/readers

But if you don’t fancy delving into complex Ruby/PostGIS scripts, then just 
have a look at the readmes there, and then go straight to the output data:

https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/tree/master/output

It’s all in GeoJSON format (for now) for ease of loading into QGIS or similar 
tools. Plus there’s a raster tileset of the cycle lanes/tracks for easy 
reference in your editor of choice - see https://osm.cycle.travel for details 
and a browsable map.

So, where next?

As you’ll see, I’ve generally split the output between simple, uncontentious 
additions which can go into OSM fairly simply, and those objects that will 
require more work to integrate.

Much of the data can obviously only be integrated into OSM with serious manual 
editing work. This is particularly true of the cycle lanes and tracks, which 
will require adding extra tags to existing roads, splitting at start/end 
points, and so on. TfL have committed to some staff time to get much of this 
done (yay!) and Martin at CycleStreets has been training them up on OSM, but 
obviously work patterns are a bit disrupted at the moment so this won’t 
necessarily happen too soon.

Some of it can go into OSM in a more-or-less automated fashion. This is 
particularly true of the cycle parking, and of most speed bumps. Some 
crossings, chicanes, barriers, and continuous pavements (sidewalks) at 
side-roads could potentially go in. I’ll be doing a bit more work on these to 
get them into a format which could perhaps form an automated edit and would 
welcome views.

And, obviously, if you’d like to get involved in bringing the data into OSM, 
that’s great! I’m very happy to put more work in to get it into a format 
that’ll be useful for people (not really being a JOSMite myself ;) ).

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

Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Harvey , wrote:
> For these "routes" though there is no clear A to B, there will be short 
> segments which are obivously part of a route because there are arrows 
> directing cyclists, but sometimes these are just short segments to the next 
> intersection so it's unclear where the route goes from and to, hence why 
> someone has resorted to just dumping all the segments into one route relation.

Exactly, so it’s not an A-B “route”, it’s a network, and should be in a network 
relation rather than a route relation.

The other alternative is to just put lcn=yes on the way (and indeed that’s done 
in lots of other places). cycle.travel gives a small uplift to ways tagged with 
that.

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

Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW

[Richard Fairhurst]

On 25 Apr 2020, 09:53 +0100, Andrew Harvey , wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 18:49, Richard Fairhurst  
> > wrote:
> > > Relations with type=route are for routes, with a defined start and end. 
> > > Not
> > > for networks. If you want to put them all in a single relation, then do it
> > > with type=network or something:
> > >
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network
> >
> > Do you have an example of that for cycle networks?

I've seen it in the US a few times - can't remember where offhand. Ultimately 
there isn't really a whole lot of point - if you want all the routes in 
Cammeray, just get a bounding box for Cammeray and find the cycle routes within 
it. OSM is a spatial database after all. But people do like categorising things!

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

Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Brennan wrote:
> However, if I go over to Cammeray, someone has added all of the ways 
> to a single relation (named Cammeray Local Routes, tagged with 
> lcn=yes and network=lcn).

Yeah, please don't do that. :)

Relations with type=route are for routes, with a defined start and end. Not
for networks. If you want to put them all in a single relation, then do it
with type=network or something:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network

cheers
Richard
cycle.travel



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© 
> OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation
> (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be 
> necessary to credit the contributors.

When I wrote the /copyright page all those years ago, the reasons it
required that particular attribution were:

"©" because that's what copyright statements traditionally begin with. I
take Kathleen's point (obviously I do, she's a lawyer and I'm not :) ) that
the ODbL, of course, is not a simple licensing of copyright. But the "©"
serves to say "hey look, here's the required credit, just like the credits
that are required by other maps".

"OpenStreetMap" because... yeah obviously.

"contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project:
this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the
attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a corporate brand:
"TomTom", "Navteq" (as it was), "Ordnance Survey". By saying "OpenStreetMap
contributors", we communicate that the map has many contributors - and,
implicitly, you could be one too. So it serves as a recruiting sergeant for
OSM, while conveying the democratic, grassroots nature of the project. To my
mind the main driver for attribution has always been to get more
contributors and make the map better.

I'm past caring what it says now, but thought the original rationale might
be helpful.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG straatnamen (ook?) in OSM

[Richard Duivenvoorde]

On 4/14/20 7:48 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-04-14 18:52, g.id...@zonnet.nl wrote:

>> Voor de straten is er de optie om de tag alt_name te gebruiken voor de
>> BAG naam, als deze afwijkt van de uitgeschreven naam. Dit zie je
>> bijvoorbeeld in Bunnik en Odijk. Dan zijn echter de namen op de
>> straten en niet op de adressen. Een tag voor de officiele straatnaam
>> op een adress heb ik niet kunnen vinden. Dat zou iets als
>> addr:street:official of zo moeten worden.
>  
> Dit gaat niet echt over straatnamen, maar over de schrijfwijze ervan. Er
> is maar één bron van de officiële volledige schrijfwijze: het
> gemeentebesluit waarin de naam wordt toegekend. Daarnaast zijn er
> verschillende erkende schrijfwijzen in gebruik, met eigen regels voor
> afkortingen, leestekens, accenten, hoofdletters, numerieke delen, enz.
>  
> https://www.digitaleoverheid.nl/overzicht-van-alle-onderwerpen/basisregistraties-en-afsprakenstelsels/stelsel-van-basisregistraties/schrijfwijze-registreren-en-presenteren-adressen-stelsel-basisregistraties/
>  
> De straatnaam zoals die in de BAG staat, is misschien niet helemaal
> gelijk aan het gemeentebesluit - en dan heb je altijd de mogelijkheid
> van een typefout.
>  
> Of een straatnaam (bijvoorbeeld) met puntjes of zonder geschreven wordt,
> verandert niets aan de eigenlijke straatnaam; een mens ziet misschien
> makkelijker dan een computer dat het om dezelfde straat gaat.

In dit geval denk ik dat we in Nederland nu hebben besloten om BAG de
officiele basisregistratie te laten zijn?
En als ik naar bijvoorbeeld mijn straat kijk:

https://bag.basisregistraties.overheid.nl/bag/doc/openbare-ruimte/039230011160

Dan zie ik zelfs een verwijzing naar een "brondocument". Ik zou er
eigenlijk voor pleiten om in Nederland de BAG schrijfwijzen te hanteren
voor alle adressen en straten. Dat maakt data-koppelingen (op
straatnaam/adres) zo veel makkelijker.

Ik zag dat er (veel?) discussie is geweest om ook wikidata id's toe te
voegen:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-March/084260.html

Dus in mijn ogen zou het toevoegen van de BAG id's aan de adressen
(==verblijfobjecten toch?) verschillende voordelen hebben:
- koppelbaarheid van de OSM-adressen aan andere overheidsgerelateerde data
- mogelijkheid om BAG-updates te monitoren (hoewel ik begrijp dat hoewel
er staat 'source:BAG' men toch (straatnaam) aanpassingen maakt?)

In deze tijd waarin ook de overheid steeds meer into 'linked'-data is,
wordt het natuurlijk interessant om zelf ook 'linkable' te zijn?

Wordt het WFS-script nog wel eens gerund? En zou het dan mogelijk zijn
om de BAG-id's toe te voegen?
Of alleen voor beperkte delen van NL?

Groet,

Richard Duivenvoorde






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

Re: [Talk-es] Plazo Re: sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es -> (www.)sigueabierto.es ¿¿OK?? [was:] Re: Mapa COVID19

[Jean-Baptiste Richard]

Hola,

"En este caso, el enlace lleva a la página relativa al coronavirus del gobierno 
francés.  No sé si en la versión en español sería posible proporcionar el 
enlace a la página del gobierno español"
-> sí sí, creo que hubo un problema transitorio al respecto, reenvía a 
https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/home.htm



Best regards / Cordialement / Un saludo / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kenavo,
Jean-Baptiste Richard

-- 
Sent from mobile. Please excuse my brevity, and typos if any.


 Original Message 
From: Jonas Andradas 
Sent: 15 April 2020 10:32:31 CEST
To: "Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap" 
Subject: Re: [Talk-es]  Plazo Re: sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es -> 
(www.)sigueabierto.es ¿¿OK?? [was:] Re: Mapa COVID19

Hola,

respecto al nombre más corto, me parece bien.

Aprovecho para comentar que nada más entrar, a la izquierda, aparece un
mensaje que indica que "la responsabilidad es tuya" con un enlace a las
recomendaciones del gobierno. En este caso, el enlace lleva a la página
relativa al coronavirus del gobierno francés.  No sé si en la versión en
español sería posible proporcionar el enlace a la página del gobierno
español (o a una página genérica con enlaces a las páginas de diferentes
gobiernos, por si queremos incluir las de otros países de habla francesa o
española).

