Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nouvelle rivière

[Lionel Allorge]

Bonsoir,


Lionel, j'ai assuré la continuité avec le ruisseau de Pont-er-Rui.


Super. Merci.


Dans le coin

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222575770

c'est un brise-lame comme indiqué ou une digue ?


Il faudra que j'aille voir sur place mais pas avant septembre maintenant.

Librement.

--
Lionel Allorge

April : https://www.april.org
Wikimedia France : https://wikimedia.fr
OpenStreetMap : https://www.openstreetmap.org

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] url et ODbL

[Éric Gillet]

Le 11/07/2020 à 15:50, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :

j'ai trouvé des images intéressantes, publiées en ligne, mais aux droits
incertains.
Peut-on les mettre en image= ?
Ou vaut mieux vaut-il s'abstenir ?
Les URL sont publiques, la photo pas forcément (photo issue d'une
collection, années 50 maxi et carte postale d'une maison d'édition
disparue, là aussi années 50 maxi., sans doute 1944). 


Bonjour,

Comme tu le dis, si l'image à vocation à être publique (référencée et 
dispo sans authentification notamment), pas de problème à mon avis pour 
le tag image.
Idéalement l'image aurait une licence libre, mais tant qu'elle ne sert 
pas de source c'est ok :)



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nouvelle rivière

[osm . sanspourriel]

Le 11/07/2020 à 22:11, Jean-Yvon Landrac a écrit :


Leni a dû continuer un peu trop les apéros Skype car il passe le bon
lien et une recherche avec Crac'h donne notamment la rivière en
question^^.

Mais il ne faut pas se restreindre aux cours d'eau !

J'affine le tracé (par toujours celui de Sandre : je suis le cours
majeur) et prolonge en amont et en aval.


Lionel, j'ai assuré la continuité avec le ruisseau de Pont-er-Rui.

J'ai mis toute la partie soumise à marée dans la Rivière de Crac'h mais
Sandre attend le confluent suivant.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87863506

Dans le coin

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222575770

c'est un brise-lame comme indiqué ou une digue ?

Jean-Yvon



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nouvelle rivière

[osm . sanspourriel]

Le 11/07/2020 à 18:46, leni - lenny.li...@orange.fr a écrit :


Voici les adresses que je connais, mais dans une première recherche,
je n'ai pas trouvé ton cours d'eau.

Le site officiel
http://www.sandre.eaufrance.fr/Rechercher-une-donnee-d-un-jeu


Leni a dû continuer un peu trop les apéros Skype car il passe le bon
lien et une recherche avec Crac'h donne notamment la rivière en question^^.

J'affine le tracé (par toujours celui de Sandre : je suis le cours
majeur) et prolonge en amont et en aval.

La limite sud est classiquement là où on arrive en pleine mer.

Jean-Yvon



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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Black Country Geopark

[Andy Mabbett]

Do we have plans to map the new "Black Country Geopark":

   http://blackcountrygeopark.org.uk

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Country_Geopark

or to tag the various components as belonging to it? Is this suitable
for a "relation"?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

[OSM-talk-fr] Mapillary -> opensStreetCam

[Jacques Lavignotte]

Lu sur le foroum Mapillary :


I made a tool to copy your images between Mapillary and OpenStreetCam: 
https://osm.svimik.com/photosync/


https://forum.mapillary.com/t/mapillary-openstreetcam-synchronization-tool/4246

J.

--
GnuPg : 156520BBC8F5B1E3 Because privacy matters.
« Quand est-ce qu'on mange ? » AD (c) (tm)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Andy Mabbett]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 12:39, Mark Goodge  wrote:

> For non-OS maps, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last
> surviving major contributor. The wiki has some information on this:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps#UK

See also:

   
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Unknown_author

   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Anonymous_works#UK

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-at] Bundesdenkmäler / Wien Kunstwerke im öffentlichen Raum

[Stephan Bösch-Plepelits]

In den letzten Tagen hab ich meinen "Checker" noch ziemlich umgebaut und
vor allem modularisiert. Und dadurch kann man jetzt verschiedene
Referenz-Datensätze mit den Wikimedia Projekten und OpenStreetMap
vergleichen.

