Re: [Talk-at] addr:suburb=* korrekt eingesetzt?

[martin ringer]

Revert?

User eine Auszeit geben

Was sagt eigentlich F. Ramm dazu? Hab noch nichts von ihm gelesen.




Von: vari...@mailbox.org 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. September 2018 16:28
An: OpenStreetMap AT
Betreff: [Talk-at] addr:suburb=* korrekt eingesetzt?

Bei dem Änderungssatz 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62646348#map=12/46.7772/15.6701 sind 
doppelte und dreifache Adressen erstellt worden, teilweise auf bereits 
bestehende und korrekte.
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0a420834ebd467c1214318167d0f9a39f25a44d6bd.png]

Changeset: 62646348 | 
OpenStreetMap
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.



Der einzige Unterschied ist ein addr:country=AT, ein wechseln von addr:city=* 
auf etwas anderes und die alte addr:city=* dafür auf addr:suburb=* umtaggen.

Bsp.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5910420561
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125165692
(Irgendwo rechts davon ist die 88 mit 3 Adressen auf einem Gebäude)
Meiner Meinung nach ist das falsch, abgesehen davon, dass adresshistory*org auf 
die Frage nach der Fehlerbehebung im Forum sinngemäß geantwortet hat "Ja, mache 
ich später.", was imho auch nicht okay ist 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=717508#p717508

Er ändert irgendwie auch seine Art zu arbeiten laufend. In dem Thread auf einer 
Seite hat er von "vorher ALLES löschen" (er meint ja, es ist nicht gelöscht, 
weil es eh noch in der History zu sehen ist, wie seht ihr das?) auf vorher 
ALLES doppelt und dreifach machen und später aufräumen gewechselt.

Grüße

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] kosmtik + requête PostGIS exploitant une relation = ERROR

[Maël REBOUX]

J’ai oublié de mettre la déclaration de la couche dans le projet :


{
  "id": "places_admin_6",
  "name": "places_admin_6",
  "class": "",
  "Datasource": {
"type": "postgis",
"host": "db.openstreetmap.local",
"user": "osm",
"password": "osm",
"dbname": "osm",
"table": "( 
SELECT DISTINCT way, COALESCE(tags -> 'name:br'::text) as name
FROM planet_osm_point
JOIN (
WITH c AS(
SELECT row_number() OVER() AS row, entry
FROM(
SELECT unnest(members) AS entry
FROM planet_osm_rels
WHERE ARRAY['boundary','administrative']<@tags AND 
ARRAY['admin_level','6']<@tags) AS mylist)
SELECT ltrim(a.entry,'n')::bigint AS osm_id
FROM c AS a JOIN c AS b
ON a.row = b.row-1 AND b.entry = 'admin_centre'
) x
USING(osm_id)
 ) AS data",
"key_field": "",
"geometry_field": "way",
"asynchronous_request": "true",
"max_async_connection": "4",
"simplify_geometries": "true",
"extent_cache": "auto",
"extent": "-1363990,3994624,1824475,9411676"
  },
  "geometry": "point",
  "srs-name": "3857",
  "srs": "+proj=merc +a=6378137 +b=6378137 +lat_ts=0.0 +lon_0=0.0 +x_0=0.0 
+y_0=0.0 +k=1.0 +units=m +nadgrids=@null +wktext +no_defs +over",
  "extent": [ -10, 34, 20, 70 ],
  "advanced": {}
}


> Le 27 sept. 2018 à 00:10, Maël REBOUX  a écrit :
> 
> Bonjour tous,
> 
> Je cherche à faire apparaître sur une carte en ligne les préfectures et leur 
> nom en breton.
> 
> La façon d’y arriver est « connue » : il faut faire une jointure entre la 
> table planet_osm_point (qui contient le point et le nom) et la table 
> planet_osm_rels (qui elle contient l’info admin_level).
> 
> Cela donne une requête qui s’exécute très bien en temps normal (pgAdmin ou 
> dans une vue ou une requête d’insertion de données / create table) :
> 
> SELECT DISTINCT way, COALESCE(tags -> 'name:br'::text) as name
> FROM planet_osm_point
> JOIN (
> WITH numbered AS(
> SELECT row_number() OVER() AS row, entry
> FROM(
> SELECT unnest(members) AS entry
> FROM planet_osm_rels
> WHERE ARRAY['boundary','administrative']<@tags AND 
> ARRAY['admin_level','6']<@tags) AS mylist)
> SELECT ltrim(a.entry,'n')::bigint AS osm_id
> FROM numbered AS a JOIN numbered AS b
> ON a.row = b.row-1 AND b.entry = 'admin_centre'
> ) x
> USING(osm_id);
> 
> source : 
> https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/104943/osm2pgsql-select-relation-member-by-role
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Mais si je mets cette requête dans une déclaration de couche pour un projet 
> mml servi par kosmtik j’obtiens une erreur dans kosmtik :
> 
> Postgis Plugin: ERROR: relation "numbered" does not exist LINE 1: SELECT 
> ST_SRID("way") AS srid FROM numbered WHERE "way" IS N... ^ in executeQuery 
> Full sql was: 'SELECT ST_SRID("way") AS srid FROM numbered WHERE "way" IS NOT 
> NULL LIMIT 1;' encountered during parsing of layer 'places_admin_6' in Layer
> 
> En loggant l’erreur dans PostgreSQL :
> 
> 2018-09-26 23:24:56.797 CEST [32589] STATEMENT:  SELECT ST_SRID("way") AS 
> srid FROM numbered WHERE "way" IS NOT NULL LIMIT 1;
> 2018-09-26 23:24:56.798 CEST [32590] LOG:  statement: SELECT ST_SRID("way") 
> AS srid FROM numbered WHERE "way" IS NOT NULL LIMIT 1;
> 2018-09-26 23:24:56.798 CEST [32590] ERROR:  relation "numbered" does not 
> exist at character 36
> 
> Je n’arrive pas à cerner le problème. Bien sûr si on change le nom « numbered 
> » par autre chose, le message d’erreur fera référence à ce nouveau nom.
> J’ai pas testé directement sur un serveur de tuiles mais je vois pas pourquoi 
> ça passerait.
> Si quelqu’un a une piste… 
> 
> Cdt,Maël  evit osm-bzh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

[OSM-talk-fr] kosmtik + requête PostGIS exploitant une relation = ERROR

[Maël REBOUX]

Bonjour tous,

Je cherche à faire apparaître sur une carte en ligne les préfectures et leur 
nom en breton.

La façon d’y arriver est « connue » : il faut faire une jointure entre la table 
planet_osm_point (qui contient le point et le nom) et la table planet_osm_rels 
(qui elle contient l’info admin_level).

Cela donne une requête qui s’exécute très bien en temps normal (pgAdmin ou dans 
une vue ou une requête d’insertion de données / create table) :

SELECT DISTINCT way, COALESCE(tags -> 'name:br'::text) as name
FROM planet_osm_point
JOIN (
WITH numbered AS(
SELECT row_number() OVER() AS row, entry
FROM(
SELECT unnest(members) AS entry
FROM planet_osm_rels
WHERE ARRAY['boundary','administrative']<@tags AND 
ARRAY['admin_level','6']<@tags) AS mylist)
SELECT ltrim(a.entry,'n')::bigint AS osm_id
FROM numbered AS a JOIN numbered AS b
ON a.row = b.row-1 AND b.entry = 'admin_centre'
) x
USING(osm_id);

source : 
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/104943/osm2pgsql-select-relation-member-by-role


Mais si je mets cette requête dans une déclaration de couche pour un projet mml 
servi par kosmtik j’obtiens une erreur dans kosmtik :

Postgis Plugin: ERROR: relation "numbered" does not exist LINE 1: SELECT 
ST_SRID("way") AS srid FROM numbered WHERE "way" IS N... ^ in executeQuery Full 
sql was: 'SELECT ST_SRID("way") AS srid FROM numbered WHERE "way" IS NOT NULL 
LIMIT 1;' encountered during parsing of layer 'places_admin_6' in Layer

En loggant l’erreur dans PostgreSQL :

2018-09-26 23:24:56.797 CEST [32589] STATEMENT:  SELECT ST_SRID("way") AS srid 
FROM numbered WHERE "way" IS NOT NULL LIMIT 1;
2018-09-26 23:24:56.798 CEST [32590] LOG:  statement: SELECT ST_SRID("way") AS 
srid FROM numbered WHERE "way" IS NOT NULL LIMIT 1;
2018-09-26 23:24:56.798 CEST [32590] ERROR:  relation "numbered" does not exist 
at character 36

Je n’arrive pas à cerner le problème. Bien sûr si on change le nom « numbered » 
par autre chose, le message d’erreur fera référence à ce nouveau nom.
J’ai pas testé directement sur un serveur de tuiles mais je vois pas pourquoi 
ça passerait.
Si quelqu’un a une piste… 

Cdt,Maël  evit osm-bzh












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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Arceaux partagés motos / vélos

[marc marc]

cela dépend vraiment de l'endroit...
si c'est un lieu uniquement réservé aux véhicules sncf
je vois pas ce qui empêche de mapper les 2 :
le service amenity=*sharing (c'est un peu comme une station velib...
à cet endroit t'as bcp de chance de trouver un véhicule
même si ceux-ci bougent)
pour l'emprise du parking amenity=*parking + access=customers
mais on ne le fait pas pour les velib... pq le faire pour
le freeflooting ? on gagne qlq chose a renseigner le service
disponible "sur" le sol séparément de la peinture du sol ?
ceci dit en passant aucun schéma n'existe (et donc aucune app)
pour trouver les parkings liés au fait d'être "client xyz)
donc l'usage des données du parking serra bien faible.

par contre si c'est qlq places dont on veux renseigner l'emprise
au sol dans un parking + grand c'est amenity=parking_space
on ne fait pas un amenity=parking pour chaque type de place
dans un seul parking.