Un saludo,
Jonás.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:36 AM Jordi Miró Ferrer 
wrote:

> Hola,
> Yo no veo ningún problema en que sea sigueabierto.es. De hecho, me gusta
> más. Creo que es más "usable" y fácil de compartir.
> Saludos.
>
> --
> *De:* Jean-Baptiste Richard 
> *Enviat el:* dimarts, 14 d’abril de 2020 8:31
> *Per a:* Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap 
> *Tema:* Re: [Talk-es] Plazo Re: sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es -> (www.)
> sigueabierto.es ¿¿OK?? [was:] Re: Mapa COVID19
>
> Hola,
> PD: sólo aclarar que a pesar del plazo de dos días, si alguien quiere
> opinar (bienvenido está), cuanto antes mejor, de cara a reconsiderar planes
> según haga falta.
>
> S2
>
> Best regards / Cordialement / Un saludo / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kenavo,
> Jean-Baptiste Richard
>
> --
> Sent from mobile. Please excuse my brevity, and typos if any.
>
> --
> *From:* Jean-Baptiste Richard 
> *Sent:* 14 April 2020 00:21:30 CEST
> *To:* "Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap" 
> *Subject:* [Talk-es] Plazo Re: sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es -> (www.)
> sigueabierto.es ¿¿OK?? [was:] Re: Mapa COVID19
>
> Hola todxs,
>
> Para poder cerrar el asunto:
> Si alguien tiene comentarios, por fa que lo comenté antes del jueves por
> la mañana. Ese día actuaremos en consecuencias, si no es que haya arrancado
> un debate que no se haya cerrado para entonces.
>
> Salud y mapa,
>
> Best regards / Cordialement / Un saludo / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kenavo,
> Jean-Baptiste Richard
>
> --
> Sent from mobile. Please excuse my brevity, and typos if any.
>
> --
> *From:* "in...@jeanbaptisterichard.eu" 
> *Sent:* 13 April 2020 01:43:40 CEST
> *To:* "Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap" 
> *Subject:* [Talk-es] sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es?==?utf-8?q? -> (www.)
> sigueabierto.es?==?utf-8?q? ¿¿OK?? [was:]?==?utf-8?q? Re:?==?utf-8?q?
> Mapa COVID19
>
> Hola todxs,
>
> Cómo mencionado antes, lo gordo de la conversación sobre el desarollo
> hacia el publico español de la initiativa originalmente nombrada "ça reste
> ouvert", se ha apartado en el chat telegram/riot de openstreetmap España.
>
> Sin embargo hay un tema que, aún que allí esté consensuado ente l@s
> quienes opinamos al respecto, hemos hablado de consultar aquí ya que es el
> medio de comunicación oficial, por si alguén más quiere opinar.
>
> Antes de confirmar, *pido que si alguién pone en duda el tema, que se
> manifeste lo antes posible y hablamos según haga falta.* *No sé que plazo
> poner (24h?), pero es el punto que ahora pone en pausa el empezar pasar el
> proyecto a su dominio dedicado, lo cual a su vez entiendo que es un paso
> previo importante para dinamizar la comunicación externa sobre la
> iniciativa. Y aún que de cara al publico español hayan cosas mejorables
> todavía (siempre las hay), la herramienta probablemente ya tiene bastante
> buena pinta cómo para, menos esto, empezar a difundir ya o dentro de muy
> poco.*
>
> *El tema es que*, en la hypothesis de que vayamos *a usar el dominio
> sigueabierto.es <http://sigueabierto.es>* (en principio, bajo su
> subdominio www), *el mapa ya no podrá aparecer bajo la url
> "sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es <http://sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es>"*.
> Eso, de

[OSM-talk-nl] BAG straatnamen (ook?) in OSM

[Richard Duivenvoorde]

Hoi,

Iemand probeert hier nederlandse BAG adressen te koppelen aan
OpenStreetMap straatnamen. Nu wil het geval dat de OSM straatnamen in de
adressen niet (altijd) overeenkomen met de BAG.

Even googlen geeft mij:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:BAGimport_via_ODS_plugin#STAP_4_Nabewerking

Waarin expliciet staat dat het een OSM conventie is om straatnamen UIT
te schrijven. Dus waarschijnlijk krijg ik problemen wanneer ik de
straatnamen BAG conform zou aanpassen :-)

Is er dan een andere mogelijkheid om, gegeven een officieel adres of
straatnaam, een koppeling te maken met een OSM straat of pand?
Ik dacht dat er misschien wel BAG-id's in de data zouden zitten, maar ik
zie ze niet in de verschillende editors die ik online kon bekijken.

Een andere optie zou natuurlijk zijn om een 'way' een alternatieve naam
te geven (net zoals plaatsnamen alternatieve namen hebben)? Een
'bag-spelling' ofzo?

Iemand hier een idee over. Of kan iemand me wijzen waar hier eerder over
gesproken is?

Vriendelijke Groet,

Richard Duivenvoorde

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

Re: [Talk-es] Plazo Re: sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es -> (www.)sigueabierto.es ¿¿OK?? [was:] Re: Mapa COVID19

[Jean-Baptiste Richard]

Hola,
PD: sólo aclarar que a pesar del plazo de dos días, si alguien quiere opinar 
(bienvenido está), cuanto antes mejor, de cara a reconsiderar planes según haga 
falta.

S2

Best regards / Cordialement / Un saludo / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kenavo,
Jean-Baptiste Richard

-- 
Sent from mobile. Please excuse my brevity, and typos if any.


 Original Message 
From: Jean-Baptiste Richard 
Sent: 14 April 2020 00:21:30 CEST
To: "Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap" 
Subject: [Talk-es] Plazo Re:  sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es -> 
(www.)sigueabierto.es ¿¿OK?? [was:] Re:  Mapa COVID19

Hola todxs,

Para poder cerrar el asunto:
Si alguien tiene comentarios, por fa que lo comenté antes del jueves por la 
mañana. Ese día actuaremos en consecuencias, si no es que haya arrancado un 
debate que no se haya cerrado para entonces.

Salud y mapa,

Best regards / Cordialement / Un saludo / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kenavo,
Jean-Baptiste Richard

-- 
Sent from mobile. Please excuse my brevity, and typos if any.


 Original Message 
From: "in...@jeanbaptisterichard.eu" 
Sent: 13 April 2020 01:43:40 CEST
To: "Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap" 
Subject: [Talk-es] sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es?==?utf-8?q? -> 
(www.)sigueabierto.es?==?utf-8?q? ¿¿OK?? [was:]?==?utf-8?q? Re:?==?utf-8?q?  
Mapa COVID19


Hola todxs,

Cómo mencionado antes, lo gordo de la conversación sobre el desarollo hacia el 
publico español de la initiativa originalmente nombrada "ça reste ouvert", se 
ha apartado en el chat telegram/riot de openstreetmap España.

Sin embargo hay un tema que, aún que allí esté consensuado ente l@s quienes 
opinamos al respecto, hemos hablado de consultar aquí ya que es el medio de 
comunicación oficial, por si alguén más quiere opinar.

Antes de confirmar, pido que si alguién pone en duda el tema, que se manifeste 
lo antes posible y hablamos según haga falta. No sé que plazo poner (24h?), 
pero es el punto que ahora pone en pausa el empezar pasar el proyecto a su 
dominio dedicado, lo cual a su vez entiendo que es un paso previo importante 
para dinamizar la comunicación externa sobre la iniciativa. Y aún que de cara 
al publico español hayan cosas mejorables todavía (siempre las hay), la 
herramienta probablemente ya tiene bastante buena pinta cómo para, menos esto, 
empezar a difundir ya o dentro de muy poco.

El tema es que, en la hypothesis de que vayamos a usar el dominio 
sigueabierto.es (en principio, bajo su subdominio www), el mapa ya no podrá 
aparecer bajo la url "sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es". Eso, debido a que los 
gestores de la estructura global han puesto cómo regla de sólo habilitar un 
dominio por idioma (que ya es bastante complicado así).

No nos malentendemos:
-> para retrocompatibiliad, las urls basadas en 
"sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es/*", estarían redirigidas hacía lo 
"[www.]sigueabierto.es/*" correspondiente.
-> les he pedido que haya un periodo de transición, es decir, en resumen, que 
esa redirección sólo se habilite una vez comprobado que [www.]sigueabierto.es 
funccione todo OK.

¿Alguien le ve alguna traba? Si eso por fa manifestarse.

Y por supuesto, los demás quienes estáis metidos en el proyecto (Yopaseopor, 
Juanjo, Alejandro, Jmontane, ... ¿olvido a alguién?), si os parece oportuno 
aportar cualquier aclaración, según veais. Por mí, sin problema.

¡Gracias por la atención!

Jean-Baptiste

El Sábado, Abril 11, 2020 17:04 CEST, in...@jeanbaptisterichard.eu 
 Ha escrito:
  Resumen de la situación actual, ya que después de este correo se ha hablado 
por el chat de telegram:

- droguerias (shop=chemist) añadidas
- logos en castellano, catalá, gallego, hechos (por el equipo francés con 
inputs de las comunidades respectivas) y pendiente publicar
- dominio sigueabierto.es alquilado para un año, redirección pendiente.

Saludos

El Viernes, Abril 10, 2020 22:03 CEST, in...@jeanbaptisterichard.eu 
 Ha escrito:
  Hola otra vez,

- veo que "shop=chemist" falta en la lista en github y por tanto no aparecen en 
la página  (correspondiendo a "productos  higiénicos", linea 4 del punto 2 del 
Anexo del BOE). Lo iba a comentar en el hilo de github pero mejor comentarlo 
primero aquí. ¿Les pedimos que lo añadan?

- ¿Se ha considerado alquilar el dominio "sigueabierto.es", u otro tld? (Para 
tener una dirección más user-friendly y más fácil de comunicar a prensa, en 
tweets, etc.)

- respecto a mi pregunta "¿Se ha automatizado parte del trabajo?", veo que al 
mismo tiempo que escribía, han publicado un nuevo billete en el blog de 
caresteouvert.fr, "Contribuidores de OpenStreetMap, ¿Cómo tratar las notas 
#caresteouvert?" [1]. Allí explicitan que "cuando [las] informaciones son 
detalladas o demasiado complejas, no se integran automaticamente a 
OpenStreetMap [,] sino que se crea una nota y que es necesario que un 
colaborador OpenSt

[Talk-es] Plazo Re: sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es -> (www.)sigueabierto.es ¿¿OK?? [was:] Re: Mapa COVID19

[Jean-Baptiste Richard]

Hola todxs,

Para poder cerrar el asunto:
Si alguien tiene comentarios, por fa que lo comenté antes del jueves por la 
mañana. Ese día actuaremos en consecuencias, si no es que haya arrancado un 
debate que no se haya cerrado para entonces.