Derzeit verfügbar:
- Bundesdenkmäler
- Wien Kulturgut: Kunstwerke im öffentlichen Raum

Darum hat der Checker jetzt auch eine neue URL:
https://openstreetmap.at/checker/
und der Source Code:
https://github.com/plepe/ogd-wikimedia-osm-checker

Wiener Kunstwerke im öffentlichen Raum
--
Zu den Wiener Kunstwerken gibt es noch Dinge zu beschliessen. So hab ich
gesehen, dass vereinzelt bereits ein Referenz OSM Tag verwendet wurde,
welcher allerdings bis dato nicht dokumentiert ist, nämlich
'ref:wien:kultur'. Ich hab auch meinem Checker so konfiguriert, dass dieses
Tag verwendet wird.

Hier alle Objekte in OSM, die bereits 'ref:wien:kultur' verwenden:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=nwr%5B%22ref%3Awien%3Akultur%22%5D%3Bout%20body%20geom%3B

In Wikimedia Commons sind Objekte, die diesen Datensatz referenzieren sehr
weit verbreitet. Diese verwenden das Template
{{Public Art Austria|12345|AT-9}} (wobei 12345 durch die ID ersetzt wird)

Es gibt aber derzeit noch kein Attribut in Wikidata um die Kunstwerke zu
referenzieren. Dafür hab ich ein Proposal geschrieben, welches ich in den
nächsten Tagen zur Abstimung freigeben werde. Vielleicht möchte noch
jemand vorher darüber schauen?
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Wien_Kulturgut:_Kunstwerke_im_%C3%B6ffentlichen_Raum_ID

grüße,
Stephan
-- 
Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich
,--.
| Stephan Bösch-Plepelits  ❤ code ❤ urbanism ❤ free software ❤ cycling |
| Projects:|
| > OpenStreetMap: openstreetbrowser.org > openstreetmap.at|
| > Urbanism: Radlobby Wien > Platz für Wien   |
| Contact: |
| > Mail: sk...@xover.mud.at > Blog: plepe.at > Code: github.com/plepe |
| > Twitter: twitter.com/plepe > Jabber: sk...@jabber.at   |
| > Mastodon: @pl...@en.osm.town   |
`--'

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

Re: [Talk-it] [Import] civici Bergamo

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Jul 2020, at 17:28, Andrea Musuruane  wrote:
> 
> Mi sembrava di averti già risposto. Per il creatore della licenza, questa è 
> compatibile con la ODbL. Quindi credo sia sufficiente a fugare i tuoi 
> eventuali dubbi.


non è questione della ODbL, la questione è il progetto OpenStreetMap, che 
consente a chiunque di modificare tutto 


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nouvelle rivière

[Yves P.]

> Existe-t-il un site officiel qui détaille le cours des rivières françaises ?
Tu peux aussi afficher la couche BDCarthage dans JOSM et iD pour visualiser le 
cours d'eau.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/France/BDCarthage

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Nouvelle rivière

[leni]

Le 11/07/2020 à 17:37, Lionel Allorge a écrit :

Bonjour,

Je viens d'ajouter sur OSM la rivière de Crac'h :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87856968

Mais le début et la fin de la rivière sont incertains, le début car il 
s'agit principalement de propriétés privés donc difficile de vérifier 
sur place, la fin car comme il s'agit un aber, je ne sais pas où fini 
la rivière et où commence la mer.


Sur place la seule identification sûre que j'ai trouvé est un panneau 
placé sur le pont de Kerisper entre la Trinité-sur-Mer et 
Saint-Philibert.


Existe-t-il un site officiel qui détaille le cours des rivières 
françaises ?


Voici les adresses que je connais, mais dans une première recherche, je 
n'ai pas trouvé ton cours d'eau.