Le 26. 09. 18 à 23:03, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :
> C'est évidemment plus important car si tu ne loues pas un engin, tu n'as pas 
> de problème pour le garer. Tu peux le louer et l'utiliser sans le garer par 
> contre tu ne peux le garer avant de l'avoir loué.
> Pour moi c'est juste du bon sens.  Principe de la cause et de l'effet si *tu* 
> préfères.
> 
> Ce que la SNCF a fait c'est peindre un scooter et une puce. Je doute que ça 
> empêche un propriétaire de scooter de se garer là de bonne foi.
> 
> Jean-Yvon
> 
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. September 2018 um 22:45 Uhr
>> Von: "Florimond Berthoux - florimond.berth...@gmail.com"
>> An: "Discussions sur OSM en français" 
>> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Arceaux partagés motos / vélos
>>
>> Je ne suis pas certain de vivre dans le monde, mais à Paris ce qu'on appel
>> "free floating" c'est tu loues un scooter mal garé sur le trottoir pour
>> rouler 3km avec et tu le gares sur un parking 2 roues motorisés (parce que
>> tu es un mec bien).
>> Ce qu'à fait la SNCF c'est de dire, voici un emplacement de stationnement
>> dédié et uniquement utilisable au free floating.
>>
>> « Ce qui est important ici c'est que tu *loues* pas que tu gares. Tu peux
>> garer ton scooter où tu veux (mais si tu ne veux plus payer, l'emplacement
>> est important). »
>> Le problème c'est que *tu* considères que l'important c'est la location,
>> mais c'est purement subjectif.
>> Je le répète une station de velib c'est un assemblage de fonction : service
>> de location ET stationnement réservé. L'un n'est pas supérieur à l'autre.
>>
>> Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 22:02,  a écrit :
>>
>>> Non, "free flaoting" et "simple parking" (au sens de stationnement seul)
>>> c'est incompatible.
>>>
>>> Le concept du véhicule partagé à emplacement variable, c'est de la
>>> *location* de véhicule que tu gares à un endroit précis (comme un
>>> véhicule en autopartage classique) sauf que l'endroit où tu déposes le
>>> véhicule peut être différent de l'endroit où tu l'empruntes.
>>>
>>> Ni plus ni moins, c'est donc bien de l'ordre du car_sharing et non du
>>> parking : tu ne peux utiliser cet emplacement que si tu as emprunté le
>>> véhicule à cet endroit.
>>> On ne tague pas plus les emplacements des voitures de location
>>> amenity=parking.
>>> Ce qui est important ici c'est que tu *loues* pas que tu gares. Tu peux
>>> garer ton scooter où tu veux (mais si tu ne veux plus payer, l'emplacement
>>> est important).
>>>
>>> Jean-Yvon
>>>
>>> Le 25/09/2018 à 20:37, Florimond Berthoux - florimond.berth...@gmail.com
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> L'exemple dont je parle c'est bien du stationnement, rien d'autre que du
>>> stationnement réservé à des véhicules de free floating voir photo là
>>> https://twitter.com/ManOnDaMoon/status/1039906448283770880?s=19
>>>
>>> Au passage pour ce qui est des stations de véhicules en location (genre
>>> velib ou autolib pour les parisiens) c'est une parcelle terrestre qui offre
>>> le service de stationnement à certains véhicules en plus de l'offre de
>>> location et de sa gestion (bornes).
>>>
>>> Bref mon propos est simple, ne pas créer un tag pour chaque chose sur
>>> terre, il faut factoriser afin de rendre plus simple l'ajout et
>>> l'utilisation des données.
>>>
>>> Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 12:04, marc marc  a
>>> écrit :
>>>
 je partage l'avis de Jean-Yvon : une station de véhicule en partage (=un
 operateur y a mis des véhicules destinés à être emprunté), ce n'est
 vraiment pas du tout la même chose qu'un parking (on y met son propre
 véhicule qu'on viendra récupéré dans quelques minutes/heures/jours)

 c'est difficile d'invoquer un vice "tag pour le rendu"
 à propos d'un tag qui n'est pas rendu :-)

 Le 25. 09. 18 à 10:55, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> Un parking de scooter (et de vélo et de trottinette) partagé n'a rien à
> voir avec un parking ?
> Je suis perplexe.
>
> (Oserais-je dire que « amenity=scooter_sharing » c'est du tag to render
 ?)
>
> Le lun. 24 sept. 2018 à 20:41,  a
 écrit :
>

Re: [Talk-at] addr:suburb=* korrekt eingesetzt?

[Rudolf Mayer]

On 09/26/2018 04:28 PM, vari...@mailbox.org wrote:

Bei dem Änderungssatz 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62646348#map=12/46.7772/15.6701 sind 
doppelte und dreifache Adressen erstellt worden, teilweise auf bereits 
bestehende und korrekte.
Der einzige Unterschied ist ein addr:country=AT, ein wechseln von addr:city=* 
auf etwas anderes und die alte addr:city=* dafür auf addr:suburb=* umtaggen.

Bsp.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5910420561
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125165692
(Irgendwo rechts davon ist die 88 mit 3 Adressen auf einem Gebäude)
Meiner Meinung nach ist das falsch, abgesehen davon, dass adresshistory*org auf die Frage 
nach der Fehlerbehebung im Forum sinngemäß geantwortet hat "Ja, mache ich 
später.", was imho auch nicht okay ist 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=717508#p717508



Super Aussage dort:
"Es gibt kein Zurück"

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

[OSM-talk-fr] e: Arceaux partagés motos / vélos

[osm . sanspourriel]

C'est évidemment plus important car si tu ne loues pas un engin, tu n'as pas de 
problème pour le garer. Tu peux le louer et l'utiliser sans le garer par contre 
tu ne peux le garer avant de l'avoir loué.
Pour moi c'est juste du bon sens.  Principe de la cause et de l'effet si *tu* 
préfères.

Ce que la SNCF a fait c'est peindre un scooter et une puce. Je doute que ça 
empêche un propriétaire de scooter de se garer là de bonne foi.