Salud y mapa,

Best regards / Cordialement / Un saludo / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kenavo,
Jean-Baptiste Richard

-- 
Sent from mobile. Please excuse my brevity, and typos if any.


 Original Message 
From: "in...@jeanbaptisterichard.eu" 
Sent: 13 April 2020 01:43:40 CEST
To: "Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap" 
Subject: [Talk-es] sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es?==?utf-8?q? -> 
(www.)sigueabierto.es?==?utf-8?q? ¿¿OK?? [was:]?==?utf-8?q? Re:?==?utf-8?q?  
Mapa COVID19


Hola todxs,

Cómo mencionado antes, lo gordo de la conversación sobre el desarollo hacia el 
publico español de la initiativa originalmente nombrada "ça reste ouvert", se 
ha apartado en el chat telegram/riot de openstreetmap España.

Sin embargo hay un tema que, aún que allí esté consensuado ente l@s quienes 
opinamos al respecto, hemos hablado de consultar aquí ya que es el medio de 
comunicación oficial, por si alguén más quiere opinar.

Antes de confirmar, pido que si alguién pone en duda el tema, que se manifeste 
lo antes posible y hablamos según haga falta. No sé que plazo poner (24h?), 
pero es el punto que ahora pone en pausa el empezar pasar el proyecto a su 
dominio dedicado, lo cual a su vez entiendo que es un paso previo importante 
para dinamizar la comunicación externa sobre la iniciativa. Y aún que de cara 
al publico español hayan cosas mejorables todavía (siempre las hay), la 
herramienta probablemente ya tiene bastante buena pinta cómo para, menos esto, 
empezar a difundir ya o dentro de muy poco.

El tema es que, en la hypothesis de que vayamos a usar el dominio 
sigueabierto.es (en principio, bajo su subdominio www), el mapa ya no podrá 
aparecer bajo la url "sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es". Eso, debido a que los 
gestores de la estructura global han puesto cómo regla de sólo habilitar un 
dominio por idioma (que ya es bastante complicado así).

No nos malentendemos:
-> para retrocompatibiliad, las urls basadas en 
"sigueabierto.openstreetmap.es/*", estarían redirigidas hacía lo 
"[www.]sigueabierto.es/*" correspondiente.
-> les he pedido que haya un periodo de transición, es decir, en resumen, que 
esa redirección sólo se habilite una vez comprobado que [www.]sigueabierto.es 
funccione todo OK.

¿Alguien le ve alguna traba? Si eso por fa manifestarse.

Y por supuesto, los demás quienes estáis metidos en el proyecto (Yopaseopor, 
Juanjo, Alejandro, Jmontane, ... ¿olvido a alguién?), si os parece oportuno 
aportar cualquier aclaración, según veais. Por mí, sin problema.

¡Gracias por la atención!

Jean-Baptiste

El Sábado, Abril 11, 2020 17:04 CEST, in...@jeanbaptisterichard.eu 
 Ha escrito:
  Resumen de la situación actual, ya que después de este correo se ha hablado 
por el chat de telegram:

- droguerias (shop=chemist) añadidas
- logos en castellano, catalá, gallego, hechos (por el equipo francés con 
inputs de las comunidades respectivas) y pendiente publicar
- dominio sigueabierto.es alquilado para un año, redirección pendiente.

Saludos

El Viernes, Abril 10, 2020 22:03 CEST, in...@jeanbaptisterichard.eu 
 Ha escrito:
  Hola otra vez,

- veo que "shop=chemist" falta en la lista en github y por tanto no aparecen en 
la página  (correspondiendo a "productos  higiénicos", linea 4 del punto 2 del 
Anexo del BOE). Lo iba a comentar en el hilo de github pero mejor comentarlo 
primero aquí. ¿Les pedimos que lo añadan?

- ¿Se ha considerado alquilar el dominio "sigueabierto.es", u otro tld? (Para 
tener una dirección más user-friendly y más fácil de comunicar a prensa, en 
tweets, etc.)

- respecto a mi pregunta "¿Se ha automatizado parte del trabajo?", veo que al 
mismo tiempo que escribía, han publicado un nuevo billete en el blog de 
caresteouvert.fr, "Contribuidores de OpenStreetMap, ¿Cómo tratar las notas 
#caresteouvert?" [1]. Allí explicitan que "cuando [las] informaciones son 
detalladas o demasiado complejas, no se integran automaticamente a 
OpenStreetMap [,] sino que se crea una nota y que es necesario que un 
colaborador OpenStreetMap (¿Vd?) haga lo necesario".
[1] 
https://blog.caresteouvert.fr/contributeurs-openstreetmap-comment-traiter-les-notes-caresteouvert/

Un saludo,
Jean-Baptiste

El Viernes, Abril 10, 2020 19:13 CEST, in...@jeanbaptisterichard.eu 
 Ha escrito:
  Hola tod@s,

Ví este hilo por encima estos últimos días y sólo lo miro ahora, con ganas de 
ayudar en la medida de mi disponibilidad (entre familia y teletrabaj).

Por empezar soy francés así que igual puedo ayudar a traducir cosas.

Las dudas que tengo respecto al proyecto, y que igual no tengo sólo yo:

- ¿Está previsto hacer un logotipo en castella

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database - conflation

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Lucas-Smith - CycleStreets wrote:
> Richard will be doing the bulk of the scripting work, and is working 
> on converting each of the sections of data. This will naturally be 
> published on Github openly, as will the outputted data. This is 
> reasonably complex work given the number of attributes and the 
> data extent. We are keen to ensure the OSM community is 
> able to scrutinise the conversion easily and have input. Richard 
> will post to this list about the work, as it proceeds.

A quick update on this one:

Hoo boy, there's a lot of data!

The good news is that it's consistently high quality, and lots of it isn't
in OSM already. Our cycle parking and speed bump coverage, for example, will
be massively enhanced by this. In a few of the datasets, particularly
(traffic-free) cycleways, we already have most of the information but the
TfL data has identified missing items - for example, a decent shared-use
path (almost a mile long) beside Snakey Lane in Feltham, shared-use paths
beside the A1 in Mill Hill, and so on.

The line geometries (cycleways and footways) will require a fair degree of
manual work to get into OSM, obviously to ensure connectivity but also for
sanity checking. The point data (cycle parking, traffic calming) etc.
varies, and I've been classifying the output as "easy new data" or "needs
further review" accordingly.

I'll push some code and output to Github in the next few days so people can
have a play. The general approach is that the TfL data is compared against
an OSM PostGIS database, which means we have the full power of PostGIS's
spatial analysis to help match features. Don't underestimate how complex the
matching is: I've been working for 8+ days on it (lockdown's not such a bad
thing...) and it's not finished yet. Currently I'm outputting GeoJSON for
easy visualisation, but depending on the conflation tools eventually used,
there'll almost certainly be .osm files too. 

There is an elephant in the room, and that's the (on-road, painted) cycle
lane data. Once again, this is really high quality data. It's all new tags
on existing ways (because we have all the roads mapped), but because it'll
mean splitting the ways to get the extents right, it'll be a challenge for
conflation. I'm currently thinking through the best approach for this, but
again, I think it'll ultimately involve classifying the data into levels of
confidence: "this is already in OSM", "this can be added easily", "this will
need further review", etc. etc.

As Martin set out, TfL have dedicated some time to training up their staff
and working on the data. That'll work well for cycle parking etc., but the
in-depth work on cycle lane attributes is almost certainly going to be best
done by experienced OSM mappers. Once I've got the first set of output up on
Github it would be great to take a steer from interested people as to what
they'd find most helpful.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jothirnadh Guthula wrote:
> With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve 
> missing roads in UK using Facebook detections as a source. Please 
> let us know if you have any ongoing projects using this data source. 
> While adding missing roads, we will be adding all the associated 
> access tags as per available on-ground resources.

I'd urge extreme caution on this, particularly in rural areas, for two
reasons.

Firstly, as Martin says, there are virtually no public roads unmapped in the
UK. New construction aside, I think in the last five years, I've spotted
two, both in Powys. 

Secondly, UK access rights are unique and complex, and can only be discerned
either by survey or by consulting Definitive Statements where these exist.
You should not be adding access tags, nor adding highway types that imply
access rights (for example, highway=unclassified implies general public
access to all vehicle types), unless you've surveyed the location or
consulted a Definitive Statement.

For an example of the issues, please see this changeset discussion:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71668172

In this case an Amazon Logistics mapper added motor_vehicle=yes which was
inaccurate. In this particular case I was lucky to find an openly licensed
photo to demonstrate the real access rights on that way.

If you're exclusively mapping new housing estates in urban areas, though, go
for it. :)

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] BANO - Top des voies non rapprochées, par nombre d'adresses

[Florent Richard]

Bonjour,

Merci pour cet outil.
En Loire-Atlantique, il ressort un bon nombre de voies "blanches" (pas de nom 
ou seulement des espaces?). 
https://dev.cadastre.openstreetmap.fr/fantoir/top_adresses_manquantes.html#dept=44
Pour certains de ces cas, il y a deux fois la même ref Fantoir: une fois avec 
un nom de voie, une fois avec un nom vide.

Est-ce qu'il serait possible de ne pas inclure ces voies "blanches" dans la 
liste?

Merci par avance.
Florent

De : Vincent de Château-Thierry 
Envoyé : mercredi 25 mars 2020 10:54
À : Discussions sur OSM en français 
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk-fr] BANO - Top des voies non rapprochées, par nombre 
d'adresses

Bonjour,

> De: "Jérôme Amagat" 
>
> Les lieux dits rapproché semble être aussi dans la liste. C'est voulu
> ?