Le site officiel 
http://www.sandre.eaufrance.fr/Rechercher-une-donnee-d-un-jeu


avec la clé https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:ref:sandre

et le suivi https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/France/Cours_d%27eau/A

cordialement

leni


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

[OSM-talk-fr] Nouvelle rivière

[Lionel Allorge]

Bonjour,

Je viens d'ajouter sur OSM la rivière de Crac'h :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87856968

Mais le début et la fin de la rivière sont incertains, le début car il 
s'agit principalement de propriétés privés donc difficile de vérifier 
sur place, la fin car comme il s'agit un aber, je ne sais pas où fini la 
rivière et où commence la mer.


Sur place la seule identification sûre que j'ai trouvé est un panneau 
placé sur le pont de Kerisper entre la Trinité-sur-Mer et Saint-Philibert.


Existe-t-il un site officiel qui détaille le cours des rivières françaises ?

Merci d'avance pour votre aide.

Librement.

--
Lionel Allorge

April : https://www.april.org
Wikimedia France : https://wikimedia.fr
OpenStreetMap : https://www.openstreetmap.org

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

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Snusmumriken]

On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 02:33 -0300, Agustin Rissoli wrote:
> What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with
> public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop?

In the presence of highway=bus_stop I think the bus_yes tag is
totally unnecessary.


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

Re: [Talk-it] [Import] civici Bergamo

[Andrea Musuruane]

Ciao Martin,

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:45 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 11. Jul 2020, at 10:50, Andrea Musuruane  wrote:
>
>   non avendo ricevuto obiezioni alla proposta di fix di import, credo che
> possiamo continuare come proposto sulla wiki.
>
>
>
> io avevo fatto notare un’obiezione che la iodl non potrebbe essere
> compatibile perché non consente tutte le modifiche: “
>
>- prendere ogni misura ragionevole affinché gli usi innanzi consentiti
>non traggano in inganno altri soggetti e le Informazioni medesime non
>vengano travisate.
>
>
>
> clausole del genere in passato sono state classificate come incompatibili
> nelle discussioni internazionali.
>
> Mi potrei sbagliare ;-)
>

Mi sembrava di averti già risposto. Per il creatore della licenza, questa è
compatibile con la ODbL. Quindi credo sia sufficiente a fugare i tuoi
eventuali dubbi.

Inoltre, non è il primo dataset IODLv2 che entra in OSM, come puoi vedere
nella pagina dei Contributors.

Considerando che nella ML di import nessuno ha fatto obiezioni, per me la
discussione finisce qui. Sei libero di portarla al DWG se lo credi.

Ciao,

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

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

It is useless but harm is minimal - just a pointless tag. As long as mapper is 
not removing
actually used highway=bus_stop it should be OK.

Jul 11, 2020, 07:33 by aguztin...@gmail.com:

> What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with public_transport=platform 
> + highway=bus_stop?
> I can't find info on the wiki that supports this practice, I know it was 
> introduced by iD, but I don't see where this has been discussed.
> My question arises because there is only one user who is adding bus=yes (and 
> train=yes on railway platforms, etc.), to all stops in Argentina, probably 
> correcting the errors that iD marks.
>
>
> Saludos, Agustín.
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

And I in turn consider public_transport tag family as adding nothing useful and
encouraging pointless duplication.

I would be happy to consider them as deprecated, but I am not sure is there a 
clear support
for that.

And I am certain that most of people would be against deprecating 
highway=bus_stop

Introducing public_transport scheme was a mistake, but introducing it while 
keeping
simpler one made no sense at all.