Jean-Yvon

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. September 2018 um 22:45 Uhr
> Von: "Florimond Berthoux - florimond.berth...@gmail.com"
> An: "Discussions sur OSM en français" 
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Arceaux partagés motos / vélos
>
> Je ne suis pas certain de vivre dans le monde, mais à Paris ce qu'on appel
> "free floating" c'est tu loues un scooter mal garé sur le trottoir pour
> rouler 3km avec et tu le gares sur un parking 2 roues motorisés (parce que
> tu es un mec bien).
> Ce qu'à fait la SNCF c'est de dire, voici un emplacement de stationnement
> dédié et uniquement utilisable au free floating.
> 
> « Ce qui est important ici c'est que tu *loues* pas que tu gares. Tu peux
> garer ton scooter où tu veux (mais si tu ne veux plus payer, l'emplacement
> est important). »
> Le problème c'est que *tu* considères que l'important c'est la location,
> mais c'est purement subjectif.
> Je le répète une station de velib c'est un assemblage de fonction : service
> de location ET stationnement réservé. L'un n'est pas supérieur à l'autre.
> 
> Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 22:02,  a écrit :
> 
> > Non, "free flaoting" et "simple parking" (au sens de stationnement seul)
> > c'est incompatible.
> >
> > Le concept du véhicule partagé à emplacement variable, c'est de la
> > *location* de véhicule que tu gares à un endroit précis (comme un
> > véhicule en autopartage classique) sauf que l'endroit où tu déposes le
> > véhicule peut être différent de l'endroit où tu l'empruntes.
> >
> > Ni plus ni moins, c'est donc bien de l'ordre du car_sharing et non du
> > parking : tu ne peux utiliser cet emplacement que si tu as emprunté le
> > véhicule à cet endroit.
> > On ne tague pas plus les emplacements des voitures de location
> > amenity=parking.
> > Ce qui est important ici c'est que tu *loues* pas que tu gares. Tu peux
> > garer ton scooter où tu veux (mais si tu ne veux plus payer, l'emplacement
> > est important).
> >
> > Jean-Yvon
> >
> > Le 25/09/2018 à 20:37, Florimond Berthoux - florimond.berth...@gmail.com
> > a écrit :
> >
> > L'exemple dont je parle c'est bien du stationnement, rien d'autre que du
> > stationnement réservé à des véhicules de free floating voir photo là
> > https://twitter.com/ManOnDaMoon/status/1039906448283770880?s=19
> >
> > Au passage pour ce qui est des stations de véhicules en location (genre
> > velib ou autolib pour les parisiens) c'est une parcelle terrestre qui offre
> > le service de stationnement à certains véhicules en plus de l'offre de
> > location et de sa gestion (bornes).
> >
> > Bref mon propos est simple, ne pas créer un tag pour chaque chose sur
> > terre, il faut factoriser afin de rendre plus simple l'ajout et
> > l'utilisation des données.
> >
> > Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 12:04, marc marc  a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> je partage l'avis de Jean-Yvon : une station de véhicule en partage (=un
> >> operateur y a mis des véhicules destinés à être emprunté), ce n'est
> >> vraiment pas du tout la même chose qu'un parking (on y met son propre
> >> véhicule qu'on viendra récupéré dans quelques minutes/heures/jours)
> >>
> >> c'est difficile d'invoquer un vice "tag pour le rendu"
> >> à propos d'un tag qui n'est pas rendu :-)
> >>
> >> Le 25. 09. 18 à 10:55, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> >> > Un parking de scooter (et de vélo et de trottinette) partagé n'a rien à
> >> > voir avec un parking ?
> >> > Je suis perplexe.
> >> >
> >> > (Oserais-je dire que « amenity=scooter_sharing » c'est du tag to render
> >> ?)
> >> >
> >> > Le lun. 24 sept. 2018 à 20:41,  a
> >> écrit :
> >> >
> >> > Si je comprends bien, c'est du scooter partagé, rien à voir avec un
> >> > parking.
> >> >
> >> > Les emplacements des voitures en partage sont repérés avec la clé
> >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcar_sharing.
> >> >
> >> > __amenity
> >> >  >> >__=__bicycle_rental__
> >> > 
> >> > pour les vélos en libre service.
> >> >
> >> > Donc amenity=scooter_sharing ?
> >> >
> >> > Jean-Yvon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Le 24/09/2018 à 14:18, Florimond Berthoux -
> >> > florimond.berth...@gmail.com 
> >> a
> >> > écrit :
> >> >> Je ne retrouve plus l'information, mais la SNCF à ouvert à gare de
> >> >> Lyon (Paris) un stationnement pour le freefloating (scooter
> >> >> électrique Cityscoot, trottinette électrique Lime, ...)
> >> >>
> >> >> Alors si on suit la logique 

[OSM-talk-fr] e: Arceaux partagés motos / vélos

[osm . sanspourriel]

C'est évidemment plus important car si tu ne loues pas un engin, tu n'as pas de 
problème pour le garer. Tu peux le louer et l'utiliser sans le garer par contre 
tu ne peux le garer avant de l'avoir loué.
Pour moi c'est juste du bon sens.  Principe de la cause et de l'effet si *tu* 
préfères.

Ce que la SNCF a fait c'est peindre un scooter et une puce. Je doute que ça 
empêche un propriétaire de scooter de se garer là de bonne foi.

Jean-Yvon

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. September 2018 um 22:45 Uhr
> Von: "Florimond Berthoux - florimond.berth...@gmail.com"
> An: "Discussions sur OSM en français" 
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Arceaux partagés motos / vélos
>
> Je ne suis pas certain de vivre dans le monde, mais à Paris ce qu'on appel
> "free floating" c'est tu loues un scooter mal garé sur le trottoir pour
> rouler 3km avec et tu le gares sur un parking 2 roues motorisés (parce que
> tu es un mec bien).
> Ce qu'à fait la SNCF c'est de dire, voici un emplacement de stationnement
> dédié et uniquement utilisable au free floating.
> 
> « Ce qui est important ici c'est que tu *loues* pas que tu gares. Tu peux
> garer ton scooter où tu veux (mais si tu ne veux plus payer, l'emplacement
> est important). »
> Le problème c'est que *tu* considères que l'important c'est la location,
> mais c'est purement subjectif.
> Je le répète une station de velib c'est un assemblage de fonction : service
> de location ET stationnement réservé. L'un n'est pas supérieur à l'autre.
> 
> Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 22:02,  a écrit :
> 
> > Non, "free flaoting" et "simple parking" (au sens de stationnement seul)
> > c'est incompatible.
> >
> > Le concept du véhicule partagé à emplacement variable, c'est de la
> > *location* de véhicule que tu gares à un endroit précis (comme un
> > véhicule en autopartage classique) sauf que l'endroit où tu déposes le
> > véhicule peut être différent de l'endroit où tu l'empruntes.
> >
> > Ni plus ni moins, c'est donc bien de l'ordre du car_sharing et non du
> > parking : tu ne peux utiliser cet emplacement que si tu as emprunté le
> > véhicule à cet endroit.
> > On ne tague pas plus les emplacements des voitures de location
> > amenity=parking.
> > Ce qui est important ici c'est que tu *loues* pas que tu gares. Tu peux
> > garer ton scooter où tu veux (mais si tu ne veux plus payer, l'emplacement
> > est important).
> >
> > Jean-Yvon
> >
> > Le 25/09/2018 à 20:37, Florimond Berthoux - florimond.berth...@gmail.com
> > a écrit :
> >
> > L'exemple dont je parle c'est bien du stationnement, rien d'autre que du
> > stationnement réservé à des véhicules de free floating voir photo là
> > https://twitter.com/ManOnDaMoon/status/1039906448283770880?s=19
> >
> > Au passage pour ce qui est des stations de véhicules en location (genre
> > velib ou autolib pour les parisiens) c'est une parcelle terrestre qui offre
> > le service de stationnement à certains véhicules en plus de l'offre de
> > location et de sa gestion (bornes).
> >
> > Bref mon propos est simple, ne pas créer un tag pour chaque chose sur
> > terre, il faut factoriser afin de rendre plus simple l'ajout et
> > l'utilisation des données.
> >
> > Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 12:04, marc marc  a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> je partage l'avis de Jean-Yvon : une station de véhicule en partage (=un
> >> operateur y a mis des véhicules destinés à être emprunté), ce n'est
> >> vraiment pas du tout la même chose qu'un parking (on y met son propre
> >> véhicule qu'on viendra récupéré dans quelques minutes/heures/jours)
> >>
> >> c'est difficile d'invoquer un vice "tag pour le rendu"
> >> à propos d'un tag qui n'est pas rendu :-)
> >>
> >> Le 25. 09. 18 à 10:55, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
> >> > Un parking de scooter (et de vélo et de trottinette) partagé n'a rien à
> >> > voir avec un parking ?
> >> > Je suis perplexe.
> >> >
> >> > (Oserais-je dire que « amenity=scooter_sharing » c'est du tag to render
> >> ?)
> >> >
> >> > Le lun. 24 sept. 2018 à 20:41,  a
> >> écrit :
> >> >
> >> > Si je comprends bien, c'est du scooter partagé, rien à voir avec un
> >> > parking.
> >> >
> >> > Les emplacements des voitures en partage sont repérés avec la clé
> >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcar_sharing.
> >> >
> >> > __amenity
> >> >  >> >__=__bicycle_rental__
> >> > 
> >> > pour les vélos en libre service.
> >> >
> >> > Donc amenity=scooter_sharing ?
> >> >
> >> > Jean-Yvon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Le 24/09/2018 à 14:18, Florimond Berthoux -
> >> > florimond.berth...@gmail.com 
> >> a
> >> > écrit :
> >> >> Je ne retrouve plus l'information, mais la SNCF à ouvert à gare de
> >> >> Lyon (Paris) un stationnement pour le freefloating (scooter
> >> >> électrique Cityscoot, trottinette électrique Lime, ...)
> >> >>
> >> >> Alors si on suit la logique 

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Arceaux partagés motos / vélos

[Florimond Berthoux]

Je ne suis pas certain de vivre dans le monde, mais à Paris ce qu'on appel
"free floating" c'est tu loues un scooter mal garé sur le trottoir pour
rouler 3km avec et tu le gares sur un parking 2 roues motorisés (parce que
tu es un mec bien).
Ce qu'à fait la SNCF c'est de dire, voici un emplacement de stationnement
dédié et uniquement utilisable au free floating.

