date:20160124

On 25/01/2016 3:44 PM, Warin wrote:

Well I have roughly follow this procedure on;

for my previously entered 'Putty State Forest' relation 5806844
and newly entered 'Wollemi National Park' relation 5901253
These are large! ..
My past clickathon for the Putty state forest was some 800 nodes ...
the data there is now well over the 2,000 mark! Much more detail and
accuracy - at some data cost.

I got a .kml file from the website direct, thus avoiding the conversion.
BUT the JOSM simplification did not reduce the number of nodes! I will
have to do some thinking on it and play with it.

Arr found the problem.
JOSM simplify will not touch any node with an elevation. The .klm files
all have elevations (0!) .. removing the elevation tag on the nodes is easy
find type=node .. and then delete the elevation tag .. does it for all
of them.

Maybe I'll try just a section .. say way 393301771 and see if I can
reduce its size.

On 24/01/2016 4:46 PM, Nev Wedding wrote:
Your work flow using the geometries has worked very well for me with
the LPI data and the last bit regarding the merging each item
separately into the existing OSM data seems prudent and makes for
easier management of the data.

Much appreciated
Nev

On 24 Jan 2016, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Davidson
wrote:

The work flow that JOSM wants you to use is to have your new data in
one layer and the existing OSM data in another and to "merge
selection" on individual items. I'm assuming this is to slow down
people just dump-and-running. I found it useful to use the merge
approach as you can delete the ways from the kml layer as you do
each one and it lets you check that you've processed each way.

- Original Message -
From:
"Nev Wedding" >

To:
"OSM Australian Talk List" >
Cc:

Sent:
Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:42:53 +1000
Subject:
Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

(corrected message….opening the .kml file
I have the .kml file and the downloaded osm data as seperate
layers and want to upload the .kml layers which contains all the
updated info)

I have followed this process for Kooyong State Conservation Area
which has gone well after opening the .kml file and have
simplified and added all the tags,
…but on trying to upload the final boundary I get this ominous
message
“
You are about to upload data from the layer 'Kooyong.kml'.
Sending data from this layer is *strongly discouraged*. If you
continue,
it may require you subsequently have to revert your changes, or
force other contributors to.
Are you sure you want to continue?
“

I assume the warning is to dissuade mappers from careless import
of large uncorrected datasets.?

Sooo…, am I ok to continue or is there another reason? ..I am
on-hold here until I see a reply

Nev

On 22 Jan 2016, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Davidson
wrote:

You can extract the geometries from the database directly,
you don't have to scan them. I tried this on three park
areas to see how much work was involved. The recipe I
followed was:

1. Use the query tool to find out how many objects have the
name that you are looking for. You do this with:

http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query

with the return format set to html. Names must be in upper
case and you need to see what object ids are returned. For
example if you search for Yanununbeyan with:

http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml

You get three different ids (198,208,1131) because there is
a Yanununbeyan State Conservation Area, Yanununbeyan Nature
Reserve, and Yanununbeyan National Park. All of which need
to be tagged differently. Follow the object links to find
out what type of area they are.

2. Having found the object id you need you get the geometry
by using the query tool and setting the object id, setting
the output spatial reference to 4326 (WGS84), and changing
the output format to JSON.

3. Save the resulting page, say output.json

4. Use ogr2ogr from GDAL to convert the output into
something JOSM can read:

ogr2ogr -f “KML" output.json output.kml

other way around works for me … ogr2ogr -f “KML” output.ml
output.son on OS X

5. If you have the opendata plugin installed you can open
output.kml in JOSM.

6. Use the simplify way option in JOSM as there are far too
many points in the resulting kml.

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers


On 25/01/2016 12:58 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote:

Hi,

The road is a vector, representing the road.  It does not represent 
the road centreline. It has properties, such as width and lanes, and 
sidewalks.


If the boundary *is* the physical feature, then it is not corrupting 
the data by making it align with the physical feature. If the boundary 
is not the physical feature, then don't align it.


The NSW/Victorian border has been done entirely along the riverbank.  
Much of it by me and a few others after you guys decided to take your 
bat & ball.  So, I don't believe this is actually an issue.  Do you 
have any examples of where this is a concern?


Tracing the actual border between NSW/Victorian border was actually 
quite interesting.  You have the gradual accretion or divulsion to 
consider, and it is clear the LPI data is not necessarily aligned with 
what is current.  Most of the border that I've traced I'd consider to 
be more current than the LPI data, and I'd certainly want to thrash it 
out before someone started replacing it with yet another import. We've 
had so much ugliness in the past with these imported data sets with no 
follow up.


This issue doesn't come up too much with property boundaries - that 
are defined independent of the roads.  It does come up with rivers and 
coastline, and other areas where the physical feature is what is the 
boundary.


There are places ..(when I came across one again I'll post a link) where 
the road goes down the centre of the boundaries between two properties.
Being a lazy Ozie I would prefer to tag the road and use that as the 
boundary! Save a lot of work, the meaning is fairly clear .. and has 
very few impacts on actual use of the  map rather than legal niceties.


However ... with this data being translated across 'we' get lots of 
nodes and detail... with very little 'work'. So it does make it 
practical to have the road separate from the boundary.
But if I were entering each node by hand .. you would have the road 
forming the boundary (as tagged by me). Someone with more time can do 
that detail .. probably less than 10 meters in it.

Ian.


On 25 January 2016 at 11:09, Ross > wrote:


In Australia all property boundaries are not the centreline of the
road there is always a road reserve as Andrew pointed out.  So
simple do not make boundaries the road.



Some roads are 'easements' through the property... 
http://www.findlaw.com.au/faqs/2296/what-is-an-easement.aspx
I tend not to map those .. the presence of the road may indicate it .. 
or not as the case may be. Again this is by hand.


Consider that the amount of things to map is vast, these details can 
treble it making getting placing these details on the map a much longer 
process.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

2016-01-24 Thread Ross




On 25/01/16 11:58, Ian Sergeant wrote:

Hi,

The road is a vector, representing the road.  It does not represent 
the road centreline. It has properties, such as width and lanes, and 
sidewalks.


If the boundary *is* the physical feature, then it is not corrupting 
the data by making it align with the physical feature. If the boundary 
is not the physical feature, then don't align it.