Jul 11, 2020, 10:31 by ro...@daeneke.at:

> If the highway=bus_stop tag is also being used, it seems quite redundant to 
> me. But I would be all for killing that old tag and only using the new p_t 
> scheme (which sadly was proposed as additional instead of the new norm) and 
> then it would be useful to have the mode=yes tags, as long as the platform is 
> not assigned to at least one route relation. As soon as one eg. bus route 
> contains the platform, the bus=yes is implied and hence redundant. But that 
> would just be my view. 
>
> (The p_t scheme would need a new, forced version that fixes such required 
> double taggings, but that is a topic for another time.)
>
> KR
> RobinD (emergency99)
>
>> Am 11.07.2020 um 07:35 schrieb Agustin Rissoli :
>>
>> 
>> What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with public_transport=platform 
>> + highway=bus_stop?
>> I can't find info on the wiki that supports this practice, I know it was 
>> introduced by iD, but I don't see where this has been discussed.
>> My question arises because there is only one user who is adding bus=yes (and 
>> train=yes on railway platforms, etc.), to all stops in Argentina, probably 
>> correcting the errors that iD marks.
>>
>>
>> Saludos, Agustín.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-transit mailing list
>> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>

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

Re: [Talk-it] [Import] civici Bergamo

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Jul 2020, at 10:50, Andrea Musuruane  wrote:
> 
>   non avendo ricevuto obiezioni alla proposta di fix di import, credo che 
> possiamo continuare come proposto sulla wiki.


io avevo fatto notare un’obiezione che la iodl non potrebbe essere compatibile 
perché non consente tutte le modifiche: “
prendere ogni misura ragionevole affinché gli usi innanzi consentiti non 
traggano in inganno altri soggetti e le Informazioni medesime non vengano 
travisate.


clausole del genere in passato sono state classificate come incompatibili nelle 
discussioni internazionali.

Mi potrei sbagliare ;-)

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

[OSM-talk-fr] url et ODbL

[osm . sanspourriel]

Bonjour,

j'ai trouvé des images intéressantes, publiées en ligne, mais aux droits
incertains.

Peut-on les mettre en image= ?

Ou vaut mieux vaut-il s'abstenir ?

Les URL sont publiques, la photo pas forcément (photo issue d'une
collection, années 50 maxi et carte postale d'une maison d'édition
disparue, là aussi années 50 maxi., sans doute 1944).

Jean-Yvon




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Dan S]

If it's truly "open access land" then it's not permissive, it's merely
foot=yes, surely?

Dan

Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 13:20 schreef Michael Collinson :
>
> Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag?
>
> Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you
> usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second,
> there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it
> isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner.
>
> In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where
> unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as
> foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension.
>
> Mike
>
> On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote:
> >> That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g.
> >> Scotland
> >> and England).
> > Not just England, Wales too.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
> >
> >> A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry,
> >> farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that
> >> it
> >> is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would
> >> certainly
> >> help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid
> >> restrictions.
> >>
> >> Nick
> >>
> >> On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:
> >>> Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
> >>> guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
> >>> consensus? It would be super helpful
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>> Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
> >>> :
>  .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used
>  foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case
>  in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I
>  suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly
>  open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
>  permissive path' notice.
> 
>  Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to
>  forestry operations.
> 
>  Nick
> 
> 
>  
>  From: Nick Whitelegg 
>  Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
>  To: Talk GB 
>  Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> 
> 
>  I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in
>  the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas
>  with public access, which are not rights of way but which
>  nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or
>  'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the
>  landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public
>  use.
> 
>  I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain
>  'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It
>  might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the
>  moment we don't know'.
> 
>  I tend to use:
>  designation for rights of way;
>  foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive
>  paths;
>  foot=yes for urban paths;
>  access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out'
>  sign.
> 
>  Nick
> 
> 
>  
>  From: Adam Snape 
>  Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
>  To: Talk GB 
>  Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> 
>  It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway,
>  foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by
>  default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I
>  can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there
>  might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to
>  an implied value.
> 
>  OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat
>  for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where
>  a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is
>  actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is
>  clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing
>  estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and
>  about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways.
> 
>  Kind regards,
> 
>  Adam
>  ___
>  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
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > 

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Itinéraire avec panneaux de muséographie

[Arnaud Champollion]

Le 11/07/2020 à 13:15, osm.sanspourr...@spamgourmet.com a écrit :

1 559 board
Donc c'est le rôle à utiliser.