« Ce qui est important ici c'est que tu *loues* pas que tu gares. Tu peux
garer ton scooter où tu veux (mais si tu ne veux plus payer, l'emplacement
est important). »
Le problème c'est que *tu* considères que l'important c'est la location,
mais c'est purement subjectif.
Je le répète une station de velib c'est un assemblage de fonction : service
de location ET stationnement réservé. L'un n'est pas supérieur à l'autre.

Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 22:02,  a écrit :

> Non, "free flaoting" et "simple parking" (au sens de stationnement seul)
> c'est incompatible.
>
> Le concept du véhicule partagé à emplacement variable, c'est de la
> *location* de véhicule que tu gares à un endroit précis (comme un
> véhicule en autopartage classique) sauf que l'endroit où tu déposes le
> véhicule peut être différent de l'endroit où tu l'empruntes.
>
> Ni plus ni moins, c'est donc bien de l'ordre du car_sharing et non du
> parking : tu ne peux utiliser cet emplacement que si tu as emprunté le
> véhicule à cet endroit.
> On ne tague pas plus les emplacements des voitures de location
> amenity=parking.
> Ce qui est important ici c'est que tu *loues* pas que tu gares. Tu peux
> garer ton scooter où tu veux (mais si tu ne veux plus payer, l'emplacement
> est important).
>
> Jean-Yvon
>
> Le 25/09/2018 à 20:37, Florimond Berthoux - florimond.berth...@gmail.com
> a écrit :
>
> L'exemple dont je parle c'est bien du stationnement, rien d'autre que du
> stationnement réservé à des véhicules de free floating voir photo là
> https://twitter.com/ManOnDaMoon/status/1039906448283770880?s=19
>
> Au passage pour ce qui est des stations de véhicules en location (genre
> velib ou autolib pour les parisiens) c'est une parcelle terrestre qui offre
> le service de stationnement à certains véhicules en plus de l'offre de
> location et de sa gestion (bornes).
>
> Bref mon propos est simple, ne pas créer un tag pour chaque chose sur
> terre, il faut factoriser afin de rendre plus simple l'ajout et
> l'utilisation des données.
>
> Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 12:04, marc marc  a
> écrit :
>
>> je partage l'avis de Jean-Yvon : une station de véhicule en partage (=un
>> operateur y a mis des véhicules destinés à être emprunté), ce n'est
>> vraiment pas du tout la même chose qu'un parking (on y met son propre
>> véhicule qu'on viendra récupéré dans quelques minutes/heures/jours)
>>
>> c'est difficile d'invoquer un vice "tag pour le rendu"
>> à propos d'un tag qui n'est pas rendu :-)
>>
>> Le 25. 09. 18 à 10:55, Florimond Berthoux a écrit :
>> > Un parking de scooter (et de vélo et de trottinette) partagé n'a rien à
>> > voir avec un parking ?
>> > Je suis perplexe.
>> >
>> > (Oserais-je dire que « amenity=scooter_sharing » c'est du tag to render
>> ?)
>> >
>> > Le lun. 24 sept. 2018 à 20:41,  a
>> écrit :
>> >
>> > Si je comprends bien, c'est du scooter partagé, rien à voir avec un
>> > parking.
>> >
>> > Les emplacements des voitures en partage sont repérés avec la clé
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcar_sharing.
>> >
>> > __amenity
>> > > >__=__bicycle_rental__
>> > 
>> > pour les vélos en libre service.
>> >
>> > Donc amenity=scooter_sharing ?
>> >
>> > Jean-Yvon
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 24/09/2018 à 14:18, Florimond Berthoux -
>> > florimond.berth...@gmail.com 
>> a
>> > écrit :
>> >> Je ne retrouve plus l'information, mais la SNCF à ouvert à gare de
>> >> Lyon (Paris) un stationnement pour le freefloating (scooter
>> >> électrique Cityscoot, trottinette électrique Lime, ...)
>> >>
>> >> Alors si on suit la logique amenity=bicycle_parking il faudrait un
>> >> amenity=freefloating_scooter ? Étrange.
>> >> Cela se résout plus facilement avec le droit accès.
>> >> D'un point de vue utilisation de la BdD c'est plus simple aussi,
>> >> pas besoin de se faire une collection de tag pour trouver tous les
>> >> parkings de tous les types.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le lun. 24 sept. 2018 à 13:01, djakk djakk > >> > a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Merci Florimond tu as mis les mots sur un ressenti flou que
>> >> j’avais.
>> >>
>> >> Je trouve que highway=cycleway est un raccourci bien pratique
>> >> mais il ne s’agirait que d’un alias vers un objet plus+
>> >> complexe ayant des valeurs par défaut.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> djakk
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le lun. 24 sept. 2018 à 11:22, Florimond 

Re: [Talk-it] JOSM ed ultimo aggiornamento Java 11

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Il 26/09/2018 21:45, Francesco Pelullo ha scritto:

Non lo so, io lo uso con IcedTea (Java WebStart rel. 8) su Ubuntu.
Appena ho tempo faccio qualche esperimento con una virtual machine in cui
gira Windows.



Ah già dimenticavo che per linux (debian) icedtea è ancora alla versione 
8, quindi il problema non sussiste, almeno per me, visto openjdk è alla 
11, ma per il browser funziona solo icedtea-plugin.



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

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

Re: [Talk-it] JOSM ed ultimo aggiornamento Java 11

[Francesco Pelullo]

Il giorno mer 26 set 2018 alle ore 18:12 liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu
 ha scritto:

>
>
> Quindo volendo tirare per la giacchetta neanche la versione 10 di java
> va bene?
>

Non lo so, io lo uso con IcedTea (Java WebStart rel. 8) su Ubuntu.
Appena ho tempo faccio qualche esperimento con una virtual machine in cui
gira Windows.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Wikibase is now live

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Mateusz, I think we have a chance of success this time because unlike other
rulesets that are stored in the specific project's GIT repos, this project
is
* wiki based and centralized, just like the tag documentation, and
accessible to a much wider community.  In the last week, we had 18 users
making nearly 900 changes (in addition to the original bot import)
* offers tag documentation to the tools, not just rules, so they are more
likely to integrate with it even without the rules, and then switchover
* does not hardcode any structure of the rules - in a way it is "free form"
- allowing incremental growth.

This said, we should take it one step at a time.  First start using it as a
primary key/value multilingual description store and update wiki templates.
Migrate existing tools like TagInfo. Remove duplicate data from template
parameters.

Afterwards, we could expand the scope -- see if we can store validation
rules, presets, etc. for other tools, how complex can we get them, and many
other fun things...

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:03 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> Part of Wikibase that are an attempt to create yet another preset and
> validator ruleset
> are probably not going to be used by anybody.
>
> Note that so far every editor creates its own (iD, Vespucci, JOSM...).
>
> 23. Sep 2018 14:05 by osm...@michreichert.de:
>
> TBH, if I were an editor developer, I would neither take regular
> expressions for validation rules nor all my presets from the wiki. The
> wiki can be edited by everyone. There are a lot people whose hobby is to
> edit the wiki to make it represent how they expect OSM and the usage of
> tags to be [1].
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-it] parking lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

appena visto: un overlay per i parking lanes:
https://zlant.github.io/parking-lanes/#15/41.8907/12.5061

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/acsd/diary/45026

Ciao, Martin 


sent from a phone___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-us] USPS Post Boxes

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 09:37 Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Leif --
>
> I like the idea of making this more consistent. I am not convinced that
> 'United States Postal Service' is an improvement over 'USPS'. (Should we
> also rename 'UPS' to 'United Parcel Service'? 'FedEx' to 'Federal Express'?)
>

UPS, probably.  FedEx, no.  They changed their name to just FedEx some time
ago.

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

[Talk-it] Whodidt Simon04 o Zverik, vi funziona?

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Apena provato adesso entrambi ma non creano nessun riquadro storico, 
zverik mi dice addirittura failed to acquires tile.


A voi funziona?
--
_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
Simone Girardelli

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/09/2018 17:33, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 17:18 +0100, Tony Shield wrote:


From the examples given it seems that passing the facing sign is 
the limiting event, the end of the restriction may be posted with a

grey end of restriction sign; surveying them could be a nightmare
if the road/way is tagged - the restriction can be several miles
and in one direction.


I have never known such a restriction to be only in one direction.


The way it's actually done, from a legal perspective, is to put a 
Traffic Restriction order (TRO) on a very short length of road, and then 
only put the signposts at one end of the stretch.


Using ascii art, it looks a bit like this:

-<==---

where - is unrestricted road, = is restricted road, and < is a sign 
facing in that direction (ie, left in this case).


Because a TRO needs signs to be enforceable, that effectively makes it a 
one-way restriction as only traffic approaching from the left sees the 
sign. It's a bit of a hack, but quite a common one.