How do you know it is the physical feature?

Just because it follows approximately the feature does not mean it is.  
When originally gazetted the physical feature may have been located 
differently (roads, railways realigned, rivers making new paths)  Don't 
automatically assume that the feature is still in the same place without 
looking at the imagery or physical survey.  Don't assume that the 
boundary changes to the new position of the road, etc.





The NSW/Victorian border has been done entirely along the riverbank.  
Much of it by me and a few others after you guys decided to take your 
bat & ball.  So, I don't believe this is actually an issue.  Do you 
have any examples of where this is a concern?



No.  It was just an example of were an incorrect assumption had been made.

Tracing the actual border between NSW/Victorian border was actually 
quite interesting.  You have the gradual accretion or divulsion to 
consider, and it is clear the LPI data is not necessarily aligned with 
what is current.  Most of the border that I've traced I'd consider to 
be more current than the LPI data, and I'd certainly want to thrash it 
out before someone started replacing it with yet another import. We've 
had so much ugliness in the past with these imported data sets with no 
follow up.


But the border has not changed the river might have but there is no 
change to the border from when it was first surveyed/gazetted.  The 
border is the line as when gazetted, not as where the riverbank is now.


An example of this is here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-36.19879/148.03658

Open it in josm then open the nsw imagery, and the nsw basemap and you 
can see where the river was originally and where the border runs.



Cheers
Ross

This issue doesn't come up too much with property boundaries - that 
are defined independent of the roads.  It does come up with rivers and 
coastline, and other areas where the physical feature is what is the 
boundary.



Ian.



On 25 January 2016 at 11:09, Ross > wrote:


In Australia all property boundaries are not the centreline of the
road there is always a road reserve as Andrew pointed out.  So
simple do not make boundaries the road.

Likewise be very careful assuming the boundary is the centreline
of a river.  eg the NSW Victoria border along the Murray River. 
If you don't know it's actually the southern river bank.


Realistically with these boundaries if you move them to align with
any physical  feature then you are corrupting the data.  Also  if
you make the boundary part of a physical feature without checking
the full length of the boundary then you are corrupting the data
again.

It's really much cleaner and easier to just import/trace the
boundary.  If this shows up where a road/railway/whatever should
be then trace it from the imagery as a separate way and tag it
appropriately.

Cheers
Ross



On 25/01/16 08:53, Ian Sergeant wrote:

On 25 January 2016 at 09:29, Andrew Davidson
> wrote:

 The boundaries of the parks and forests are not going to be
roads as they consist of a number of property lots that get
declared for that purpose. Property boundaries don't run down
the middle of the road, they'll be offset (at times the
existing road isn't within the road reserve anymore). 
Property boundaries can be rivers (bank or thalweg depending)

or the MHWM (also known as the "coast" in OSM).


If OSM was only a colouring-in exercise, then this would be
straightforward.

However, roads in OSM are a vector representation of the road. 
And is is very common for the boundary of an area to be the road

itself, that is there is no small gap between the area and the road.

When the boundary of an area *is* the road, then I think it's
entirely correct to include the ways that make up the road in the
multi-poly that defines the area. Even though the vector nature
of OSM slightly expands features that are 2 dimensional when they
are adjacent to features that are 1 dimensional. The data is correct.

Of course, if the boundary isn't defined by the road, but just
happens to be close to it, then that's different.

Ian.


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

Re: [Talk-us] users cam98 and cameronk1998 causing issues around austin

2016-01-24 Thread Rihards


On 2016.01.24. 08:08, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 07:34 +0200, Rihards wrote:

these two new useraccounts seem to be used by the same person :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/cam98
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/cameronk1998


This may well be the same user as an account named Cam4rd98, which I
remember causing trouble in the past as well.


ah, yes, seeing such username in the history. looks like they also used 
"Cameron918"


looks like this has been going on for quite a few years. has that person 
ever responded to anybody ?

--
 Rihards

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

[Talk-at] Urheberrechtsabgaben und Verwertungsgesellschaften

2016-01-24 Thread Friedrich Volkmann

Vielleicht kann sich noch der eine oder andere noch erinnern, dass die
Austro Mechana 2010 sich über ein Urteil des OGH hinweggesetzt und
Urhebberechtsabgaben (URA, neuerdings auch Speichermedienvergütung genannt)
auf Festplatten eingefordert hat. Nicht alle Händler fügten sich der
Forderung, deshalb betrieben die Verwertungsgesellschaften Lobbying in der
Politik und erreichten mit Mitteln, die sich jeder selber denken kann, dass
die SPÖ-Minister Schmied und dann Ostermayer der Abgabe wohlwollend
gegenüberstanden. Nach Verhandlungen der Industrie mit dem Handel - die
Konsumentenvertreter spielten nicht wirklich mit - wurde im Herbst die
Abgabe auf alle Arten von Speichermedien (Festplatten, SD-Karten, USB-Sticks
usw.) gesetzlich gedeckt.

Das neue Gesetz sieht aber auch vor, dass die Verwertungsgesellschaft die
URA zurückzuzahlen hat "an den Letztverbraucher, der Speichermedien zu einem
Preis erworben hat, der die bezahlte Vergütung einschließt, diese jedoch
nicht für Vervielfältigungen zum eigenen oder privaten Gebrauch benutzt oder
benutzen lässt" (Urheberrechtsgesetz=UrhG §42b Abs. 6) und dafür "auf ihrer
Website einen einfachen, verständlichen und für den durchschnittlichen
Nutzer nachvollziehbaren Weg für die Geltendmachung des Rückersatzanspruchs
und der Befreiung von der Zahlungspflicht anzubieten, der eine wirksame
Geltendmachung ermöglicht und mit keiner übermäßigen Erschwernis verbunden
ist" (Abs. 8). Wie sich die Austro Mechana schon nicht ans Urteil des OGH
hielt, hält sie sich nun auch nicht an diese §§, denn auf ihrer Website
www.aume.at ist keine einfache Möglichkeit der Rückerstattung zu finden.
Wenn man genau sucht, findet man Formulare für Firmen, für Konsumenten gibt
es nichts. Und sogar für Firmen ist die Rückforderung kompliziert und
kostspielig (Porto). Ich habe die Austro Mechana darum am 3. Jänner per Mail
um Auskunft gebeten. Es kam schnell eine automatische
Mailempfangsbestätigung, auf eine Antwort warte ich immer noch.