Non. Je disais hier que c'était peut-être pas sec, toi tu confirmes en montrant 
que c'est pas étanche. Merci pour ton analyse à pas d'heure :)

Dans BANO ce que j'appelle lieux-dits sont potentiellement des place=* dans 
OSM, et je ne m'attends pas à y trouver des adresses rattachées. Pour 
identifier les "voies" avec adresse du cadastre et sans rapprochement OSM, je 
n'ai pas *pensé* à vérifier les codes FANTOIR des lieux-dits. Ton retour montre 
que clairement les adresses côté Cadastre sont largement rattachées aussi à des 
lieux-dits OSM, et donc que pour identifier le reste à faire, il faut 
soustraire les voies (rues, tag highway=*) rapprochées *mais aussi* les 
lieux-dits rapprochés (place=*).

Donc nouvelle mouture de la page 
http://dev.cadastre.openstreetmap.fr/fantoir/top_adresses_manquantes.html ce 
matin, il ne devrait plus s'y trouver d'endroits au sens large (voie, lieu-dit) 
connu d'OSM. Je parle au conditionnel, merci pour vos contre-exemples au cas où.

vincent

___
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: [OSRM-talk] OSRM Problems

[Richard Fairhurst]

> Item #1.
>
> If I go here:
> http://project-osrm.org/
> and click on "View Demo", and put in 2 points
> the route is not calculated and the GPX export
> button is not active (it is grayed out).  This
> used to work.  What happened?

The OSRM demo server no longer has a TLS certificate and so any attempts to 
access it via HTTPS, which the demo UI tries to do, will fail. See 
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/5655 .

OSRM is essentially abandonware at this point. Great piece of software that it 
is, I would only suggest building anything on it if (a) you are happy with its 
current functionality or (b) you are prepared to maintain it (or a fork) 
yourself.

Richard
___
OSRM-talk mailing list
OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Piste à la fois pour les piétons et les cyclistes ?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Florimond Berthoux a écrit:
> Sinon la façon que je recommande de faire c’est le cas S5
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Miscellaneous
> highway=path
> segregated=yes|no
> foot=designated
> bicycle=designated

et aussi:

surface=asphalt|gravel|...

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Digital environmentalism

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kathleen Lu wrote:
> I would not say this is true. Google maps has routing for walking, 
> cycling, and public transit, and their public transit information is 
> probably more complete than OSM's.

It is, but on the other hand Google's walking and cycling routing is _much_
worse.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Web editors and lane rendering

[Richard Fairhurst]

Paul Johnson wrote:
> Could we get some lane editing/rendering in these editors 
> to cut down on this kind of unintentionally erratic mapping?

Sure, you're welcome to open a friendly issue at
https://github.com/systemed/potlatch2/issues listing the base case for what
you think is required.

> > Not sure whatever Potlatch is still developed,
> I would hope it is if it's still considered an available selection 
> on the website; if not, maybe it's time to retire that option.

It's developed as and when it needs to be. I think it's likely that it will
come off the Edit menu after December this year when Flash Player support is
no longer available in browsers, although it will probably continue to be
available as an executable app via Adobe/Harman AIR.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] For the sake of peace | Re: Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo

[Richard Fairhurst]

Rory McCann wrote:
> The existence of an OSM cycling logo doesn't mean all 
> OSMers have to be cycling activists!

Wait, what?

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo

[Richard]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 04:01:23PM -0500, Mario Frasca wrote:
> On 15/02/2020 15:27, Richard wrote:
> >getting better and better: we have now a discussion on the labeling
> >of Antifa, definition of facism, authority of Wikipedia, what next? 
> >
> >* less politics is better for OSM
> >* I would not be happy if anyone could mashup his logo with that of OSM
> >
> >Richard

>...  In my opinion, participating to OSM is a political
> statement.  and still in my opinion, doing politics by participating to OSM
> does not translate to any political affiliation. 

perfectly agree to that even if we don't know that politics is.

> since this mashup does not suggest my own endorsement, I don't see the
> problem.
> 
> now I guess it's up to the OSMF to decide what they think.

waiting to see the outcry when Trump, PiS, Salvini, Orban, the AfD or 
Bolsonaro create their mashup with the OSM logo.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo

[Richard]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 09:38:03AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Do., 13. Feb. 2020 um 13:42 Uhr schrieb Maarten Deen :
> 
> >  From wikipedia (if that is an authority)
> >
> it isn't.

getting better and better: we have now a discussion on the labeling 
of Antifa, definition of facism, authority of Wikipedia, what next? 

* less politics is better for OSM
* I would not be happy if anyone could mashup his logo with that of OSM

Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Freemap (free-map.org.uk) - potential shutdown

[Richard Fairhurst]

Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> I am proposing shutting down my (very old) England and 
> Wales footpath mapping site Freemap (free-map.org.uk).

Wow, there's a blast from the past!

Freemap was of course one of the very first grassroots mapping sites (2004),
together with my geowiki.com (2003 [1]), Jo and Schuyler's freemap.in
(2005?), and OpenStreetMap itself (2004).

We all converged on OSM sooner or later, but it's a worthwhile historical
detail to remember the early days.

Richard

[1] http://www.systemed.net/blog/legacy/entry071107122332.html



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave F wrote:
> CU wanted a new site map. They paid someone to provide it for 
> them. Which is fine, but please don't suggest they're 
> contributions are superior to those of any anybody else. 
> Especially when they decided to knowingly go against accepted 
> tagging procedures.

I think that's a little harsh - David Earl mapped the university in the
_very_ early days of the project. There's stuff there dating back to
2006/2007. Cambridge was the first place to be mapped in great detail in the
UK - even in 2011 I remember giving a talk at Oxford Geek Nights where I
could still hold Cambridge up as an exemplar of how to do it. You can
imagine how well that went down in Oxford. ;)

So it wasn't really "going against accepted tagging procedures", because
tagging was still very much evolving back then. Fully in agreement that the
time has come to update the tagging, but that's just a result of OSM
changing - there's no need for any rancour against the original mappers.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Richard Welty]

a  major selling point can focus on out of district response; often
FDs know their own area well, but when they go to support other
companies they often don't know a whole lot about the place they're
responding to.

richard

On 2/3/20 6:59 PM, Mike N wrote:
> Mike,
>  It is a rather unique set of circumstances that make this project a
> good fit:
>    - The county does not map most driveways
>    - The degree of rural-ness, hills, and trees
>    - Most trees are deciduous, making the off-leaf imagery good for
> locating hidden driveways.
>    - The region is a mix of economics - some nice newer houses, many
> older houses / trailers.   The FD must manage their budget carefully:
> they declined the $15K app from the county that probably just shows GIS
> data with latest roads and address numbers.  It wouldn't necessarily
> locate driveway entrances since the data doesn't have those.  Even if it
> showed off-leaf imagery, a co-pilot wouldn't have time to study out a
> driveway on the way to a call.
> 
>    If the official data source did have driveways and a navigation app,
> I'll admit it would be hard to try OSM.  Or even the fire district I
> live in with much shorter driveways, {CommercialMapper} would find
> nearly every address almost exactly.
> 
>   The fire chief is eager to present the project to the next meeting of
> fire chiefs in the area.   I'll be interested to hear the comments from
> the other districts.
> 
>   Mike
> 
> 
> On 2/3/2020 9:57 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
>> That is a very compelling story.  Thanks to you and the other OSM
>> folks involved for making it happen and to you for writing the diary
>> entry.  I have often thought that OSM would be a great resource
>> emergency responders because in some areas it contains data that no
>> one else has, but generally the reaction that I have gotten when I
>> have suggested this to such officials was "we have our own data", "we
>> have already invested in xyz system" (sunk cost fallacy), or "how can
>> we trust OSM?".  The exception was a search and rescue group that used
>> OSM to help locate missing people in the back country because OSM
>> contains trails that no other source has.
>>
>> Is this being publicised outside of the OSM community?  There are
>> probably associations for fire fighters and other emergency response
>> professionals and perhaps someone from the FD involved could speak
>> about this project at one of their conferences to get agencies in
>> other parts of the country (or world) interested.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New Telegram chat for OSM + LGBTQIA*

[Richard]

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 10:58:01PM +, Alan Mackie wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_centric_Telegram_accounts ?

thanks, for some reason it was not easy to find.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New Telegram chat for OSM + LGBTQIA*

[Richard]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 04:19:32PM +0100, Rory McCann wrote:

Hi,

> A new Telegram group has been set up: “RainbOSM”. A chat about LGBTQIA*
> issues and OpenStreetMap. 
> 
> Join here: https://t.me/joinchat/BDLI7xMzuF5TRZ5lwLYxkA

is there a list of OSM groups in Telegram somewhere?

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] communes-communautés

[Florent Richard]

Bonsoir,

Pour le cas des "Vallons de l'Erdre", il s'agit d'une erreur. où as-tu vu que 
les Vallons de l'Erdre (ou même seulement Freigné) ne serait dans aucun EPCI?

Elle fait bien partie dans son intégralité de la Communauté de Commune du Pays 
d'Ancenis (COMPA) depuis sa création il y a 2 ans.
Les sites web de la commune et de la COMPA le précisent bien tous les 2 (y 
compris dans des actualités récentes). https://www.vallonsdelerdre.fr/ 
https://www.pays-ancenis.com/
La relation correspondante est correcte dans OSM 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/535798

Dès la création de cette commune nouvelle, elle a fait partie de la COMPA, car 
la plupart des communes d'origine y étaient déjà.
Freigné fait bien partie de cette commune nouvelle et est bien incluse dans la 
COMPA. Freigné était auparavant dans le département du Maine-et-Loire et a donc 
été déplacée dans le département de la Loire-Atlantique à cette occasion.