That's as opposed to a fully restricted road, which would be TRO'd and 
signed like this:


---<>---

I hope that makes sense. It's a bit difficult to explain!

Mark

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Vincennes

[nicolas parizet]

Bonjour,

sur Mastodon, quelqu'un signale par une capture d'écran, un soucis sur
Vincennes. Je ne connais pas le coin mais j'avoue qu'après avoir
regardé, je suis perplexe.

Le soucis se situe au carrefour de l'avenue de Paris et de l'avenue
Pasteur. Entre les deux voies de l'avenue de Paris, il y a comme un
morceau de rue de tracé et non nommé (je ne vois pas ce que ce tracé
fait là mais si il doit y être, je ne vois pas comment il doit être nommé).

Même chose sur une rue à l'ouest. L'avenue Gambetta semble traverser
l'avenue de Paris.

Comme je ne connais pas ces endroits, je vous laisse jeter un coup d'œil
et voir si des modifications sont nécessaires.

Merci,

Nicolas





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 17:18 +0100, Tony Shield wrote:
> Hi
> 
> What are we going to tag? The length of road/way with the
> restriction 
> and which lanes, or the placement of the sign as a node and with
> some 
> directionality.
> 
>  From the examples given it seems that passing the facing sign is
> the 
> limiting event, the end of the restriction may be posted with a grey
> end 
> of restriction sign; surveying them could be a nightmare if the
> road/way 
> is tagged - the restriction can be several miles and in one
> direction.

I have never known such a restriction to be only in one direction. But
Jerry's suggestion to map the signs is good as we can then build up the
zones in the same way that we build speed limit zones.

Phil (trigpoint)

> 
> Regards
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> On 26/09/2018 13:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 26/09/2018 12:35, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> > > Hey there
> > > 
> > > I can't believe this didn't come up before - or maybe it did but
> > > was not
> > > documented in the wiki.
> > > 
> > > In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg
> > 
> > That's a good question. I've had a look, and none of them seem to
> > be 
> > tagged on the roads in my town.
> > 
> > Another issue is how we tag "gateway" weight restrictions. These
> > apply 
> > only to traffic in one direction, and not to an entire length of
> > road. 
> > They're typically used in towns and villages that have been by-
> > passed, 
> > to ensure that HGV through traffic has to use the by-pass, but,
> > having 
> > accessed the town via a legitimate route, can then leave it via 
> > whichever is most convenient. Here's an example of what I mean:
> > 
> > https://www.markgoodge.com/files/by-pass.png
> > 
> > The primary route (in green) which originally passed through the
> > town 
> > has been diverted to by-pass it on a new construction. Junctions A
> > and 
> > B will have weight restriction signs (as above) on the route into 
> > town, but junction C will not. So HGVs can enter the town via C,
> > but 
> > then leave via either A, B or C. The intention, of course, is to 
> > ensure that only trucks which need to enter the town do so, as it 
> > can't be used as a short-cut (eg, if the by-pass is congested),
> > but 
> > once in the town, there's no restriction on which parts of the
> > town 
> > the trucks can service.
> > 
> > I really don't know how we'd tag that, because it would be a tag
> > that 
> > only applies to one traffic direction of a way rather than the
> > entire 
> > way.
> > 
> > > Note that the GVM for which the sign applies is given explicitly
> > > on the
> > > sign, which is apparently always the case for any HGV-access-
> > > restriction
> > > sign in the UK.
> > 
> > That's not a major issue. Although the limit is always stated,
> > it's 
> > also almost always 7.5t, as that's the boundary between different 
> > categories of goods vehicle. With very few exceptions, it's just
> > the 
> > larger ones which are prohibited.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-Talk-fr] Import arbres Hauts-de-Seine

[Florian LAINEZ]

Dans le 92 (prononcer neuf-deux) on a aujourd'hui référencé 12 083 arbres
cf. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ChP
On a pas mal de données d'arbres en Open Data sous-exploitées
https://opendata.hauts-de-seine.fr/explore/dataset/cadastre-vert-les-arbres

J'envisage d'en importer une partie dans OSM, fort de l'expérience de
Grenoble (cf. discussions précédentes) et évidemment mû par un sentiment de
jalousie vis-à-vis de Paris ^^
J'ai documenté ma démarche ici
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hauts-de-Seine#Arbres

J'envisageais un import manuel des données mais je me rend compte qu'il y a
des serveurs pour le cadastre des arbres :
-Service WMS
https://geoserviceweb.hauts-de-seine.fr/agspublic/services/Public/CadastreVert/MapServer/WMSServer
?
-Service WFS
https://geoserviceweb.hauts-de-seine.fr/agspublic/services/Public/CadastreVert/MapServer/WFSServer
?

Peut-être est-il plus à jour ? J'ai essayé sans succès d'utiliser ces
serveurs dans JOSM, votre aide est donc la bienvenue.
Merci

-- 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Tony Shield]

Hi

What are we going to tag? The length of road/way with the restriction 
and which lanes, or the placement of the sign as a node and with some 
directionality.


From the examples given it seems that passing the facing sign is the 
limiting event, the end of the restriction may be posted with a grey end 
of restriction sign; surveying them could be a nightmare if the road/way 
is tagged - the restriction can be several miles and in one direction.


Regards

Tony


On 26/09/2018 13:10, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 26/09/2018 12:35, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Hey there

I can't believe this didn't come up before - or maybe it did but was not
documented in the wiki.

In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg


That's a good question. I've had a look, and none of them seem to be 
tagged on the roads in my town.


Another issue is how we tag "gateway" weight restrictions. These apply 
only to traffic in one direction, and not to an entire length of road. 
They're typically used in towns and villages that have been by-passed, 
to ensure that HGV through traffic has to use the by-pass, but, having 
accessed the town via a legitimate route, can then leave it via 
whichever is most convenient. Here's an example of what I mean:


https://www.markgoodge.com/files/by-pass.png

The primary route (in green) which originally passed through the town 
has been diverted to by-pass it on a new construction. Junctions A and 
B will have weight restriction signs (as above) on the route into 
town, but junction C will not. So HGVs can enter the town via C, but 
then leave via either A, B or C. The intention, of course, is to 
ensure that only trucks which need to enter the town do so, as it 
can't be used as a short-cut (eg, if the by-pass is congested), but 
once in the town, there's no restriction on which parts of the town 
the trucks can service.


I really don't know how we'd tag that, because it would be a tag that 
only applies to one traffic direction of a way rather than the entire 
way.



Note that the GVM for which the sign applies is given explicitly on the
sign, which is apparently always the case for any HGV-access-restriction
sign in the UK.


That's not a major issue. Although the limit is always stated, it's 
also almost always 7.5t, as that's the boundary between different 
categories of goods vehicle. With very few exceptions, it's just the 
larger ones which are prohibited.


Mark

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



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

Re: [Talk-it] JOSM ed ultimo aggiornamento Java 11

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Il 25/09/2018 22:17, Francesco Pelullo ha scritto:

Ciao lista,

su Twitter stanno passando messaggi di allarme per segnalare che l'ultimo
aggiornamento di Java 11 crea problemi piu' che altro, soprattutto a chi
utilizza JOSM.

Suggeriscomo di non effettuare aggiornamenti e rimanere su Java 8/9

https://twitter.com/josmeditor/status/1044660324199256065

Ciao
/niubii/



Quindo volendo tirare per la giacchetta neanche la versione 10 di java 
va bene?


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

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

Re: [Talk-at] addr:suburb=* korrekt eingesetzt?

[Wolfgang Schreiter]

Mir ist aufgefallen, dass adresshistory*org das Tag addr:suburb=* zum 
Bezeichnen von Katastralgemeinden verwendet.  Dann würde in addr:city=* immer 
der Gemeindename stehen.   Vielleicht erklärt das die Änderungen.  Das kann man 
natürlich so machen, zumindest für mich war das aber (hinsichtlich addr:suburb) 
eine Neuerung.  Habe ich da etwas übersehen, oder ist das neu?

LG
Wolfgang (wolfbert)


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

Re: [OSM-ja] 三重県の道路について

[Ras and Road]

三重県の広域農道と思われる道路がhighway=secondaryでタグ付けされている件、
広域農道を県道に指定する旨のリリースや報道は聞いたことがないので間違い
（tertiayが正しい）だと思います。

履歴を確認したところ、つい3ヶ月ほど前にsecondaryに変更されたようです。

広域農道やふるさと林道等が誤ってsecondary（やprimary）でタグ付けされている
ケースは他にも多いと思います。見つけた都度に修正するよう心がけていますが、
なかなか追いつきません。

石野さんの記述で少し気になる点を訂正させてください。
（重箱の隅をつつくようで恐縮ですが）
「4車線市道をprimaryにすることすら許されることになりかねず、」
→市道が主要地方道に指定されている場合があります。
　例えば、横浜環４（の一部区間）。これはprimaryでタグ付けすべきwayですね。

** Ras and Road **
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/09/2018 14:21, Paul Berry wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 13:10, Mark Goodge > wrote:


Another issue is how we tag "gateway" weight restrictions. These apply
only to traffic in one direction, and not to an entire length of road.
They're typically used in towns and villages that have been by-passed,
to ensure that HGV through traffic has to use the by-pass, but, having
accessed the town via a legitimate route, can then leave it via
whichever is most convenient.