Das betrifft uns als Mapper in vielfacher Hinsicht. Wenn wir eine
Speicherkarte fürs Garmin kaufen, zahlen wir URA an die Austro Mechana. Wenn
wir eine Speicherkarte für die Kamera kaufen, ebenso. Wenn wir ein Handy
kaufen, ditto. Wenn wir die Daten auf die Festplatte kopieren - für die
haben wir ebenfalls URA abgeliefert. Und natürlich brauchen wir Backups -
schon wieder zahlen wir URA. Wir zahlen ununterbrochen an die
Musikindustrie, obwohl wir die Speichermedien überhaupt nicht für Musik
brauchen. Es sind im wesentlichen unsere eigenen Daten, die wir abspeichern.
Wir sind nicht die Datennutzer, sondern die Urheber.

Und das bringt mich zum eigentlichen Grund, warum ich dieses Mail schreibe.
Als Urheber sollten wir durchs neue Gesetz eigentlich nicht zur Kasse
gebeten werden, sondern ganz im Gegenteil etwas von dem Kuchen abbekommen.
Und wenn man bedenkt, dass heute schon auf so gut wie jedem Handy oder Navi
OSM-Daten drauf sind bzw. genutzt werden, dann steht uns nicht nur ein
kleiner Teil des Kuchens zu, sondern ein großer. Es geht um richtig viel Kohle.

OSM ist eine Datenbank und somit nach UrhG §40f Abs. 2 als
Sammelwerk urheberrechtlich geschützt. Nach §6 sind aber zusätzlich auch die
einzelnen Datenbankeinträge (Ways usw.) urheberrechtlich geschützt. Da fragt
sich zunächst, ob diese als "Sprachwerke aller Art einschließlich
Computerprogramme" (§2 Abs. 1), als "Werke wissenschaftlicher oder
belehrender Art, die in bildlichen Darstellungen in der Fläche oder im Raume
bestehen" (§2 Abs. 3) oder als "Werke der bildenden Künste" (§3) einzuordnen
sind. Da Datenbanken keine Computerprogramme sind, sondern bestenfalls
Bestandteil von Computerprogrammen, und ich mich auch nicht als bildender
Künstler fühle, fallen die einzelnen Daten m.E. eindeutig unter §2 Abs. 3.

Wenn OSM-Daten aber in einem Computerprogramm verwendet werden, sind wir
zugleich auch Miturheber dieses Computerprogramms.

D.h. mit dem Hochladen von Daten in OSM werden wir auf dreifacher Weise zu
Urhebern:
1.) als Urheber eines Werkes der Literatur nach §2 Abs. 3
2.) als Miturheber eines Sammelwerks nach §6 bzw. §40f
3.) als Miturheber eines Computerprogramms, also eines Werkes der Literatur
nach §2 Abs. 1.

Der Vollständigkeit halber erwähne ich noch, dass wir bei Veröffentlichung
von Texten im Internet außerdem folgendes sind:
4.) Urheber von Werken der Literatur (Beiträge in Mailinglisten, Webforen,
eigene Webseiten...)
5.) Miturheber von Werken der Literatur (Wikiseiten usw.)

Diese Kategorien entscheiden, welche Verwertungsgesellschaft für uns
zuständig ist. Es gibt nämlich eine ganze Reihe von Verwertungsgesellschaften:

A) Austro Mechana, AKM und LSG vertreten die Musikindustrie
Aa) Austro Mechana kassiert bei Datenträgern
Ab) AKM kassiert bei Radiosendungen, Aufführungen in Lokalen u.dgl.
Ac) LSG kassiert ebenfalls von Lokalen und zusätzlich von Fluggesellschaften
B) Literar Mechana vertritt Autoren und kassiert bei Kopierern, Druckern,
Scannern usw. sowie von Rundfunkanstalten und

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

Well I have roughly follow this procedure on;

for my previously entered 'Putty State Forest' relation 5806844

and newly entered 'Wollemi National Park' relation 5901253
These are large! ..
My past clickathon for the Putty state forest was some 800 nodes ... the
data there is now well over the 2,000 mark! Much more detail and
accuracy - at some data cost.

I got a .kml file from the website direct, thus avoiding the conversion.
BUT the JOSM simplification did not reduce the number of nodes! I will
have to do some thinking on it and play with it.

Maybe I'll try just a section .. say way 393301771 and see if I can
reduce its size.

Much appreciated
Nev

On 24 Jan 2016, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Davidson > wrote:

The work flow that JOSM wants you to use is to have your new data in
one layer and the existing OSM data in another and to "merge
selection" on individual items. I'm assuming this is to slow down
people just dump-and-running. I found it useful to use the merge
approach as you can delete the ways from the kml layer as you do each
one and it lets you check that you've processed each way.

- Original Message -
From:
"Nev Wedding" >

To:
"OSM Australian Talk List" >
Cc:

Sent:
Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:42:53 +1000
Subject:
Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

(corrected message….opening the .kml file
I have the .kml file and the downloaded osm data as seperate
layers and want to upload the .kml layers which contains all the
updated info)

I assume the warning is to dissuade mappers from careless import
of large uncorrected datasets.?

Sooo…, am I ok to continue or is there another reason? ..I am
on-hold here until I see a reply

Nev

On 22 Jan 2016, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Davidson
> wrote:

You can extract the geometries from the database directly,
you don't have to scan them. I tried this on three park areas
to see how much work was involved. The recipe I followed was:

1. Use the query tool to find out how many objects have the
name that you are looking for. You do this with:

http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query

with the return format set to html. Names must be in upper
case and you need to see what object ids are returned. For
example if you search for Yanununbeyan with:

http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml

You get three different ids (198,208,1131) because there is a
Yanununbeyan State Conservation Area, Yanununbeyan Nature
Reserve, and Yanununbeyan National Park. All of which need to
be tagged differently. Follow the object links to find out
what type of area they are.