OK merci j'ai fait comme ça.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Michael Collinson]

Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag?

Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you 
usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second, 
there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it 
isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner.


In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where 
unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as 
foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension.


Mike

On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote:

That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g.
Scotland
and England).

Not just England, Wales too.

Phil (trigpoint)


A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry,
farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that
it
is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would
certainly
help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid
restrictions.

Nick

On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:

Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
consensus? It would be super helpful

Dan

Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
:

.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used
foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case
in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I
suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly
open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
permissive path' notice.

Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to
forestry operations.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common


I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in
the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas
with public access, which are not rights of way but which
nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or
'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public
use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain
'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It
might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the
moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive
paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out'
sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway,
foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by
default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I
can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there
might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat
for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where
a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is
actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is
clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing
estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and
about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

Adam
___
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


___
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] Osmose :: 2 jours dans la vue...

[Jacques Lavignotte]

Y'a du rouge...

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/#zoom=18=48.831493=2.356481==1==

J.

--
GnuPg : 156520BBC8F5B1E3 Because privacy matters.
« Quand est-ce qu'on mange ? » AD (c) (tm)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote:
> That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g.
> Scotland 
> and England).

Not just England, Wales too.

Phil (trigpoint)

> 
> A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, 
> farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that
> it 
> is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would
> certainly 
> help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid 
> restrictions.
> 
> Nick
> 
> On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:
> > Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
> > guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
> > consensus? It would be super helpful
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
> > :
> > > .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used
> > > foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case
> > > in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I
> > > suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly
> > > open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
> > > permissive path' notice.
> > > 
> > > Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to
> > > forestry operations.
> > > 
> > > Nick
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: Nick Whitelegg 
> > > Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
> > > To: Talk GB 
> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in
> > > the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas
> > > with public access, which are not rights of way but which
> > > nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or
> > > 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the
> > > landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public
> > > use.
> > > 
> > > I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain
> > > 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It
> > > might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the
> > > moment we don't know'.
> > > 
> > > I tend to use:
> > > designation for rights of way;
> > > foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive
> > > paths;
> > > foot=yes for urban paths;
> > > access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out'
> > > sign.
> > > 
> > > Nick
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: Adam Snape 
> > > Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
> > > To: Talk GB 
> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> > > 
> > > It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway,
> > > foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by
> > > default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I
> > > can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there
> > > might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to
> > > an implied value.
> > > 
> > > OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat
> > > for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where
> > > a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is
> > > actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is
> > > clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing
> > > estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and
> > > about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways.
> > > 
> > > Kind regards,
> > > 
> > > Adam
> > > ___
> > > 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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Mark Goodge]

On 11/07/2020 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote:

On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google. 
It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom 
level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than 
OS.


For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by 
Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. 


Geographia is a former publisher of maps, now defunct (and not related 
to the US company of the same name).


I also don't 
know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old a street 
atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a name from it.


For non-OS maps, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last 
surviving major contributor. The wiki has some information on this:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps#UK

The atlas should have a publication date on it, somewhere.

Mark


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Itinéraire avec panneaux de muséographie

[osm . sanspourriel]

Sur taginfos je vois :

1 559 board
Donc c'est le rôle à utiliser.

Le 11/07/2020 à 12:46, Jean-Yvon Landrac a écrit :


Bonjour,

Tu as le choix d'après le wiki entre :

  * node  - stop
  * node  way
 area
 - platform
  * node  - guidepost

Ce n'est pas un guidepost : il n'y a pas de panneaux indicateurs.

Ce n'est pas une plateforme. Ce n'est pas là que tu attends tes
chaussures^^.

Ce n'est pas un stop. Ce n'est pas là que tes chaussures t'attendent.
Quoique à la limite si^^. Arrêt facultatif ! Mais c'est plus du genre
à perturber les logiciels (stops sur route piétonne) et non généralisable.