Surely by updating every highway's tags within the are demarcated by the 
gateways? The same as is done for speed limits, etc... (That's how I'd 
do it.)


But that isn't how it is. Inside the gateways, there are no 
restrictions. It's just that you can't get there through the gateways.


And then we have interesting situations like this where, if anything, 
two hgv=no gateways back onto each other: https://goo.gl/maps/dRLTKeEH1RD2


Yes, the effect there is to effectively cut the road in half as far as 
HGVs are concerned. They can enter the road from either end, and no part 
of the road has a restriction. But, whichever end they enter from, they 
have to return the same way and can't pass the gateway in the middle.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-us] USPS Post Boxes

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi Leif,

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 7:16 AM, Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Martijn,
> I have very little opinion in which value of operator should be used, as long 
> as they are consistent.  I think that basing the 'preferred' values on what 
> can be found printed on the post boxes, however, is a good idea.  This 
> methodology produces the following:
> * UPS
> * FedEx
> * DHL
> * United States Postal Service
> This system makes the most sense to me, as it reduces the amount of possible 
> confusion.  DHL, as a matter of fact, can't be expanded, because it is the 
> initials of the three founders: Adrian Dalsey, Larry Hillblom, and Robert 
> Lynn.
> "United Parcel Service" is rarely seen on post boxes - only the text "ups" is.
> FedEx is the same.  The company rebranded from "Federal Express" to "FedEx" 
> in January 2000, making "FedEx" the correct value to use.
> For the United States Postal Service, the text "United States Postal Service" 
> is always displayed on the post boxes, which seems like a good argument to go 
> with the expanded version.

I see your point. If that’s what folks think is best, I certainly won’t take 
issue with it.

> 
> I think that the above values are the best, but would be happy to adopt any 
> other values.
> 
> Regarding a MapRoulette challenge, how would that work?  Would all post boxes 
> be converted to "United States Postal Service" before or after the challenge, 
> or would me changing operator tags be completely unnecessary?
> 

Right now, folks would need to edit manually, and it would be in place of an 
automated cleanup. The task would highlight an existing post_box with its 
original value and ask mappers to change it to the proposed value. The 
advantage of doing it this way is a) we can keep updating the challenge to 
re-capture ‘wrong’ tagging, so the challenge would be an ongoing one, and b) it 
encourages people to really look at the situation with a human eye which 
captures the spirit of OSM. Similar challenges exist to normalize phone numbers 
across Europe.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Wikibase is now live

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Part of Wikibase that are an attempt to create yet another preset and validator 
ruleset 
are probably not going to be used by anybody.
Note that so far every editor creates its own (iD, Vespucci, JOSM...).

23. Sep 2018 14:05 by osm...@michreichert.de :


> TBH, if I were an editor developer, I would neither take regular
> expressions for validation rules nor all my presets from the wiki. The
> wiki can be edited by everyone. There are a lot people whose hobby is to
> edit the wiki to make it represent how they expect OSM and the usage of
> tags to be [1].
>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Philip Barnes]

On 26 September 2018 15:21:41 BST, David Woolley  
wrote:
 
>In practice you are not going to get an HGV restriction below 7.5T MAM 
>as that would rule out appliance delivery vehicles and house movers. 
That is why most are qualified with except for loading or except for access. 

I guess loading is better as access could be interpreted as calling at a shop 
to buy a yorkie. 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

[Talk-at] addr:suburb=* korrekt eingesetzt?

[various]

Bei dem Änderungssatz 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62646348#map=12/46.7772/15.6701 sind 
doppelte und dreifache Adressen erstellt worden, teilweise auf bereits 
bestehende und korrekte. 
Der einzige Unterschied ist ein addr:country=AT, ein wechseln von addr:city=* 
auf etwas anderes und die alte addr:city=* dafür auf addr:suburb=* umtaggen.

Bsp.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5910420561
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125165692
(Irgendwo rechts davon ist die 88 mit 3 Adressen auf einem Gebäude)
Meiner Meinung nach ist das falsch, abgesehen davon, dass adresshistory*org auf 
die Frage nach der Fehlerbehebung im Forum sinngemäß geantwortet hat "Ja, mache 
ich später.", was imho auch nicht okay ist 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=717508#p717508

Er ändert irgendwie auch seine Art zu arbeiten laufend. In dem Thread auf einer 
Seite hat er von "vorher ALLES löschen" (er meint ja, es ist nicht gelöscht, 
weil es eh noch in der History zu sehen ist, wie seht ihr das?) auf vorher 
ALLES doppelt und dreifach machen und später aufräumen gewechselt. 

Grüße

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Colin Smale]

The term "HGV" is not actually legally defined in the UK. Goods vehicles
start from 3.5T MAM. There is a special driving licence group D1 which
allows you to drive up to 7.5T, but the difference is in the licence,
not the vehicle. 

The sign with an image of a lorry is used for a so-called "environmental
restriction", e.g. to keep trucks out of residential areas. 

The sign with just a weight like "5t" is normally a physical
restriction, due to a weak bridge for example, and therefore has to
apply to all vehicles. 

In order to distinguish between an environmental restriction and a
physical restriction, we have been using maxheight:physical=* and
maxwidth=* for the physical size limits. Maybe we can apply the same
pattern to maxweight? 

In the UK both types of weight limit refer to the MAM/MGW, not to the
current weight. I agree that the OSM wiki is ambiguous in this regard.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[David Woolley]

On 26/09/18 14:49, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Thank you for the answers given. Perhaps there are some
misunderstandings, so I want to clarify two points:

1.
A HGV is defined as a vehicle with a max allowable mass of above 3.5t,
even in the UK. Tagging "hgv=no" when seeing this sign is plain
incorrect, except if we specifically redefine only for OSM what
constitutes a HGV contrary to what can be found in the actual
legislation. I don't think it is wise to do that.



In terms of licensing, up to 7.5T MAM (or up to 8.25T with trailer) can 
be driven by people with suitable classes on an ordinary driving 
licence.  Many older drivers already have these.  7.5T is where HGV 
licensing really bites.  Some sources use the term MGV (Medium Goods 
Vehicle for the 3.5T to 7.5T range, but it does seem to be the case that 
HGV is used in some places.


In practice you are not going to get an HGV restriction below 7.5T MAM 
as that would rule out appliance delivery vehicles and house movers. 
You might have a maxweight below that, because of weak structures.


Also technically, the limit is on mass, not weight.  It is not dependent 
on the barometer reading or whether the vehicle is at the poles or the 
equator.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Tobias Zwick]

Thank you for the answers given. Perhaps there are some
misunderstandings, so I want to clarify two points:

1.
A HGV is defined as a vehicle with a max allowable mass of above 3.5t,
even in the UK. Tagging "hgv=no" when seeing this sign is plain
incorrect, except if we specifically redefine only for OSM what
constitutes a HGV contrary to what can be found in the actual
legislation. I don't think it is wise to do that.

2.
How HGV are defined (>3.5t) and what can be seen on signs like these
(7.5t) is NOT THE WEIGHT but the maximum allowed weight. This is very
important.
The maximum allowed weight, also known as the gross vehicle mass or GVM
or GVWR is the maximum permitted weight of the vehicle at full load, as
specified by the manufacturer. (See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating)

Just to be clear, an example. Let's say there is a lorry with the
following properties on the road:
- Without any load it weighs 2 tons -> this is the unladen/empty weight
- It carries 4 tons of gravel -> this is the tara/load
- It currently weighs 6.5 tons
  -> this is the current/actual weight. Used for maxweight=*
- It could load up to 7 tons -> this is the maximum capacity
- It is permitted to weigh in total up to 9 tons
  -> this is the maximum permitted/allowed weight/mass, aka gross
 vehicle mass, aka GVM
- in other words, GVM = unladen weight + maximum capacity

Thus, using maxweight=7.5 is incorrect already because the maxweight tag
is about the maximum CURRENT weight. A HGV whose permitted maximum
weight is above 7.5 tons but which currently weighs below 7.5 tons is
not allowed on roads signed with the linked sign.