3. Save the resulting page, say output.json

4. Use ogr2ogr from GDAL to convert the output into something
JOSM can read:

ogr2ogr -f “KML" output.json output.kml

other way around works for me … ogr2ogr -f “KML” output.ml output.son
on OS X

5. If you have the opendata plugin installed you can open
output.kml in JOSM.

6. Use the simplify way option in JOSM as there are far too
many points in the resulting kml. I personally thought that
the default 3m looks OK.

7. Tag the ways with an appropriate source:geometry and add a
note to the effect that the way has been

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

2016-01-24 Thread Andrew Harvey

On 25 January 2016 at 15:31, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
>> But the border has not changed the river might have but there is no change 
>> to the border from when it was first surveyed/gazetted.  The border is the 
>> line as when gazetted, not as where the riverbank is now.
>
> I think you're wrong.  The border has been defined by High Court
> Judgement as including accretions and erosion.  Including landslip
> such as in the Ward case.
>
> Of course, where the river has fundamentally changed course, the
> original course remains the boundary.  But gradual erosion actually
> changes the border.

Agreed, but this is only for natural features, not man made roads or
rail ways. I think in these cases it makes sense to share the boundary
(or better yet use a multiploygon relation where the river way is just
a member of the protected area relation).

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

[Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: 27,232 matches found in England

2016-01-24 Thread Edward Betts

I've extended my search for matches between OSM and Wikidata. It now covers
all of England instead of just the West Midlands.

The results are grouped by region or county as well as by category.

http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/england/

It should be possible to use this a basis for uploading. The results can be
grouped by category and county when uploaded.
-- 
Edward.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

2016-01-24 Thread Dan S

2016-01-24 11:42 GMT+00:00 Ed Loach :
> Stuart wrote:
>
>> 1 site, 2 schools:
>> • boundary has amenity=school
>> • buildings have school names & e.g. edubase tags. I used amenity=school for
>> the individual buildings though, as well as building=school. It should 
>> probably
>> only be building=school, really, as the site is the amenity. But this way it 
>> gets
>> picked up on the match tool.
>> • I would ideally like to have named the boundary e.g. “Hamstel Schools”
>> or “Chalkwell Schools” but haven’t as that will (for now) lead to a false 
>> “look at” flag.
>
> I think what you describe as what you’d ideally like to do is what I did in 
> those examples I mentioned in my previous email (I can't remember though 
> whether I used building=school or building=yes).
>
>> 1 school, 2 sites.
>>
>> • I used the site relation, via JOSM. I believe that this is the correct way 
>> to do it. I
>> tagged the site relation with the edubase code and names, and the individual 
>> sites
>> with the names of e.g. “XX upper school” and “XX lower school”. However, 
>> these
>> didn’t get matched.
>
> The site relation page however
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal
> suggests it should be multipolygon and not site -
> "For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of the school 
> grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon relation can be 
> used. Usage of a site relation is not appropriate here."

Hi - it's an interesting ambiguity between "multipolygon" and "site".
I actually think the thing you quote is a bit mis-worded, and what
they're trying to say (I'm inferring from the other sentences in the
wiki page...!) is that you should use "multipolygon" to aggregate
multiple buildings (for example) that sit within a single grounds,
whereas you should use "site" to aggregate multiple objects that are
more widely separated ("scattered throughout across the city" is the
wiki guidance).

This shows that OSM could perhaps live without the "site" relation if
people simply used multipolygons. However I think people tend to
assume multipolygons are quite localised, which probably makes a
difference to how they are rendered (e.g. one label for a whole
multipolygon, vs one label for each member of a site).

Anyone else got input on this? I might tweak the wiki, if it seems I'm
not in the wrong.

Best
Dan

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

On 24/01/16 13:09, Lester Caine wrote:
> That just leave 4 more objects to check :)

OK most of the 'red dot' items were out of area, but I've tidied them up
anyway as they are still Worcestershire.

Pershore College has been sort of solved by following the current
signage ;) It has 'Part of Warwickshire College' on the entrance signs,
so I've added that to the name.

The campuses of 'Heart of Worcestershire College' all seem to have new
signs with that on but nothing else, so I've added a '- xxx' with the
campus name taken from their website. On my todo list still is to add
the rest of the missing sites.

Think hat this just leaves the Abbey Park Schools problem and the New
College Worcester to be sorted. The information is in the database, just
the progress display showing a problem.

Next month I'll move on to 'DY' as a lot of that is still
'Worcestershire' :)

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

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

[OSM-talk-be] Bicycle highways

2016-01-24 Thread Matthieu Gaillet

Hi,

Below you will find some information about the developing bicycle highways (or 
fast cycling routes) a bit everywhere in the world. 

I was wondering if anything was foreseen to tag such highways ? If not, what's 
the best place to discuss this, since I guess this should be uniform at world 
level ?

Thanks for your answer,

Matthieu (sur iMobile)

Début du message transféré :
> 
> Une recherche, évidemment loin d’être exhaustive, m’a fourni une première 
> liste de ce que l’ECF (European Cyclists’ Federation) dénomme les  Fast 
> Cycling Routes :
> •  CH: Velobahn (Schaffhouse), TransAgglo (Fribourg), . 
> •  DE: Radschnellwege  (Ruhr, Berlin, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, München, …)
> •  DK: Supercykelstier (Kobenhavn)
> •  FR: REV, Réseau Express Vélo, Autoroute à vélos (Toulouse), Vélostras 
> (Strasbourg), Grenoble, Paris,
> •  NL: Snelle Fietsroutes, Snelbinder
> 
> •  SV: Supercykelväg (Malmoe)
> •  UK: Cycle Superhighways (London)
> •  US: California Cycleway(1896)
> •  VL: Fietsostrades (réalisations ; projets dans les 5 provinces)
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: State Park Boundary shp file

2016-01-24 Thread Ian Butler

Another possibility for state park boundary shp files might be the Oklahoma 
Protected Areas Database at the Oklahoma Biological Survey.  
I have not seen this data; but I worked on the original public lands layer for 
the Oklahoma GAP project.

http://biosurvey.ou.edu/PAD/PAD.html

"PAD-OK is an aggregated dataset, incorporating data as provided by land 
owners, administrators, or best available sources. 
Inconsistencies in data quality and scale may be present. Because of possible 
data inconsistencies, PAD-OK is best for landscape 
level analysis (1:100,000 or greater)..."