Une appli comme OSMAND affichera les panneaux à proximité du chemin.
N'est-ce pas suffisant ?

Sinon tu peux proposer une nouvelle clé (information ?).

Mes 2 centimes.

Jean-Yvon



Le 11/07/2020 à 11:49, Arnaud Champollion -
arnaud.champoll...@linux-alpes.org a écrit :

Bonjour,

J'ai créé une relation de type "route". Il s'agit d'un itinéraire
pédestre de découverte avec muséographie (8 panneaux) :

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10547078#map=17/44.87090/6.02983

J'ai ajouté les tronçons dans l'ordre.

Est-ce que je peux intégrer dans la relation les panneaux qui le
jalonnent :

http://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%5Bout%3Axml%5D%5Btimeout%3A90%5D%3B%0Aarea(3601299601)-%3E.searchArea%3B%0A(%0Anode%5B%22description%22%3D%22Panneau%20du%20Circuit%20de%20D%C3%A9couverte%20des%20S%C3%A9goins%22%5D(area.searchArea)%3B%0A%0A)%3B%0A(._%3B%3E%3B)%3B%0Aout%20meta%3B


Et avec quel rôle ?

Merci

___
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-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Nick]

That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. Scotland 
and England).


A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, 
farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that it 
is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would certainly 
help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid 
restrictions.


Nick

On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:

Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
consensus? It would be super helpful

Dan

Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
:


.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse 
is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way 
(except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths 
are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a 
permissive path' notice.

Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common


I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, 
or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are 
not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 
'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the 
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' 
to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive 
use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an 
error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the 
tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, 
indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to 
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and 
housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as 
likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

Adam
___
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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Kai Michael Poppe - OSM]

Morning list!

I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could also 
do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street.

K

Am 11. Juli 2020 12:37:33 MESZ schrieb Martin Wynne :
>
>> It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg.
>
>We could do the same. If we don't know whether it is permissible to tag 
>it Fairfield Road in OSM, and there is no actual sign on it, we could 
>call it Fairfields Road.
>
>Martin.
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Itinéraire avec panneaux de muséographie

[osm . sanspourriel]

Bonjour,

Tu as le choix d'après le wiki entre :

 * node  - stop
 * node  way
    area
    - platform
 * node  - guidepost

Ce n'est pas un guidepost : il n'y a pas de panneaux indicateurs.

Ce n'est pas une plateforme. Ce n'est pas là que tu attends tes
chaussures^^.

Ce n'est pas un stop. Ce n'est pas là que tes chaussures t'attendent.
Quoique à la limite si^^. Arrêt facultatif ! Mais c'est plus du genre à
perturber les logiciels (stops sur route piétonne) et non généralisable.

Une appli comme OSMAND affichera les panneaux à proximité du chemin.
N'est-ce pas suffisant ?

Sinon tu peux proposer une nouvelle clé (information ?).

Mes 2 centimes.

Jean-Yvon



Le 11/07/2020 à 11:49, Arnaud Champollion -
arnaud.champoll...@linux-alpes.org a écrit :

Bonjour,

J'ai créé une relation de type "route". Il s'agit d'un itinéraire
pédestre de découverte avec muséographie (8 panneaux) :

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10547078#map=17/44.87090/6.02983

J'ai ajouté les tronçons dans l'ordre.

Est-ce que je peux intégrer dans la relation les panneaux qui le
jalonnent :

http://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%5Bout%3Axml%5D%5Btimeout%3A90%5D%3B%0Aarea(3601299601)-%3E.searchArea%3B%0A(%0Anode%5B%22description%22%3D%22Panneau%20du%20Circuit%20de%20D%C3%A9couverte%20des%20S%C3%A9goins%22%5D(area.searchArea)%3B%0A%0A)%3B%0A(._%3B%3E%3B)%3B%0Aout%20meta%3B


Et avec quel rôle ?