So, these are the points I wanted to clarify. Also, turns out that
someone else already noticed the exact problem and created a proposal
for this, which seems kind of abondoned, as usual:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/gross_weight

How can we get this proposal started again? Because, the only correct
way to tag the sign initially posted here would be with

maxweightrating:hgv=7.5

(if the proposal is unchanged)

Greetings
Tobias


On 26/09/2018 13:35, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Hey there
> 
> I can't believe this didn't come up before - or maybe it did but was not
> documented in the wiki.
> 
> In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg
> 
> Note that the GVM for which the sign applies is given explicitly on the
> sign, which is apparently always the case for any HGV-access-restriction
> sign in the UK.
> 
> In other words, you will never find a sign like this in the UK:
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C7.svg
> 
> Greetings
> Tobias
> 
> P.S: GVM is gross vehicle mass
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 


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

[OSM-ja] 三重県の道路について

[石野貴之]

お久しぶりです。
本日、neis-one.orgのサイトから国内の変更セットについたコメントを拝見してみたところ、
三重県鈴鹿市あたりで大量に道路が削除されているらしいことが分かりました。
(http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=Japan#7/33.193/134.302)
これは即時リバートするべきでしょうか。それとももっと穏健な手段を取るべきでしょうか。

また、これとは別件の編集ですが、三重県の広い範囲で広域農道と思われる名称の道路(伊賀コリドールロード、北勢南部広域農道など)がhighway=secondaryでタグ付けされています。wikiを見る限りはこのような道路はtertiaryだと思うのですが、これはマッパーの裁量として許容される範囲なのでしょうか。これが許容されるなら、例えばターミナル駅前の4車線市道をprimaryにすることすら許されることになりかねず、タグ付けの一貫性に支障をきたすことになると思われますが、いかがでしょうか。

石野 貴之(yumean1...@gmail.com)
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Paul Berry]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 13:10, Mark Goodge  wrote:

> Another issue is how we tag "gateway" weight restrictions. These apply
> only to traffic in one direction, and not to an entire length of road.
> They're typically used in towns and villages that have been by-passed,
> to ensure that HGV through traffic has to use the by-pass, but, having
> accessed the town via a legitimate route, can then leave it via
> whichever is most convenient.


Surely by updating every highway's tags within the are demarcated by the
gateways? The same as is done for speed limits, etc... (That's how I'd do
it.)

And then we have interesting situations like this where, if anything, two
hgv=no gateways back onto each other: https://goo.gl/maps/dRLTKeEH1RD2

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

Re: [Talk-us] USPS Post Boxes

[Leif Rasmussen]

Mark,
No, I was not planning on converting post boxes to the 'correct' operator
value regularly, but that sounds like a good idea.

Martijn,
I have very little opinion in which value of operator should be used, as
long as they are consistent.  I think that basing the 'preferred' values on
what can be found printed on the post boxes, however, is a good idea.  This
methodology produces the following:
* UPS
* FedEx
* DHL
* United States Postal Service
This system makes the most sense to me, as it reduces the amount of
possible confusion.  DHL, as a matter of fact, can't be expanded, because
it is the initials of the three founders: Adrian *D*alsey, Larry *H*illblom,
and Robert *L*ynn.
"United Parcel Service" is rarely seen on post boxes - only the text "ups"
is.
FedEx is the same.  The company rebranded from "Federal Express" to "FedEx"
in January 2000, making "FedEx" the correct value to use.
For the United States Postal Service, the text "United States Postal
Service" is always displayed on the post boxes, which seems like a good
argument to go with the expanded version.

I think that the above values are the best, but would be happy to adopt any
other values.

Regarding a MapRoulette challenge, how would that work?  Would all post
boxes be converted to "United States Postal Service" before or after the
challenge, or would me changing operator tags be completely unnecessary?

Clifford,
Does Nominatim consider "operator:wikipedia" and "operator:wikidata" tags?
If so, I think that that would be an issue with Nominatim, and not the
tagging, correct?  I agree with you and Brian about "wikidata" and
"wikipedia" tags being wrong, but I think that "operator:wikidata" and
"operator:wikipedia" should be fine.

Jmapb,
Good points!  Many post boxes do not have the operator value, and a
community review of those would be a great idea (if people have the time
for that).  Thanks for pointing out all of those variations of the same
operator!  I did not know that all of them existed, and will definitely
convert all to the "correct" value if I manage to go ahead with a
changeset.


Finally, should I also "fix" UPS and FedEx boxes as well in the changeset?
It would be nice for all post boxes to be consistently tagged.

Thank you,

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

Re: [Talk-us] USPS Post Boxes

[Aaron Forsythe]

I’d be weary of using what’s on the box as the operator.  There are multiple 
types of drop boxes provided by USPS (also UPS and FedEx have multiple types).  
These have different restrictions on the type of mail/packages that should go 
in those boxes.  Putting in the wrong box can likely cause a delay in the 
transit time, and even could cause a return to sender.

Personally, I’d rather go by what the operator uses with legal terms.  
Examples: Copyright © 2018 USPS, Copyright ©1994- 2018 United Parcel Service of 
America, Inc., © FedEx 1995-2018, 2018 © DHL International GmbH.  This shows 
3/4 of the major operations near here use abbreviations.  Therefore, I would 
suggest abbreviations for all.

Sorry for joining this discussion late.

- Aaron Forsythe

> For those tagged with an operator, most are one of the many variations 
on the US Postal Service name: 
> 3609 * usps
> 199 *us postal service
> 125 * u.s. postal service
> 12 * us post
> 11 * united states postal service (used to be popular before Leif's mass 
edit) 
> 4 * us mail (some older post boxes still say this on the side) 
> 1 * united states postal office
> 1 * usps express mail
> 1 * usps.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Philip Barnes]

On 26 September 2018 13:13:51 BST, Mark Goodge  wrote:
>
>
>On 26/09/2018 13:00, Colin Smale wrote:
>> On 2018-09-26 13:48, David Woolley wrote:
>> 
>>> In that specific case (7.5T), which is the most common, it would be 
>>> hgv=no, as that is the defining maximum authorised mass for an HGV. 
>>>  I'd consider maxweight, for higher limits.
>>>
>> Is a bus/coach considered to be a goods vehicle for these purposes? 
>
>No, they're not. If there is a restriction on buses, it will be signed 
>separately. If it applies to all vehicles, irrespective of 
>classification, it will look like this one:
>
>https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4872708
>
>> They 
>> are usually heavier than 7.5t. In the case of hgv=no then they would 
>> still be allowed, but maxweight=18000 might erroneously imply a 
>> prohibition of other vehicles as well. Some larger coaches can far 
>> exceed 18 tons.
>hgv=no would be correct for the sign that Tobias linked to. You'd use 
>maxweight= for signs like the one in the Geograph photo, above.
>
It is unusual to see the no goods vehicles over 7.5 t without a plate 
underneath, most usually it will say 'except for loading' which we tag as 
hgv=destination. 

The primary reason for these restrictions is to prevent goods vehicles from 
using towns and villages as through routes and causing a nuisance to residents. 

Usage varies Leicestershire has been very good at these restrictions, 
Shropshire has a lot to learn. It needs to start by declassify most B roads. 

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Tony Shield]

Hi Tobias

How is it done in Europe or The Netherlands - is it different to the 
answers given?


Tony

On 26/09/2018 12:35, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Hey there

I can't believe this didn't come up before - or maybe it did but was not
documented in the wiki.

In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg

Note that the GVM for which the sign applies is given explicitly on the
sign, which is apparently always the case for any HGV-access-restriction
sign in the UK.

In other words, you will never find a sign like this in the UK:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C7.svg

Greetings
Tobias

P.S: GVM is gross vehicle mass
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating

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



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

Re: [Talk-lt] Spausdinamas žemėlapis

[Frank "Frankas" Wurft, BaltiCCycle.eu]

Aš naudoju Maperitive žemelapio spausdinimui
http://maperitive.net/


On 09/26/2018 11:58 AM, Tomas Straupis wrote:

Sveiki

   Gal yra norinčių pabūti instrukcijos testuotojais? Yra rašoma
instrukcija, kaip atsispausdinti žemėlapį, sukurtą pagal OpenStreetMap
duomenis:
   http://shapes.openmap.lt/zemelapis.html

   Atsisiunčiate ir įsidiegiate QGIS, atsisiunčiate Lietuvos duomenis,
atsisiunčiate kelis svg failus, atidarote pateiktą projekto failą ir
iš principo turėtų viskas veikti.

   Instrukcija netaikoma visiškai žaliems, bet ir ne GIS profesionalams.

   Įdomus bendras patikrinimas, ar veikia instrukcijos, ar nieko nepraleista.
   Dar įdomus specifinis patikrinimas, ar veikia windausuose (nesu
tikras, dėl projekte nurodytų kelių iki svg ir shp failų, ar veikia
jie winos'e ir neturiu galimybės patikrinti).