Contact Todd Fagin: tfagin at ou dot edu for info.

I hope this helps.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

2016-01-24 Thread Ed Loach

Stuart wrote:

> 1 site, 2 schools:
> • boundary has amenity=school
> • buildings have school names & e.g. edubase tags. I used amenity=school for 
> the individual buildings though, as well as building=school. It should 
> probably 
> only be building=school, really, as the site is the amenity. But this way it 
> gets 
> picked up on the match tool.
> • I would ideally like to have named the boundary e.g. “Hamstel Schools” 
> or “Chalkwell Schools” but haven’t as that will (for now) lead to a false 
> “look at” flag.

I think what you describe as what you’d ideally like to do is what I did in 
those examples I mentioned in my previous email (I can't remember though 
whether I used building=school or building=yes).

> 1 school, 2 sites.
> 
> • I used the site relation, via JOSM. I believe that this is the correct way 
> to do it. I 
> tagged the site relation with the edubase code and names, and the individual 
> sites 
> with the names of e.g. “XX upper school” and “XX lower school”. However, 
> these 
> didn’t get matched.

The site relation page however 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal
suggests it should be multipolygon and not site -
"For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of the school 
grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon relation can be used. 
Usage of a site relation is not appropriate here."

Ed

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

2016-01-24 Thread Ed Loach

> > The site relation page however
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Prop
> osal
> > suggests it should be multipolygon and not site -
> > "For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of
> the school grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon
> relation can be used. Usage of a site relation is not appropriate
> here."
> 
> Hi - it's an interesting ambiguity between "multipolygon" and "site".
> I actually think the thing you quote is a bit mis-worded, and what
> they're trying to say (I'm inferring from the other sentences in the
> wiki page...!) is that you should use "multipolygon" to aggregate
> multiple buildings (for example) that sit within a single grounds,
> whereas you should use "site" to aggregate multiple objects that are
> more widely separated ("scattered throughout across the city" is the
> wiki guidance).
> 
> This shows that OSM could perhaps live without the "site" relation if
> people simply used multipolygons. However I think people tend to
> assume multipolygons are quite localised, which probably makes a
> difference to how they are rendered (e.g. one label for a whole
> multipolygon, vs one label for each member of a site).
> 
> Anyone else got input on this? I might tweak the wiki, if it seems I'm
> not in the wrong.

I personally don't see the difference between our case here (a school with 
multiple sites/campuses) and the university example provided on the page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Examples
Although having said that the amenity=university wiki page suggests a 
multipolygon should be used (an unanswered question on the talk page there asks 
how to put the different campus names on the relevant member areas).

However, I think in the standard render that Site gets no labels and 
multipolygons gets one for each outer way (based on local woods with the name 
all over the place). Not that how things render should affect our choice.

The other bit of text on that wiki page though is "The features should have a 
close geographic relationship, usually within the same town." I'll cling to the 
word 'usually' if we decide to use site relations for multi-campus schools, as 
Colchester Institute has a Clacton campus, and Tendring Technology College has 
the main school in Frinton and the second campus in Thorpe-le-Soken. I've not 
yet worked out what to do about the mapped Adult Community Learning centres 
that don't have edubase refs and are scattered across Essex (there are three 
centres already mapped and tagged as amenity=college in the CO area - Harwich, 
Clacton and Colchester) - this relates 
https://www.essex.gov.uk/Adult-Learning/Pages/Default.aspx

So I'm currently unconvinced by the site relation, especially as the discussion 
on its talk page suggests the proposal is still evolving - it seems I commented 
on it nearly 5 years ago and since forgot.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

On 24/01/16 10:43, Ed Loach wrote:
> But the above and my edits yesterday make me wonder if we can settle on a way 
> to map two schools that share grounds. I have been tagging the grounds as 
> amenity=school, and the separate buildings for the two schools with the 
> different ref:edubase etc tags on. These don't get matched - I end up with a 
> proximity match for one of the two schools to the school grounds area, and a 
> blue dot for the other.
> Examples: 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/393006341
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/64096389

I have the same problem with Abbey Park Schools
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.110348=-2.081149=16#map=18/52.10995/-2.08240
The central block is shared along with the grounds, and both school
buildings have their edubase ref, but the site does not so the check fails.

I'm three schools down on 100%, the other 'problem' New College
Worcester is the RNIB College, and has two edubase references for some
reason. I've tagged with the one which matches the website, and added a
node for the second, but need some way to make sure it's recognised? The
progress list quotes this as 'New College Worcester' but that is not
what appears on the edubase list ... New College Worcester (ISP) and New
College Worcester (NMSS) have different ids.

Not sure how Northwick Manor Primary School slipped through the net ;)

My other problems are South Worcestershire College, which is two
campuses one in Evesham, which edubase identifies, and the second in
Malvern ... which is not listed. However the bigger problem in my todo
list is Heart of Worcestershire College, which also has a campus in
Malvern along with another dozen sites spread around Worcester,
Bromsgrove and Redditch.

Pershore College is on the not matching list, and is now part of the
Warwickshire College Group. So I think I just need to switch the edubase
to that. Worcester Snoezelen is another one of those specialist teaching
centres that edubase does not list but is correct, so how do we tag them
to be ignored? Same with 'Avoncroft Arts Centre' but that is not in the
WR area, having a B postcode I think.

That just leave 4 more objects to check :)

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

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Silnice se v zimě neudržuje

2016-01-24 Thread Miroslav Suchý

Dne 23.1.2016 v 20:46 Petr Vozdecký napsal(a):
> ...no a ted by to chtelo hlidat rozdilove aktualizace v tom seznamu,
> protoze za par let to bude natolik jinak, ze pripadny dobrovolnik bude
> muset zacit od zacatku...

Mno dle toho co jsem videl se ten seznam bude menit asi velmi velmi
minimalne. Ale obecne receno mas pravdu.

> Minimalne by bylo vhodne zachytit (a nekam umistit) treba textovou
> podobu toho seznamu ke dni (tve) aplikace tech dat a pripadnou
> "rozdilovku" tak bude mit moznost udelat kdokoliv v budoucnu manualne.
> 

Done.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Czech_Republic/III._class_roads#Silnice_se_v_zim.C4.9B_neudr.C5.BEuje

Mirek

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Bicycle highways

2016-01-24 Thread Glenn Plas

Nothing really special about them,  highway=cycleway should be appropriate.