Il y a des chances pour que très peu de sources autres qu'OSM et Wikipédia 
soient à jour sur ce cas. On voit régulièrement que les frontières de la 
Loire-Atlantique ne sont pas mise à jour dans beaucoup de cartes.


Cordialement,
Florent RICHARD


De : Philippe Verdy 
Envoyé : mardi 7 janvier 2020 19:08
À : Discussions sur OSM en français 
Objet : [OSM-talk-fr] communes-communautés

Vous ne l'avez peut-être pas remarqué mais la loi de juillet 2019 permet 
maintenant à une commune nouvelle de prendre les responsabiltés d'un EPCI à 
fiscalité propre dès sa création, sans devoir adhérer à un autre EPCI à 
fiscalité propre.

Cela crée le statut de "commune-communauté" mixant à la fois en une seule 
collectivité l'EPCI et la commune nouvelle comprenant ses communes déléguées. 
Cela se fait à la création de la commune nouvelle. Cela apporte plus de 
souplesse pour relancer les communes nouvelles (qui autrement ne voudraient pas 
adhérer à une autre intercommunalité limitrophe devenant trop grande.

La loi étant passée en juillet 2019 intervient trop tard pour que ce dispositif 
se mette en place avant les prochaines élections municipales/intercommunales en 
mars 2020, donc on n'aura rien avant au minimum juillet 2020. Mais sans doute 
du chambardement avec des défusions de communes nouvelles et recréation de 
nouvelles communes-communauté.



Il semble qu'il n'y ait pour l'instant qu'un seul cas bizarre (à moins que ce 
soit une erreur):

Les "Vallons de l'Erdre" à côté de Candé en Maine-et-Loire, dont une commune 
(Freigné) n'est actuellement dans aucun des EPCI voisins déjà très grands (Pays 
d'Ancenis à l'ouest, Anjou Bleu Communauté au nord-est qui inclus la ville 
limitrophe de Candé et celle de Segré son chef-lieu, ou la CC de la Vallée du 
Haut Anjou au sud-est). Pourtant Freigné semble bien faire partie des Vallons 
de l'Erdre en tant que commune déléguée.

La fusion a-t-elle été annulée ou veut-elle changer d'EPCI et rejoindre Candé 
dans Anjou Bleu Communauté?

Veut-elle préserver son caractère rural entre Ancenis/Segré et Angers ; si 
certaines communes déléguées les plus proches d'Ancenis auraient pu rejoindre 
Anjou Bleu Communauté, d'autres se voyaient plus proche du pays d'Ancenis et 
aucune n'était satisfaite de se voir reléguée des services entre Segré, Ancenis 
et Angers, trois chef-lieux trop loin des préoccupation de cette communauté 
rurale.

Il faut dire que les EPCI de Maine-et-Loire ont été faits "à l'arrache" et sont 
les plus grands du territoire métropolitain et cela a conduit à une 
centralisation plus ou moins "forcée" vers un nombre plus restreint de pôles 
urbains et des tas de maires ruraux mécontents du sort qu'on leur fait et de la 
disparition contrainte de services de proximité et une planification renforçant 
le poids des centres urbains sur tout le reste (aménagement, transports, 
services sociaux, services fiscaux, police/gendarmerie, établissements 
culturels et sportifs, écoles et lycées, santé) et la désertification des 
campagnes qu'on prive de services essentiels et oblige à de longs déplacements 
(en voiture, faute de transport public cohérent et de liaisons que les petites 
communes rurales ne peuvent pas décider au sein des "EPCI géants" de 
Maine-et-Loire).

Verra-t-on du changement ailleurs ?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render

[Richard Fairhurst]

DaveF wrote:
> This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone 
> know what criteria OS used to decide which to render?

I suspect "only those which OS have got round to digitising". OS have
digitised all paths in National Parks and appear to be gradually digitising
others. But certainly they haven't done the full set of PROWs yet.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [OSRM-talk] Bicycle routing, crossing large roads: how to get information on the roads crossed

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jeroen Hook wrote:
> Is there another way to find out what type of road(s) I am crossing?

I think the easiest solution would be to allow bicycles on your 
highway=primary, but set it to be a restricted access road (or just to have a 
really high cost). That way you’d still call process_turn, but in reality the 
primary road wouldn't be used for routing.

My private cycle.travel fork does something like this in its equivalent of 
process_turn (e.g. 
https://cycle.travel/map?from=51.7546,-1.2612=51.7554,-1.2616), though it’s 
a (pretty extensive) fork of 4.9.x so not directly comparable.

Alternatively, you could do some preprocessing to mark intersections, depending 
on the size of your source data. For a different project I wrote 
https://github.com/systemed/intersector which identifies junctions in an 
.osm.pbf. If you were to patch it to output node IDs, then look up those node 
IDs in process_node, you could assign crossing penalties that way.

Richard
___
OSRM-talk mailing list
OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Richard Fairhurst]

Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> The routing engine should be able to take into account 
> the road surface

It can and often does. Your problem there is that only 2% of highway= ways
in the US are explicitly tagged with surface; probably only 30% are
implicitly tagged; and sometimes the implicit stuff gets broken, like when
people start retagging gravel roads as secondary without adding a surface
tag. (Numbers are estimates but I think not far off.)

> Any idea why trunk was established in the first place? 

It's a word from the UK road classification system, because OSM was invented
in the UK. But the letters in the word aren't really important.

OSM has five broad-brush motor-road tags (trunk, primary, secondary,
tertiary, unclassified), plus special-case ones at either end of the
hierarchy (motorway for limited-access high-speed roads, residential for
roads with the main purpose of providing access to houses on that road). If
you don't think you need five, you don't need to use all five. If you need
more than five, you are free to use additional tags to supply extra nuance,
as the Germans do with motorroad=yes. I would say that 15 years is probably
more than enough time to decide what roads you're putting in what category,
but hey, this is OSM.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Neale wrote:
> I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to 
> go about it.

Brilliant. Thanks for taking this on!

You can do it from iD - no particular need to use JOSM for this. Essentially
the trick is, for each way that needs to be removed from the relation,
select it, scroll down to the bottom of the tags panel, find where it says
'NCN 51', and click the rubbish bin. Then, for each way that needs to be
added, select it, click '+' at the bottom, and start typing "NCN 51". Select
it and the route will be added.

Don't worry about ordering... the majority of bike routes in the UK aren't
ordered. If someone desperately wants it to be ordered they can fix it
themselves afterwards. It's more important that the route is unambiguous,
i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary
branches and loops.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Edward Bainton wrote:
> Is there any reason why OSM can't set up a user co-op (for instance) 
> that would offer a paid tileserver service?

It's an idea that's been thrown around now and then. In OSM, of course, "why
can't OSM..." is usually best rephrased as "hey, let's...". First person
plural. Thanks for volunteering! :)

(Alternatively, if you want someone else to do it for you, then you can
consider voting for OSMF board candidates who are likely to pursue this. I
would really caution against this, though, because OSM infrastructure is
currently run by volunteers and partly served by donated hardware; turning
that into an, at least partially, paid-for service would probably
necessitate rethinking the sysadmin and hardware situation from the ground
up.)

Richard




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Restriction d'accès saisonnière pour les cyclistes sur des routes de montagne

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jean-Christophe Becquet a écrit:
> Est-ce que cette combinaison de tags vous semble correcte ?
> bicycle=yes
> bicycle:conditional=no @ (Nov Fr[-1]-Apr Fr[-1])

et peut-être aussi:

bicycle:seasonal=yes

pour les routeurs qui ne parsent pas le (très compliqué) opening_hours?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aseasonal

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html

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

Re: [talk-au] Discussion K: Evaluation of ACT paths audit 2012 and the OSM ACT dataset

[Richard Fairhurst]

This is getting ridiculous.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Twopenn'orth and not particularly a reply to any single message:

1. I'm not against them being in the OSM database, mostly for the reason
that it's unrealistic to expect every single app to do additional processing
for all 195 countries in the world. Sure, it would be nice if Osmand and
maps.me and Fred's routing app and Jo's OSM-based game were all smart enough
to ingest CodePoint Open (and its 194 equivalents worldwide), but they
won't. Expecting them to do so is akin to people expecting every single app
to filter out C-roads in Britain, and even osm-carto doesn't do that. So it
seems a reasonably pragmatic thing to do.

2. However... just blindly importing them seems to be a real missed
opportunity. If you give me a nice interface with centroids for Charlbury, I
will have a go at mapping them to actual, useful polygons, based on my
knowledge of the street layout and Carla the post-lady's daily rounds (or I
could ask her, but I'm not sure of the IP of asking an RM employee...). If
you dump them into the database as-is I almost certainly won't get round to
it.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

[OSM-talk] EuroVelo routes are out of date

[Richard Fairhurst]

EuroVelo routes are not in a great state in OSM. Many of them appear to have 
been armchaired years ago when routes were "in development", and not updated 
since to reflect the correct route.

A handful of examples:

[France]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=12!49.2876!2.655
EV3 should follow the new cycleway along the Oise, not the busy D932a

[Czech Republic]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=11!49.9195!14.4621
EV7 is completely wrong in OSM from the south of Prague to Nahoruby, including 
unrideable tracks and a suggestion that cyclists use a “ferry” that in reality 
is a tourist boat that only operates at weekends

[Spain]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!41.9486!3.1467
EV8 now follows the Pirinexus alignment

…and there are lots more.

I realise people are preoccupied with tagwanking over relation tagging [1] and 
sorting [2] and editor snobbery [3], but there’s not a lot of point fretting 
over how pretty the tagging is on the route relation if the route is actually 
wrong in the first place.

Could I encourage people to check the EuroVelo routes in their home countries 
and update them where necessary?