   Pastabas siųskite arba į talk-lt, arba man asmeniškai. Ačiū



--

**




Pagarbiai / Yours Sincerly

Frank Kulikauskas (Wurft), M.A.

fran...@balticcycle.eu 
TEL. (mobil): +370 699 56009
FAX +370-5-2784074
SKYPE: Frankasw


www.balticcycle.eu 
INFORMATION & SERVICE
Vilnius - Klaipeda - Riga - Tallinn

velo-city Vilnius 

*VILNIUS BIKE TOURS & RENTAL
**
Pylimo 31, Vilnius

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/09/2018 13:00, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2018-09-26 13:48, David Woolley wrote:

In that specific case (7.5T), which is the most common, it would be 
hgv=no, as that is the defining maximum authorised mass for an HGV. 
 I'd consider maxweight, for higher limits.


Is a bus/coach considered to be a goods vehicle for these purposes? 


No, they're not. If there is a restriction on buses, it will be signed 
separately. If it applies to all vehicles, irrespective of 
classification, it will look like this one:


https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4872708

They 
are usually heavier than 7.5t. In the case of hgv=no then they would 
still be allowed, but maxweight=18000 might erroneously imply a 
prohibition of other vehicles as well. Some larger coaches can far 
exceed 18 tons.
hgv=no would be correct for the sign that Tobias linked to. You'd use 
maxweight= for signs like the one in the Geograph photo, above.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/09/2018 12:35, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Hey there

I can't believe this didn't come up before - or maybe it did but was not
documented in the wiki.

In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg


That's a good question. I've had a look, and none of them seem to be 
tagged on the roads in my town.


Another issue is how we tag "gateway" weight restrictions. These apply 
only to traffic in one direction, and not to an entire length of road. 
They're typically used in towns and villages that have been by-passed, 
to ensure that HGV through traffic has to use the by-pass, but, having 
accessed the town via a legitimate route, can then leave it via 
whichever is most convenient. Here's an example of what I mean:


https://www.markgoodge.com/files/by-pass.png

The primary route (in green) which originally passed through the town 
has been diverted to by-pass it on a new construction. Junctions A and B 
will have weight restriction signs (as above) on the route into town, 
but junction C will not. So HGVs can enter the town via C, but then 
leave via either A, B or C. The intention, of course, is to ensure that 
only trucks which need to enter the town do so, as it can't be used as a 
short-cut (eg, if the by-pass is congested), but once in the town, 
there's no restriction on which parts of the town the trucks can service.


I really don't know how we'd tag that, because it would be a tag that 
only applies to one traffic direction of a way rather than the entire way.



Note that the GVM for which the sign applies is given explicitly on the
sign, which is apparently always the case for any HGV-access-restriction
sign in the UK.


That's not a major issue. Although the limit is always stated, it's also 
almost always 7.5t, as that's the boundary between different categories 
of goods vehicle. With very few exceptions, it's just the larger ones 
which are prohibited.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-09-26 13:48, David Woolley wrote:

> In that specific case (7.5T), which is the most common, it would be hgv=no, 
> as that is the defining maximum authorised mass for an HGV.  I'd consider 
> maxweight, for higher limits.

Is a bus/coach considered to be a goods vehicle for these purposes? They
are usually heavier than 7.5t. In the case of hgv=no then they would
still be allowed, but maxweight=18000 might erroneously imply a
prohibition of other vehicles as well. Some larger coaches can far
exceed 18 tons.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[SK53]

I can only answer for my self. I generally tag these I usually see with a
plain hgv=destination, possibly with maxweight=7.5t. The sign is very rare
without an additional plate allowing for deliveries. I do this largely
because I want to capture the information rather than because it is the
most precise tag. Such restrictions are extremely common in Leicestershire
& Rutland, and very noticeable along the A606.

I believe the 'proper' (i.e., more precise) tagging approach is to use a
conditional restriction, but I'm not sure which property (maxweight or hgv
is most widely used).

A number of other values are present on taginfo.

It may also be useful to map the signs explicitly as this may enable the
actual tagging of the restriction to be refined (made more complex) over
time.

Jerry

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 12:36, Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> Hey there
>
> I can't believe this didn't come up before - or maybe it did but was not
> documented in the wiki.
>
> In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg
>
> Note that the GVM for which the sign applies is given explicitly on the
> sign, which is apparently always the case for any HGV-access-restriction
> sign in the UK.
>
> In other words, you will never find a sign like this in the UK:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C7.svg
>
> Greetings
> Tobias
>
> P.S: GVM is gross vehicle mass
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[David Woolley]

In that specific case (7.5T), which is the most common, it would be 
hgv=no, as that is the defining maximum authorised mass for an HGV.  I'd 
consider maxweight, for higher limits.


The traditional UK term is Gross Weight, but the, more scientifically 
correct, term now used, in formal documents, is Maximum Authorised Mass.



On 26/09/18 12:35, Tobias Zwick wrote:

Hey there

I can't believe this didn't come up before - or maybe it did but was not
documented in the wiki.

In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg

Note that the GVM for which the sign applies is given explicitly on the
sign, which is apparently always the case for any HGV-access-restriction
sign in the UK.

In other words, you will never find a sign like this in the UK:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C7.svg

Greetings
Tobias

P.S: GVM is gross vehicle mass
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating

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




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

[Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[Tobias Zwick]

Hey there

I can't believe this didn't come up before - or maybe it did but was not
documented in the wiki.

In United Kingdom, how do you tag roads signed with this sign?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_622.1A.svg

Note that the GVM for which the sign applies is given explicitly on the
sign, which is apparently always the case for any HGV-access-restriction
sign in the UK.

In other words, you will never find a sign like this in the UK:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C7.svg

Greetings
Tobias

P.S: GVM is gross vehicle mass
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating

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

[OSM-ja] 司法書士/行政書士事務所のタグ

[森 智幸]

皆様こんにちは。
森と申します。

タイトルの司法書士、行政書士以外にも社会保険労務士とか土地家屋調査士とかいわゆる士業の事務所のタグ付けで悩んでいます。

wikiを見ると
office = lawyer
lawyer = hogehoge
だと思うのですが、hogehogeには何を入れるのが適切でしょう。

法務省の運営している http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/ によればそれぞれの英訳は
司法書士 judicial scrivener
行政書士 certified administrative procedures legal specialist
社会保険労務士 Public Consultants on Social and Labour Insurance
土地家屋調査士 Land and House Investigator
となっております。

司法書士はともかく、行政書士や社労士は長いですよね。
（あまりに長いので当の行政書士の方からも使いづらいとの意見がでているようですw）
日本独自のものなのだからいっそローマ字でshiho-shosi,gyosei-shosiなどとするのもありかと思うのですが、いかがでしょうか？


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

[talk-au] City of Melbourne Imagery

[Andrew Harvey]

City of Melbourne just released high resolution aerial imagery taken
in May 2018.

Right now I'm working to get the imagery into the editors out of the
box (https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/pull/561) but in the
meantime in iD and JOSM you can add a custom layer using this

https://{switch:a,b,c,d}.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/openstreetmapau.gdbhzo3g/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.jpg?access_token=pk.eyJ1Ijoib3BlbnN0cmVldG1hcGF1IiwiYSI6ImNqbWl3bXZ6aDA0MTkzd21xdnV1d2k0azEifQ.HYkMOqH_E2fYd1b0oXRe6w

We have an explicit permission to use City of Melbourne open data in
OSM (although I've just followed up with the official waiver form,
which I anticipate they'll support).

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

[Talk-cz] Fody - stav a novinky

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj,

novinky ve Fody a okoli:

- do statistik autoru pridana informace o zakazanych/povolenych
fotkach: https://osm.fit.vutbr.cz/fody/?stat.author
- vycisteny tagy, ktere nejsou mezi povolenymi ve Fody - drtiva
vetsina preklepy apod.
- kontaktovani autori s poctem fotek >= 20 kteri nemaji souhlas s
podminkami - priprava na zakazani/zruseni fotek techto autoru pokud
nedaji souhlas
  pokud se najdete ve statistice autoru bez souhlasu, staci se
prihlasit na Fody a souhlas udelit.
- podle dosavadnich zprav doreseny problemy s prihlasovanim (Milan
Cerny, Petr Prazak)
- v ramci historie fotky se nyni uklada i zmena stavu povolen/zakazan

Z drive oslovenych autoru kvuli souhlasu se mi neozvali/nevyplnili:
walley, Petr Dlouhý, rilando, tak tem se pripominam, pripadne aspon
dejte vedet, ze nesouhlasite at vas muzu rovnou vyhodit a prestat
otravovat s odtazy.

Jinak dalsi krok zrejme bude doplneni funkce kontroly/verifikace fotek
abych mohl projit votky a zkontrolovat tagy a dalsi udaje.
Predpokladam, ze se bude hodit i do budoucna. Jakmile bude provedena
kontrola fotek, je v planu doresit cyklo versus silnicni a patricne
navaznosti v OsmHiCheck, pripadne na osmap.cz.

Diky a mejte se tom.k

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