Glenn

On 24-01-16 13:12, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Below you will find some information about the developing bicycle
> highways (or fast cycling routes) a bit everywhere in the world. 
> 
> I was wondering if anything was foreseen to tag such highways ? If not,
> what's the best place to discuss this, since I guess this should be
> uniform at world level ?
> 
> Thanks for your answer,
> 
> Matthieu (sur iMobile)
> 
> Début du message transféré :
>>
>> Une recherche, évidemment loin d’être exhaustive, m’a fourni une
>> première liste de ce que l’ECF (European Cyclists’ Federation) dénomme
>> les  */Fast Cycling Routes/** :*
>> •  CH: Velobahn (Schaffhouse), TransAgglo (Fribourg), . 
>> •  DE: Radschnellwege  (Ruhr, Berlin, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, München, …)
>> •  DK: Supercykelstier (Kobenhavn)
>> •  FR: REV, Réseau Express Vélo, Autoroute à vélos (Toulouse),
>> Vélostras (Strasbourg), Grenoble, Paris,
>> •  NL: SnelleFietsroutes, Snelbinder
>> Image en ligne
>> •  SV: Supercykelväg (Malmoe)
>> •  UK: Cycle Superhighways (London)
>> •  US: California Cycleway(1896)
>> •  VL: Fietsostrades (réalisations ; projets dans les 5 provinces)
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Bicycle highways

2016-01-24 Thread Sander Deryckere

Bicycle highways are more like bicycle routes than different highway types.

They are a route specifically made for commuting, connecting residential
area with some work center in a rather straight line.

As such, I think those could get tagged as a cycle route with some specific
sub tags (like a special network).

The question is though: are they verifiable on the ground. Or is it just
that European list naming them. It should only be tagged when you see
something on the ground that you can relate to bicycle highways.

Regards,
Sander

2016-01-24 15:00 GMT+01:00 Glenn Plas :

> Nothing really special about them,  highway=cycleway should be appropriate.
>
> Glenn
>
> On 24-01-16 13:12, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Below you will find some information about the developing bicycle
> > highways (or fast cycling routes) a bit everywhere in the world.
> >
> > I was wondering if anything was foreseen to tag such highways ? If not,
> > what's the best place to discuss this, since I guess this should be
> > uniform at world level ?
> >
> > Thanks for your answer,
> >
> > Matthieu (sur iMobile)
> >
> > Début du message transféré :
> >>
> >> Une recherche, évidemment loin d’être exhaustive, m’a fourni une
> >> première liste de ce que l’ECF (European Cyclists’ Federation) dénomme
> >> les  */Fast Cycling Routes/** :*
> >> •  CH: Velobahn (Schaffhouse), TransAgglo (Fribourg), .
> >> •  DE: Radschnellwege  (Ruhr, Berlin, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, München, …)
> >> •  DK: Supercykelstier (Kobenhavn)
> >> •  FR: REV, Réseau Express Vélo, Autoroute à vélos (Toulouse),
> >> Vélostras (Strasbourg), Grenoble, Paris,
> >> •  NL: SnelleFietsroutes, Snelbinder
> >> Image en ligne
> >> •  SV: Supercykelväg (Malmoe)
> >> •  UK: Cycle Superhighways (London)
> >> •  US: California Cycleway(1896)
> >> •  VL: Fietsostrades (réalisations ; projets dans les 5 provinces)
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> >
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] OSM with Wikidata: 27, 232 matches found in England

2016-01-24 Thread Dan S

Hi,

All looking interesting! Skimming around some of the data I know and
the vasy majority of it is looking sensible and useful.

I'm curious how The Shard ended up matching against its correct match
but also London Bridge station? The station doesn't seem to have any
matching metadata:
http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/england/region/Greater_London/Apartment_buildings

I managed to find a few erroneous one-to-one matches in London:
Q12048395 — The Queen's Walk (South Bank) — HMS Belfast (way, distance: 5.0 km)
Q55019 — Covent Garden — Royal Opera House (way, distance: 71 m)
Q607700 — Monument to the Great Fire of London — Tower Bridge (node,
distance: 1.4 km)
Q5571009 — Globe Theatre (Newcastle Street) — Shakespeare's Globe
(relation, distance: 2.5 km)
  - note that this one confuses the historic with the modern
theatre of the same name. The modern one has a separate wkp page.
Q43279 — Wembley Stadium (1923) — Wembley Stadium (way, distance: 0 m)
  - again the correct connection should be with the modern stadium
Q3527632 — Dorset Garden Theatre — Queen's (way, distance: 2.8 km)
  - another historic thing (Dorset Garden was called Queen's at one point)

I presume this stuff happens because of the density of things in
London. I could only find one mismatch in the North West:

Q7131478 — Panopticons — The Halo (node, distance: 119 m)
 - The Halo doesn't seem to have a wikipedia entry of its own
(it's one item in the Panopticons series; it is not itself the
series). On further investigation, I discovered that the reason for
this false match is because a wikipedia bot made a mistake in editing
geolocations (see
).


Best
Dan

2016-01-24 11:46 GMT+00:00 Edward Betts :
> I've extended my search for matches between OSM and Wikidata. It now covers
> all of England instead of just the West Midlands.
>
> The results are grouped by region or county as well as by category.
>
> http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/england/
>
> It should be possible to use this a basis for uploading. The results can be
> grouped by category and county when uploaded.
> --
> Edward.
>
> ___
> Imports mailing list
> impo...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports

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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

2016-01-24 Thread Ian Sergeant

On 25 January 2016 at 15:45, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> I think in these cases it makes sense to share the boundary
> (or better yet use a multiploygon relation where the river way is just
> a member of the protected area relation).

I always use multipolys for this.  Multi-tagging or ways sharing
consecutive nodes becomes quickly unmanageable in the OSM toolset..