Richard

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047790.html
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047258.html
[3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042154.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] école primaire

[Florent Richard]

Bonjour,

Pour ce cas, je suggère d'utiliser landuse=school.
Dans le wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:amenity%3Dschool, 
landuse=school est utilisé pour grouper 2 écoles (donc 2 ref:UAI différentes) 
d'un même "groupe scolaire", donc pourquoi pas l'utiliser pour les sous-parties.

Donc pour 1 école séparées en 2 zones distinctes, ça donnerait:

  *   mapper chaque zone avec landuse=school et ajouter les school:FR 
correspondant
  *   regrouper les 2 zones dans une relation (type=multipolygon). relation qui 
elle contient le amenity=school, school:FR=primaire, le name et le ref:UAI.

Florent


De : osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com 
Envoyé : dimanche 15 septembre 2019 21:41
À : talk-fr@openstreetmap.org 
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk-fr] école primaire


Que nenni : c'est une réunion administrative, ça ne veut pas dire que les 
bâtiments ne sont pas distincts, voir dans des zones physiquement non contiguës.

Par exemple l'école primaire 
Kerargaouyat est située 
de part et d'autre de l'église (mais est publique ;-)). 
https://www.education.gouv.fr/annuaire/29-finistere/brest/etab/ecole-elementaire-publique-kerargaouyat.html

Et s'il n'y a pas distinguo, le problème est quand même présent ("oubli" de la 
partie maternelle).

Jean-Yvon

Le 15/09/2019 à 21:27, Romain MEHUT - 
romain.me...@gmail.com a écrit :
Les écoles primaires sont justement les écoles où il n'y a pas le distinguo 
entre maternelle et élémentaire.

Romain

Le dim. 15 sept. 2019 à 21:06, 
mailto:osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com>> a 
écrit :

Ça évite certes qu'Osmose râle mais si on cherche les maternelles 
(amenity=kindergarten) on ne les trouve pas.
Ça n'est ni mieux ni pire conceptuellement que school:FR=primaire, 
amenity=kindergarten.
C'est sans doute ce que je vais faire mais ça ne me plait pas trop je voulais 
savoir s'il y avait mieux.

Jean-Yvon



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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

[Richard Fairhurst]

Roland Olbricht wrote:
> > Changing to a github-like system of version management
> I thought of Git, not Github.

Again, there's no suggestion of "changing to"; it would be additional.

As Christoph says, the challenge would be "finding, motivating, selecting
and retaining qualified people to work on this". The choice of
technology/platform for such a project would be down to those people and
what they find comfortable.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

[Richard Fairhurst]

Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Changing to a github-like system of version management would 
> require some people to serve as "maintainers" or "moderators" 
> of the new, curated list of Map Features / Tags, wouldn't it? While 
> this could be an improvement in the quality and consistency of 
> how decisions are made, it would also limit participation and 
> centralize decision-making.

You misunderstand. I'm not proposing "changing to" anything, but rather,
providing an _additional_ source of edited/curated documentation. The wiki
would continue doing what the wiki does. Same principle as switch2osm.

Richard




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

[Richard Fairhurst]

Roland Olbricht wrote:
> Imperfect Flow of Information
>
> Although many parts of the OpenStreetMap project are well 
> translated, the tagging documentation has substantial deficiencies.

Yep. Documentation is the biggest problem with tagging.

I don't actually think it's the wiki per se that's the issue. The wiki is...
wiki-like. It's an untidy encyclopaedia of people's preoccupations at the
time they were moved to edit it. Yes, it does have problems: as you say,
"tag definitions being changed after the tag is in widespread use" (remember
the infamous edit that added access=no as a default for all barrier=
values?). But the challenge is bigger than that.

The main thing we're missing is curated, simple information on the main tags
that are _used_. Just as switch2osm took the infinite pages of install docs
on the wiki and boiled them down to one how-to, we need a simple guide to
the common tags in OSM: if you are a data consumer, these are the tags you
need to understand. Wikis don't work for this. It needs an
editor/curator/whatever, to have clear editorial guidelines, and probably to
run on the pull request model rather than open editing.

We're also missing a single-page explanation of OSM tagging principles. One
of the frustrations of watching this list is that there are quite a lot of
plain bad proposals that betray a misunderstanding of basic principles
(verifiability, rich meaningful tags, optimise for the mapper, no-one is
obliged to parse your new tag, etc. etc.). Life is too short to explain this
to everyone and, to be honest, the uber-keen tag proposer doesn't want to
hear their proposal rubbished in the first five minutes so won't listen
anyway. Writing down "this is how OSM tags work" would solve a lot of this
heartache.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

[OSM-talk] many images in wiki gone missing?

[Richard]

Hi,

noticed that many wiki pages like 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:structure
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:bridge:structure

are now full of red links instead of the images that were previously there.
What happened??

Richard

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

[Talk-GB] Wales Coast Path almost finished

[Richard Fairhurst]

I was in holiday in North Wales last week and mapped the biggest 
remaining gap, east from Aberdaron:


https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!52.8079!-4.6498

That leaves three smaller gaps around the central Cardigan Bay 
coastline, between Barmouth and Borth:


https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!52.6483!-4.0907
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!52.4981!-4.0189
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!52.5799!-3.9411

plus one short one in South Wales near Gowerton:

https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!51.6472!-4.0787

Fixing these will mean not only that the WCP is complete in OSM, but 
also, as far as I can tell, that we have full coverage of National 
Trails in England & Wales. So if anyone's going on holiday to West 
Wales, or the Gower, please do map the missing bits and we'll be complete.


cheers
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kathleen Lu wrote:
> "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? 
> Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others 
> in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources,
> after 
> a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time.

It would be interesting to get some data behind this.

OSM's position when the current attribution text was drawn up in 2012 has
been exactly that: "reasonably calculated" means "what people would expect
for other data providers".

There are only three other geodata providers with a similar product to OSM,
i.e. a worldwide street-level database used for display maps: Google,
TomTom, and Here. In 2012 all three generally required direct on-map
attribution and my impression is that this is still the case, but real data
about current usage and practices would be great.

> A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources
> after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is
> also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable?

OSM expressly states that our "after a link" behaviour is not compliant with
licences such as ODbL and the CC-BY family. Instead, we need to get an
attribution waiver before using any data licensed under such terms. As per
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility :

"Many sources simply require attribution of the source as a condition of
use, however as we cannot provide attribution on works created or derived
from OpenStreetMap data and our licence only requires attribution of the
overall data source, permission for attribution via our central
'Contributors' pages needs to be obtained and documented."

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Just for understanding what second rate attribution is:  For example 
> the map on the bottom right of:
> https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran
> printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but 
> showing OSM attribution only on user activity.

Right. The problem there is not that the "Zeit Online" attribution is too
big. The problem is that the OSM attribution is not compliant. Don't make
the issue more complex than it needs to be.

> The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how 
> to comply with the license.

And if the guidance suggests something that is not in the licence, it will
be - rightly - ignored, and we will have made no progress.

Community Guidelines explain how to apply the ODbL to real-world situations
("ambiguity or grey area in the specific and practical context of the Open
Database License"). You say "it can of course suggest things that are not
strictly required by the license", and sure, it could. It could also tell me
what the weather will be like tomorrow and the relevance of Martin Luther to
21st century religious thought. But that's not what Community Guidelines are
there for. They are here to explain how to apply the ODbL. If you want
somewhere to post good advice that isn't in the ODbL, I believe you have a
blog.

> > Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I
> > was editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on
> > osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :)
>
> You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider 
> this statement to be an argument on the matter.
>
> For better understanding:  Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in 
> the design of the document and lists a number of example to 
> demonstrate that.  You could argue the observation of there being 
> such a pattern or you could argue the individual examples.  You 
> however did neither of these in your statement.

For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like 
being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that one 
of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in 2012,
so not a corporate representative, and has been at osm.org/copyright
ever since.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

If you look at Apple Maps, and for example zoomed into some place in Denmark, 
there is an i-button which brings you to an overlay which has a TomTom logo and 
a link „and others“
while in Denmark the data is from OpenStreetMap. IMHO this second rate 
attribution clearly goes against „reasonably calculated“ because it’s 
misleading.


I know this, but let's not confuse the matter by calling this "second 
rate attribution". It isn't. It's no attribution.


These new guidelines say that, for 480px+ screens, hiding OSM 
attribution behind a click is not acceptable. That's unambiguous all we 
need. Fussing about what other logos might be on the map is a diversion 
and is not supported by the ODbL.


Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution 
> (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service 
> or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more 
> prominently than OSM.

That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with an
obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one.

"Second rate attribution" is not a problem. If Mapco[1] want to put a big
Mapco logo on their maps, that is absolutely fine and dandy according to the
ODbL.

The problem is when there is a big Mapco logo on the map; no OSM attribution
other than the infamous "(i)"; and the latter is justified by saying
"there's no room" when the former clearly disproves that. This is an
infringement of ODbL 4.3 and our favourite "reasonably calculated" clause.

But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to
be at least on the same level of 
prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service
providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL.

> Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much 
> like being written by corporate representatives

Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was editing a
magazine about inland waterways and has been on osm.org/copyright ever
since, so nope. :)

Richard

[1] let's be honest, we're mostly talking about Mapbox and Carto here



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

SimonPoole wrote:
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we 
> would appreciate feedback on.

This is really good, and very much in accordance with both the text of the
ODbL and the long-standing precedents set by the osm.org/copyright page.
Thank you.

Two small wording clarifications:

"If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of the
visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page
that is visible after user interaction is acceptable."

This probably needs to be qualified to the "currently visible map
rendering", and "50%" phrased as "50% of objects" or similar - just to
clarify the (quite likely) scenario where a map uses OSM data in (say)
Turkey, TomTom everywhere else, and Natural Earth for coastlines/land.