Merci

___
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-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Martin Wynne]

It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg.


We could do the same. If we don't know whether it is permissible to tag 
it Fairfield Road in OSM, and there is no actual sign on it, we could 
call it Fairfields Road.


Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Dan S]

Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
consensus? It would be super helpful

Dan

Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
:
>
>
> .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive 
> en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights 
> of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but 
> all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 
> 'This is a permissive path' notice.
>
> Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry 
> operations.
>
> Nick
>
>
> 
> From: Nick Whitelegg 
> Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
> To: Talk GB 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
>
>
> I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the 
> countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public 
> access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use 
> and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this 
> case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public 
> use.
>
> I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 
> 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have 
> public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.
>
> I tend to use:
> designation for rights of way;
> foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
> foot=yes for urban paths;
> access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.
>
> Nick
>
>
> 
> From: Adam Snape 
> Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
> To: Talk GB 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
>
> It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an 
> error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be 
> the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it 
> and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always 
> preferable to an implied value.
>
> OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
> user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
> stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
> from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks 
> and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and 
> about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
> ___
> 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] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Michael Collinson]

On 2020-07-11 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote:


On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or 
Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at 
that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps 
rather than OS.


For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by 
Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. I also 
don't know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old 
a street atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a 
name from it.


It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. When I 
headed the License Working Group we had an ironic case in Israel where a 
contributor had asked local residents what an unsigned back street was 
called and they told him they knew it as "Pearl Street", which he 
promptly mapped. A local atlas company then got angry that we were 
"copying their data" citing the their made-up Pearl Street as proof. 
Fiction can become fact.


Mike


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

[OSM-talk-fr] Itinéraire avec panneaux de muséographie

[Arnaud Champollion]

Bonjour,

J'ai créé une relation de type "route". Il s'agit d'un itinéraire 
pédestre de découverte avec muséographie (8 panneaux) :


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10547078#map=17/44.87090/6.02983

J'ai ajouté les tronçons dans l'ordre.

Est-ce que je peux intégrer dans la relation les panneaux qui le jalonnent :

http://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%5Bout%3Axml%5D%5Btimeout%3A90%5D%3B%0Aarea(3601299601)-%3E.searchArea%3B%0A(%0Anode%5B%22description%22%3D%22Panneau%20du%20Circuit%20de%20D%C3%A9couverte%20des%20S%C3%A9goins%22%5D(area.searchArea)%3B%0A%0A)%3B%0A(._%3B%3E%3B)%3B%0Aout%20meta%3B

Et avec quel rôle ?

Merci

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Nick Whitelegg]

.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse 
is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way 
(except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths 
are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a 
permissive path' notice.

Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations.

Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common


I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, 
or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are 
not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 
'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the 
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' 
to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive 
use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an 
error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the 
tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, 
indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to 
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and 
housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as 
likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Nick Whitelegg]

I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, 
or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are 
not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 
'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the 
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use.

I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' 
to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive 
use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'.

I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign.

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an 
error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the 
tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, 
indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to 
an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end 
user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly 
stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut 
from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and 
housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as 
likely to be closed as the nearby highways.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-it] [Import] civici Bergamo

[Andrea Musuruane]

Ciao,
non avendo ricevuto obiezioni alla proposta di fix di import, credo che
possiamo continuare come proposto sulla wiki.

Ciao,

Andrea


On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrea Musuruane  wrote:

> Ciao,
> ho scritto alla ML di import. Aspetto i loro feedback.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Andrea
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:49 AM Andrea Albani  wrote:
>
>> Non ho messo mano su questi dati e quindi ringrazio anch'io chi si è
>> sbattuto per salvarli. Concordo con l'approccio proposto da Andrea
>> Musuruane e la procedura descritta nella wiki.
>> Ciao
>>
>> Il giorno ven 29 mag 2020 alle ore 10:09 Andrea Musuruane <
>> musur...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>>> Cascafico, apprezzo la buona volontà, però, prima di fare QA,
>>> *possiamo concordare sul sistemare l'esistente, secondo quanto scritto
>>> sulla wiki?  *
>>>
>>> Una volta che siamo concordi (*servono delle risposte da parte di molti
>>> a questa mail*) bisogna informare la ML di import (mi prendo io questo
>>> onere).
>>>
>>> Altrimenti continuiamo a fare lo stesso errore che ha fatto gigi2037 e
>>> ci avviamo a fare un revert.
>>>
>>> Grazie,
>>>
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>> Talk-it mailing list
>> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Jo]

Let's go back to 2012. An attempt was made to solve a 'problem' and the
'new' model for mapping public transport was proposed.

Some people were mapping stops on the rail/highway, others were mapping
them next to the highway.

For rail, and especially if you have only a single OSM way to represent
multiple tracks, it made sense to map them as a node on the OSM way.

For bus stops however one wants to know on which side of the road the
passengers have to wait, so there it makes most sense to map them as a node
alongside the highway.

The bright mind that created the new model was apparently more used to
mapping railway.

So a stop alongside the way supposedly didn't need a mode of transport.

When I tried to adopt this new way of mapping stops, I thought, like many
others that eventually public_transport=platform would replace
highway=bus_stop. For it to be able to do that, information was missing
though. So I asked on the mailing lists and the answer was to add the mode
of transport to public_transport=platform as well.

Over the course of 8 years the people responsible for rendering were
dragging their feet, first it was technical issues, bus/tram/... was not in
their postgresql tables, later it was simply unwillingness.

Anyway, about a year ago, or maybe already 2 by now it became clear that
public_transport=... will never replace highway=bus_stop,
railway=tram_stop, etc.

So, my conclusion is that the whole public_transport scheme has become
moot. It even causes problems, because people are adding identical details
like name, ref, route_ref, operator, network to both the platform and the
stop_position and are adding both of them to the route relations, which
makes maintenance harder.

If it were me,  I would just map the stop nodes next to the highway with
highway=bus_stop and be done with it. If it serves as a tram stop as well,
I would add railway=tram_stop to that node next to the highway.

I've never mapped public_transport=stop_position very much. Except at the
beginning and the end of the itinerary, as I want to split the way there
anyway.

Polyglot

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 7:34 AM Agustin Rissoli 
wrote:

> What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with
> public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop?
> I can't find info on the wiki that supports this practice, I know it was
> introduced by iD, but I don't see where this has been discussed.
> My question arises because there is only one user who is adding bus=yes
> (and train=yes on railway platforms, etc.), to all stops in Argentina,
> probably correcting the errors that iD marks.
>
>
> Saludos, Agustín.
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Robin Daeneke.at]

If the highway=bus_stop tag is also being used, it seems quite redundant to me. 
But I would be all for killing that old tag and only using the new p_t scheme 
(which sadly was proposed as additional instead of the new norm) and then it 
would be useful to have the mode=yes tags, as long as the platform is not 
assigned to at least one route relation. As soon as one eg. bus route contains 
the platform, the bus=yes is implied and hence redundant. But that would just 
be my view. 

(The p_t scheme would need a new, forced version that fixes such required 
double taggings, but that is a topic for another time.)

KR
RobinD (emergency99)

> Am 11.07.2020 um 07:35 schrieb Agustin Rissoli :
> 
> 
> What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with public_transport=platform 
> + highway=bus_stop?
> I can't find info on the wiki that supports this practice, I know it was 
> introduced by iD, but I don't see where this has been discussed.
> My question arises because there is only one user who is adding bus=yes (and 
> train=yes on railway platforms, etc.), to all stops in Argentina, probably 
> correcting the errors that iD marks.
> 
> 
> Saludos, Agustín.
> 
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit


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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Steve Doerr]

On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google. 
It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom 
level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than 
OS.


For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by 
Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. I also don't 
know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old a street 
atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a name from it.


--
Steve

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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