Ian.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Cimiteri comunali

2016-01-24 Thread Aury88

voschix wrote
> Secondo me la wiki non è (più) coretta. La "mia" definizione viene da
> Wikipedia. Il testo della wiki è stato recentemente  modificato.

non vedo a cosa ti riferisci...l'ultimo cambiamento sarà pure del dicembre
2015 ma il cambiamento rispetto una versione del 2013 presa a caso non è sul
contenuto o l'uso del tagda allora si sono aggiunti  solo i suggeriti
dei tag associati e poco altro.
è dal 2009 che il tag amenity=grave_yard si riferisce al cimitero posto di
fianco alla chiesa...
ora non metto in dubbio che sia una traduzione non corretta o un utilizzo
non appropriato alla reale interpretazione del termine graveyard, ma sta di
fatto che è utilizzato così all'interno del database OSM da anni e se guardi
la discussione del wiki non ci sono lamentele/contestazioni/ proposte di
alternative e questo lascia pensare ad un generale accettazione del tag così
com'è...addirittura il wiki del tag cemetery è basato sulla diversità dal
graveyard...
un cambiamento di interpretazione dovrebbe quindi quanto meno venir proposto
ed accettato;
anche se semanticamente/concettualmente differente da ciò per cui è usato,
l'applicarlo adesso senza un lavoro strutturato, documentato e coordinato
servirebbe semplicemente ad avere lo stesso tag usato per indicare due cose
diverse e rendendolo di fatto ancora più ambiguo e meno gestibile.
fino a quando non si sarà imposto il cambio di tag imho il cemetery deve
essere usato per i cimiteri retaggio dell'era napoleonica che li fece
spostare, per questioni igieniche, in luoghi appositi,  mentre grave_yard
per quei cimiteri limitrofi una chiesetta...



-
Ciao,
Aury
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Cimiteri-comunali-tp5865457p5865671.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Conservatoires et écoles de musique

2016-01-24 Thread Nicolas Dumoulin

Le Saturday 23 January 2016, 23:41:49 JB a écrit :
> Pour ma part, j'ai opté pour amenity=music_school. 50 occurences en
> France, 300 dans le monde. C'est du taggage au canard, trop éloigné
> d'une école classique pour surcharger un amenity=school, assez
> spécifique pour son tag à lui. Et un peu sur le modèle du plus répandu
> amenity=driving_school.

Adopté !
Merci JB.
Et merci Muselaar pour avoir posé la question :-)

-- 
Nicolas Dumoulin
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NicolasDumoulin


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] BANO cadastre.openstreetmap plus d'actualisation

2016-01-24 Thread Christian Quest

C'est à nouveau disponible.

J'étais en train d'upgrader postgresql et postgis sur le serveur
'layers/osm105'... et ça a pris plus de temps que je ne pensais !

Le 24 janvier 2016 à 16:46, Jérôme Seigneuret  a
écrit :

> Bonjour l'actualisation du service ne fonctionne plus pour voir les voies
> rapprochées
>
> Jérôme
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

2016-01-24 Thread Dave F


Great stuff. I've corrected a couple of my mistakes you've flagged.

Would it be possible to add the area location so we can check the ones 
where we have more local knowledge?


If we let you know the why certain schools are flagging an error could 
you update your list with an extra column to indicate the reason? It 
would save users from double checking.


On your OSM Keys page, what's the significance of the yellow/grey shading?

Cheers
Dave F.



On 24/01/2016 09:49, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

Just a quick note to say that I've updated the matching used in my
tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ so that OSM
objects with a ref:edubase, ref:seedcode, or ref:deniirn that matches
an entry on the official list will now always be 'matched' in my tool.

(Previously the match would only be recorded if the OSM object was
within 1km of the postcode centroid recorded in the official list.
Also official list entries with a missing or invalid postcode could
not be matched at all. Both of these problems are now fixed.)

This new looseness in the matching is needed to cope with some schools
that have missing postcodes in the official lists, and multiple sites
and/or use PO boxes for their official address. However, it may lead
to some false positives, so there is a new report at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/matching-queries.html which
lists possible problems with the matching that would benefit from
manual checking.

Best wishes,

Robert.




---
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

[OSM-talk-fr] live.openstreetmap.fr

2016-01-24 Thread Laurent Combe

Bonjour

j'apprécie la page live.openstreetmap.fr
elle me sert quand je parle d'osm autour de moi

par contre deux petits détails
les lieux de modifications ne font plus apparaitre de "marker" mais le
navigateur firefox affiche un symbole signifiant image non trouvée (c'est
moche)

il y avait aussi un drapeau en face des contributeurs
maintenant les drapeaux ont disparu

Peut-on rétablir le fonctionnement de live.openstreetmap.fr sur ces deux
points ?
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] live.openstreetmap.fr

2016-01-24 Thread Jocelyn Jaubert


Le 24/01/2016 17:22, Laurent Combe a écrit :

j'apprécie la page live.openstreetmap.fr 
elle me sert quand je parle d'osm autour de moi

les lieux de modifications ne font plus apparaitre de "marker" mais le
navigateur firefox affiche un symbole signifiant image non trouvée
(c'est moche)



Effectivement, ça va chercher un marqueur sur un site externe, marqueur 
qui n'existe plus.


Une idée d'un marqueur à utiliser ?


il y avait aussi un drapeau en face des contributeurs
maintenant les drapeaux ont disparu


Hum, je crois qu'on avait déjà essayer de remettre les drapeaux en 
place, mais sans succès. En tout cas, je me rappelle que je n'avais pas 
trouvé quel code faisait la géolocalisation.


Pour information, le code source se trouve ici:
https://github.com/cstenac/osm-livechanges

--
Jocelyn

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

[OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

2016-01-24 Thread Ruben Maes

Thursday 21 January 2016 05:35:11, Marc Gemis:
> At this moment someone is working on converting the GRB data into something
> that can be "easily" imported.
> (...)

Great that we'll have a more or less complete map of the buildings in Flanders.

I know some places where OSM already has much better building information than 
Agiv, mapped with love and local knowledge. Can I make sure those don't get 
overridden by inferior data with a note in the data or something?