"It is permissible to use a mechanism to collapse the attribution as long as
it is initially fully visible"

This would be better as "It is permissible to provide a user-activated
mechanism to...". There are apps which flash up an OSM credit for under a
second, after which it disappears (including one terrific iOS mapping app
which I would otherwise recommend).

cheers
Richard




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Tourisme Marseille // Carte Interactive & Blog de découverte de Marseille "Carte OpenStreetMap"

[Florent Richard]

Effectivement, un signalement a été fait hier sur la mailing liste des 
contributeurs francophones d'OpenStreetMap (que j'ai également mis en 
destinataire de cet email). Une autre demande a été passée par twitter (il y a 
parfois une multiplication des moyens de contact pour s'assurer d'être vus).
Votre bonne foi me parait évidente et vos réponses rapides en sont la preuve.
Ce n'est malheureusement pas le cas de tout le monde... raison pour laquelle 
nos demandes de modification des attributions sont parfois un peu directes.

J'en profite pour glisser un lien vers le site OpenStreetMap France 
http://www.openstreetmap.fr/ si jamais
vous ne connaissez pas encore.
D'ailleurs, si vous le souhaitez/êtes intéressé, vous pouvez vous aussi 
améliorer les données OpenStreetMap en contribuant autour de chez vous car 
visiblement vous avez une très bonne connaissance 
https://www.openstreetmap.fr/contribuer/.


Cordialement,
Florent RICHARD


De : cont...@tourisme-marseille.com 
Envoyé : mardi 6 août 2019 13:36
À : Florent Richard 
Objet : Re: Tourisme Marseille // Carte Interactive & Blog de découverte de 
Marseille "Carte OpenStreetMap"

Merci pour votre retour je vais tenter de résoudre ça car j'ai reçu un autre 
mail incendiaire ce matin, je ne sais pas si vous vous êtes donné le mot où si 
je figure sur un forum mais j'aimerais pouvoir y mettre un mot pour prouver ma 
bonne fois...

6 août 2019 11:40 "Florent Richard" 
mailto:%22Florent%20Richard%22%20>>
 a écrit:
Bonjour
Merci d'avoir répondu rapidement.
Vous n'êtes pas le seul à être passé de Google Maps à OpenStreetMap que ce 
service Google est devenu payant.
La signature Google est certainement liée à l'utilisation de l'API Google et 
reste donc affichée quelque soit le fond de carte affiché.
Pour les solutions, cela dépend de votre blog actuel et/ou de vos 
connaissances/compétences en développement web. Voici 2 possibilités:

  1.  Apparemment vous utilisez WordPress, voici un lien indiquant comment 
utiliser une carte issue des données OpenStreetMap quelque soit le thème 
https://www.100son.net/comment-ajouter-carte-openstreetmap-wordpress/

  2.  Utiliser uMap pour créer/gérer une carte avec vos points d'intérêts et 
inclure une carte uMap dans votre blog (voici un lien vers uMap 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/ ainsi qu'un mini guide pour l'inclure dans 
une page web 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:UMap/Guide/Int%C3%A9grer_ma_uMap_sur_un_site_web)

Cordialement,
Florent RICHARD

De : cont...@tourisme-marseille.com<mailto:cont...@tourisme-marseille.com> 
mailto:cont...@tourisme-marseille.com>>
Envoyé : mardi 6 août 2019 10:25
À : florentrich...@hotmail.fr<mailto:florentrich...@hotmail.fr> 
mailto:florentrich...@hotmail.fr>>
Objet : Re: Tourisme Marseille // Carte Interactive & Blog de découverte de 
Marseille "Carte OpenStreetMap"

Bonjour Mr Richard,

Mon blog est un projet personnel sans but commercial réalisé seul avec mes 
petits moyens, je n'ai aucun intérêt à dissimuler l'origine du plan 
openstreetmap ou à tromper les internautes ! le thème que j'ai acheté et que 
j'utilise a été créé à la base avec Google Maps, qui entre temps est devenu 
payant, j'ai placé openstreetmap à la place mais je ne sais pourquoi il reste 
la signature google que je n'arrive pas à supprimer et ça m'énerve également de 
ne pas y arriver...si vous avez une solution je suis preneur.

Bonne journée

5 août 2019 09:41 "Contact" 
mailto:%22Contact%22%20>>
 a écrit:

De : Florent RICHARD Objet : Carte OpenStreetMap Corps du message : Bonjour, 
Votre carte est très jolie, mais il y a quelques problèmes avec les 
attributions: en effet, on reconnait aisément que les tuiles proviennent 
d'OpenStreetMap (merci pour cette utilisation), par contre il n'y a pas 
d'attribution OpenStreetMap et on peut voir un logo Google en bas à gauche. 
Donc, merci de respecter les conditions d'utilisation OpenStreetMap (voir cette 
page https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright). Pour Google, il serait 
préférable de ne pas tromper l'utilisateur sur son utilisation dans votre site 
(préciser que se sont les librairies/api qui sont utilisées et non pas les 
données). Merci -- Cet e-mail a été envoyé via le formulaire de contact de 
Tourisme Marseille // Carte Interactive & Blog de découverte de Marseille 
(https://www.tourisme-marseille.com)

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
  Garanti sans virus. 
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>



[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Manque d'attribution : je suis estomaquée

[Florent Richard]

Bonjour,

J'avais également posté un message sur la page de contact du site.
J'ai reçu la même réponse ce matin.
La personne est visiblement de bonne foi, mais n'a juste pas trouvé comment 
faire.

Je l'ai orienté vers un tuto indiquant comment utiliser openstreetmap dans 
wordpress 
https://www.100son.net/comment-ajouter-carte-openstreetmap-wordpress/, et 
également vers uMap.

Florent

De : FR via Talk-fr 
Envoyé : mardi 6 août 2019 11:12
À : talk-fr@openstreetmap.org 
Cc : FR 
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Manque d'attribution : je suis estomaquée

Bonjour

J'ai envoyé un message via le formulaire de contact du site, en
signalant mon indignation en tant que contributrice marseillaise.


Mon blog est un projet personnel sans but commercial réalisé seul avec
mes petits moyens, je n'ai aucun intérêt à dissimuler l'origine du plan
openstreetmap ou à tromper les internautes ! le thème que j'ai acheté et
que j'utilise a été créé à la base avec Google Maps, qui entre temps est
devenu payant, j'ai placé openstreetmap à la place mais je ne sais
pourquoi il reste la signature google que je n'arrive pas à supprimer et
ça m'énerve également de ne pas y arriver...si vous avez une solution je
suis preneur.


Si qq1 peut l'aider... il semble qu'il s'agisse d'un thème wordpress. Il
doit bien y avoir une bidouille quelconque pour changer l’attribution?

FR

Le 05/08/2019 à 09:02, deuzeffe a écrit :
> On 05/08/2019 08:24, Cyrille37 OSM wrote:
>
> Bonjour,
>
 Si quelqu'un de plus aguerri que moi pense qu'il y a un détournement
 manifeste, le gars peut être interpellé sur son twitter :
 https://twitter.com/TOURISMEMARSEIL
>>> La carte ressemble effectivement beaucoup à OSM. Leur site, va taper à
>>> la fois sur maps.google.com mais aussi sur tile.openstreetmap.org
>>
>>
>> Ils utilisent le javascript de Google maps et les tuiles
>> d'openstreetmap.org.
>
> Merci à vous deux pour les explications. Et donc, il y a qq chose à
> faire/lui dire pour lui faire respecter la licence d’utilisation d'osm ?
>



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

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
  Garanti sans virus. 
www.avast.com
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Hughes wrote:
> That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare
> exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary 
> and trunk to the official status of the road.

It's slightly more nuanced than that - we have always mapped secondary,
primary and trunk to the _observable_ official status of the road.

Where a road isn't signposted with that status, we don't have a strong
precedent. There is at least one such road which has been highway=tertiary
since 2009. It is not signposted as the A*** on the ground - indeed, traffic
for the A*** is expressly signed another way - but legally it is the A***.
And no I'm not going to say where it is or some Sabristo[1] will come along
and "fix" it.

Philip's example is the same: I know the road he's talking about and it
isn't signposted as the A, it's signposted only for the little suburb
along it. There is a very definite decision there on the part of the
highways authority to not treat it as an A road.

I don't have a simple answer, but I am tempted by the logic that where the
highways authority has clearly made a decision not to signpost a road as (in
OSM terms) secondary, primary or trunk, we should follow suit and tag
something like highway=tertiary, designation=primary, ref=A***.

cheers
Richard

[1] https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [Talk-at] Handy-App führte Wanderer in Absturzgefahr

[Richard]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 02:29:16PM +0200, Johann Haag wrote:
> Handy-App führte Wanderer in Absturzgefahr
> In Leogang (Pinzgau) haben Bergretter in der Nacht auf Donnerstag zwei junge 
> Deutsche aus den Steinbergen gerettet. Die Wanderer benutzten eine 
> Smartphone-App für die Wegsuche und gerieten in gefährliches Steilgelände.
> 
> Quelle: https://salzburg.orf.at/stories/3004115/
> 
> Die Bergrettung schreibt hingegen 
> https://www.bergrettung-salzburg.at/news/news-detail/naechtliche-suchaktion-in-leoganger-steinbergen-nach-zwei-verirrten-burschen/
>  
> der Weg sei zwar existierend, durch hartes Eis aber unbegehbar.
> 
> Frage: ist ein Routen Ersteller, verantwortlich für eine jahreszeitlich 
> möglicherweise Unbegehbarkeit.

auf handy-Apps schimpfen ist halt moderner als auf Leute die blind nach 
Landkarte
gehen ohne bei der Hütte nach den lokalen Bedingungen zu fragen.

So gut wie möglich korrekt mappen - und bitte keine Klettersteige/routen als 
highway=path
eintragen *nur* damit sie in Mapnik gerendert werden. 

Die Apps-programmierer sollten sich auch Gedanken über sac_scale machen..

Richard

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

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail trails

[Richard Fairhurst]

Minh Nguyen wrote:
> As with the network tag on bus routes, what's important for both 
> network and cycle_network is that the route is intended to form 
> part of a coherent *network* (almost like a brand, but not quite).

It's also useful for those of us writing routers, as it means we can avoid
applying a route relation uplift in those states that send bike routes along
entirely unsuitable state roads. (New York is a particular offender but
there are others.)

On my relationising travels, I spotted a couple of places where people had
mapped a city cycle network as a single route relation, often with "System"
in the title: Flagstaff Urban Trail System was one such. This is clearly
wrong. As a quick fix I changed the relation tagging from type=route to
type=network - which, interestingly, Waymarked Trails still renders:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2815833 - and created
relations for some of the longer routes. But really it needs all the routes
to be broken out into individual relations and given a common cycle_network
tag.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail trails

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kevin Kenny wrote:
> And route relations are important for sites like Waymarked Trails - 
> it totally ignores walking and cycling routes that are not indicated 
> with relations, which is why I wind up doing routes for even 
> relatively trivial stuff like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600.(although 
> that certainly meets Richard's five-mile threshold).

Ok. I've just finished a pass through CONUS relationising pretty much all
the significant leisure trails I could find for which there weren't already
route relations. HDYC is telling me that "recently" I've added 334 bike
routes - I'm not sure what period that covers but it sounds about right.

By and large I've tagged them with network=lcn - there's certainly a case
for upgrading some to =rcn but I'll leave that to those with local
knowledge.

There's a bit of work still to do on smaller local trails that also form
part of a longer route - e.g. parts of the Bay Trail, or the East Coast
Greenway. It would be good to have a distinct C Canal Trail relation over
and above the USBRS 50 relation, for example.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html

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

[OSRM-talk] Visualising the hierarchy

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi all,

Is it in theory possible to take OSRM's CH graph and visualise, say, the 
"top 10%" of routes?


In other words, I'm interested in creating a map which shows the highest 
order of contractions - the routes which are most likely to be followed. 
Obviously I'll have to write some code, but would appreciate a few 
general pointers.


cheers
Richard

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

[Talk-us] Mapping rail trails

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi all,

You might remember that back in March I wondered whether we could get 
access to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's data, which they've given to 
Google:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2019-March/019266.html

Helpful people on this list followed that up with RTC (thank you!). 
Finally the answer has come back and it's no. The data is apparently 
"free as in Google" - sadly RTC aren't interested in having their trails 
appear in basically every single cycling app which uses OSM data.


(In completely unconnected news, I note that RTC currently sells 
"TrailLink Unlimited" mapping for $29.99/year.)


I find this a great shame as someone who loves cycling rail-trails - 
mostly over here in the UK, but I've ridden a few in the US: we don't 
have any single structure as cool as the Walkway over the Hudson, so I 
had to do that when I was at SOTM-US a couple of years ago!


So... let's do it ourselves.

OSM was founded in 2004 on the principle of "if they won't give us the 
data, we'll make it ourselves" and that still holds true. I've started 
on making sure all rail-trails of a reasonable length (say, 5 miles 
upwards) are actually mapped in OSM, using route relations.


Often the trails are in there as ways, but no relation has been created. 
Sometimes a trail has been extended on the ground from when it was 
originally mapped. Other times there'll be a trail relation for a longer 
route (e.g. a USBRS route) of which this forms part, but not for the 
named trail itself.


If we get the basic trail data in OSM, so the trails show prominently in 
apps and other renderings, then that will encourage cyclists to use OSM 
and then add the detailed info (surface, facilities, trailheads, 
connecting paths etc.) that is best acquired by survey.


I've had a quick blast through several states so far (AR, IA, ID, IN, 
MA, MD, ME, MT, NE, PA, RI, SD, WA, WV, WY, plus a little bit of work in 
CA and OH). I may of course have missed some trails. I've been creating 
route relations with route=bicycle, network=lcn, and an appropriate name 
tag: I'm not a great fan of making up abbreviations for the ref= tag but 
if that floats your boat, go for it.


So why not have a go? It's easy work and you get to see the routes 
appear on http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org pretty much instantly.


(Obviously don't copy any information from RTC's website or similar. 
Most trails have their own websites: factual statements on those sites 
can almost certainly be used as fair use.)


cheers
Richard

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

[Talk-GB] OS Open Greenspace tileset

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi all,

I've put together a simple tileset showing greenspace areas from Ordnance 
Survey's recent OS Open Greenspace release. The data is released under the 
standard OS open licence therefore suitable for tracing in OSM.

Many features are already in OSM, but not all, and in addition the names might 
be helpful.

The tiles also include a few greenspace-related features from OSM and the basic 
OSM road/path network.

You can add the tiles to your favourite editor using this URL:
http://osm.cycle.travel/greenspace/{z}/{x}/{y}.png

(The tileserver is a bit slow at small scales right now but I'll optimise it 
later.)

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

[Talk-us] heads up: exit numbers in NY state

[Richard Welty]

new york is in the proces of (finally) converting exit numbers to match
mileages.

OSMers traveling in NY can help out by paying attention and updating
when they see it. changes on I-84 are reportedly happening now.

richard
-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Talk-de] Neuvorstellung und Frage zu historischen Ortsnamen

[Richard]

Hi Burkhard,

bitte auch einen kleinen Unterschied beachten.. OSM ist eine Datenbank und das 
was Du 
mit OSM-de meinst ist vermutlich der Deutsche Kartenstil der eben mehr Deutsche 
Namen
anzeigt

In der Datenbank steht sehr vieles.. vielleicht sogar die Italienischen, 
Japanischen
und Chinesischen Namen für einige Polnische Städte.
Je nach Kartenstil wird eine Auswahl davon "gerendert".

Wir achten darauf, daß die Einträge in der Datenbank "richtig" sind, d.H. nicht 
für
den Renderer gemappt wird (z.B. um ungebräuchliche Deutsche Namen in einem 
speziellen
Kartenstil sichtbar zu machen).

Wenn Du so etwas spezielles in der Karte angezeigt haben möchtest finden sich 
meistens
auch Möglichkeiten.. einfach hier fragen.

Richard


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Richard Fairhurst]

Wiklund Johan wrote:
> Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
> built 
> routing engines.

Are there actually any such engines, or is this a post-facto justification?

OSRM has routed over platforms since 8 September 2013. Valhalla does - it's
multimodal and you can't do multimodal routing if you can't navigate the
platforms. Graphhopper does.

I could list about 20 editor tagging improvements that would make foot and
bike routing better, and this isn't one of them.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Richard Mann]

My impression is that this mess arises because bus stops are
uni-directional and independent from the opposite direction. So we're used
to having them as separate entities to the side of the road.

Whereas tram stops are often in a single location for both directions (or
close enough), so we want a single entity on the way, so at low zooms we
can have a single symbol and single name label. Just like railway stations.
These nodes are just labels.

Me: I'd probably use highway=bus_stop for tram stops that are like bus
stops, and add highway=platform for stops that have them, and attach
whichever off-way entity seems most appropriate to the relation and let the
data user figure it out.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] An Archive namespace for the OSM wiki?

[Richard]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:01:23PM +0200, Jochen Topf wrote:
> One problem with the wiki is that you can't find current stuff because
> of all the old stuff in there. Deleting helps. 

having the worst search engine of the whole internet isn't a good
reason to delete old content.
Its about time to admit the total failure of this search and inplement
it via google or other ones.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] iD influencing tagging

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Now while everybody is free to use any tag she likes, I would not 
> expect the OpenStreetMap-Foundation standard editor to 
> introduce new tags through presets. 

It's been happening since Potlatch 1 came online in 2007, so you should have
had a few years to get used to it by now...

Writing software is an art, not a mechanical Turk where results of endless
consultations are fed robotically into a Javascript editor. The iD
developers are remarkably responsive to concerns raised about mapping
standards, much more than I ever was as P1/P2 maintainer and, dare I say it,
more than JOSM's maintainers have historically been. That they don't
mindlessly follow bad tagging practices, but think about the impact and
consistency of tagging, is all to their credit.

I don't follow that iD has any particular status because of its default
location on the edit tab: JOSM arguably has more "heft" because its bulk
editing abilities allow people to impose new tags by force of number, not to
mention you 'orrible lot forever bombarding the poor newbie to use JOSM or
else. ;)

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will 
> not make the edit without a clear support so please comment if 
> you think that it is a good idea and if you think that it should 
> not be done. 

I think it's an excellent idea. I've deleted these nodes when I've
encountered them during general TIGER fixup but there are a lot, and often
in completely untenable locations.

The other automated edits you're proposing would be better done by adding
the keys to editor blacklists because the tags aren't actually harming
anyone. But the data in this case is actively misleading (it breaks, for
example, "nearest post office"-type searches) so should be deleted.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Milton Keynes Redways - How to Tag Consistently

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Neale wrote:
>So how should they be tagged for access? I believe it should be:
> highway=path  (but I see several tagged as highway=cycleway and both are
> shown in the Wiki
> at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway)
> foot=designated
> motor vehicle=permit (to allow the emergency vehicles and maintenance
> vehicles)
> moped=no 
> bicycle=designated
> horses=not specified
> segregated=no

highway=cycleway, segregated=no achieves all that in two tags rather than
seven. :)

It's also more meaningful for routers/renderers, which can default to
assuming "this was built to cycleway standards" (i.e. paved) rather than
"this is just a path of some sort" (i.e. who knows). Though by all means do
add surface=paved (or =asphalt) for clarity.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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