-- 
This message is OpenPGP signed.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] BANO cadastre.openstreetmap plus d'actualisation

Bon j'ai toujours le même message. "Problème lors de la mise à jour"

Je vais faire une pause ;-)

Le 24 janvier 2016 à 17:36, Jérôme Seigneuret  a
écrit :

> Ok merci pour l'info.
>
> Vous avez pas une liste pour alerter sur la maintenance des services?
>
> Le 24 janvier 2016 à 17:07, Christian Quest  a
> écrit :
>
>> C'est à nouveau disponible.
>>
>> J'étais en train d'upgrader postgresql et postgis sur le serveur
>> 'layers/osm105'... et ça a pris plus de temps que je ne pensais !
>>
>> Le 24 janvier 2016 à 16:46, Jérôme Seigneuret 
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> Bonjour l'actualisation du service ne fonctionne plus pour voir les
>>> voies rapprochées
>>>
>>> Jérôme
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-fr mailing list
>>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] live.openstreetmap.fr

2016-01-24 Thread Philippe Verdy

Ca marche en ce moment pour moi... Problème de cache navigateur ou de cache
DNS de ton côté ?

Le 24 janvier 2016 à 17:22, Laurent Combe  a écrit :

> Bonjour
>
> j'apprécie la page live.openstreetmap.fr
> elle me sert quand je parle d'osm autour de moi
>
> par contre deux petits détails
> les lieux de modifications ne font plus apparaitre de "marker" mais le
> navigateur firefox affiche un symbole signifiant image non trouvée (c'est
> moche)
>
> il y avait aussi un drapeau en face des contributeurs
> maintenant les drapeaux ont disparu
>
> Peut-on rétablir le fonctionnement de live.openstreetmap.fr sur ces deux
> points ?
>
> ___
> 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] Schools Progress Tracker Update

On 24/01/16 16:14, Dave F wrote:
> If we let you know the why certain schools are flagging an error could
> you update your list with an extra column to indicate the reason? It
> would save users from double checking.

Since a number of them are down to me, and ARE correct, that would be
useful ;)

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: 27,232 matches found in England

On 24/01/16 11:46, Edward Betts wrote:
> It should be possible to use this a basis for uploading. The results can be
> grouped by category and county when uploaded.

Looks like you are still using your original data?

http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/england/county/Worcestershire/Schools
St. Mary's 'ceased operations at the end of the summer term 2014' (from
wikipedia ;) )

Some of the OSM links are to the original building rather than the campus.

I've not got up as far as the north of the county yet where the
buildings need changing, but I had thought that wikidata was looking to
import the entire edubase data to fill in he gaps in the schools list,
so personally I would view the small number of current matches for
Worcestershire as a crib sheet to add the wikipedia pages and wait to
add the 'DfE URN' linkage once that process has completed.

The question really is should both the wikipedia link and the wikidata
link exist? Malvern St James has the correct wikipedia=en:Malvern St
James and that is the one which should gain the wikidata tag as well or
should the satellite sites duplicate all the main site tags? This is one
of the areas we are still tidying up on the schools project. But I am
now at the point where adding the wikipedia tag, but this opens a can of
worms since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schools_in_Worcester
only lists some schools and some of them are now closed ... so where
does one stop cross project?

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

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

[OSM-talk-fr] BANO cadastre.openstreetmap plus d'actualisation

Bonjour l'actualisation du service ne fonctionne plus pour voir les voies
rapprochées

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

[Talk-cz] Tracer - novinky

2016-01-24 Thread Marián Kyral

Ahoj,
nedávné vlákno o Traceristech, issue kterými mne zásobuje Petr [1] a pár
věcí, které mi osobně chyběly (hlavně v LPIS modulu) mne nakoply a zase
jsem se pár dní traceru věnoval (na úkor jiných projektů ;-) )

Takže změny:
1) naimplementoval jsem změnu kurzoru při držení modifikátoru (ctrl,
alt, shift)

- bez modifikátoru - běžná funkcionalita
- drženo ctrl - vytvoří se nový objekt bez přetrasování existujícího
objektu a bez ořezávání okolních objektů

2) Dále jsem přidal režim aktualizace tagů bez změny geometrie, jak tady
někteří volali
- drženo shift - dojde pouze k aktualizaci tagů

3) Ruian modul - přetrasovávání objektů s tagem civic nechá konkrétnější
hodnoty (school, transportation, hotel, hall, public a další)

4) Řešení konfliktů - přidal jsem indikaci odkud pochází hodnota - je
super, když vidím, že je konflikt v počtu pater, ale nevím, odkud které
číslo přišlo ;-)
Nově je každá hodnota popsána buď ".. /osm/" nebo ".. /natrasováno/"



5) Trochu jsem vylepšil možnosti Lpis modulu při přetrasovávání
 *) Zrušil jsem omezení na přetrasovávání pouze lpis objektů
 *) Přidal jsem řešení konfliktů stejně jako u Ruian
 *) lpis ref se nahradí bez zbytečného dotazování
 *) Stejně tak dojde k tichému změně mezi meadow a farmland (včetně
zrušení crop=* a meadow=*)
 *) Přidal jsem tiché nahrazení landuse=village_green za jiné landuse -
kolem Karviné je náves na kdejakém kousku trávy, ne nutně jen uprostřed
obce.

Binárku traceru jsem už aktualizoval, měla by se dříve či později
aktualizovat automaticky. Případně si ji aktualizujte ručně.

Dneska jsem trochu řádil kolem Bohumína, vypadá to funkčně. Přesto,
pokud narazíte na nějakou chybu, tak se ozvěte. Stejně tak, pokud máte
nějakou připomínku/chybu/přání ohledně traceru, tak se nestyďte a
napiště tady nebo raději jako issue na github [2]. Je tak mnohem větší
šance, že to bude nějak vyřešeno ;-)

Ještě by to chtělo dodělat přetrasovávání multipolygonů, ale to hned tak
nebude - musím si někdy najít čas pochopit ten Martinův kód. A pak ještě
vymyslet jak na to.

[1]
https://github.com/mkyral/josm-tracer/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Aissue+author%3Apschonmann
[2] https://github.com/mkyral/josm-tracer/issues

Marián

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Bicycle highways

2016-01-24 Thread Jo

Between Leuven and Brussels they are marked in a way that is verifiable on
the ground.

We need a separate 'network' tag for them though, and it would be nice to
see they get rendered on the specialised bicycle maps.

Jo

2016-01-24 15:31 GMT+01:00 Sander Deryckere :

> Bicycle highways are more like bicycle routes than different highway types.
>
> They are a route specifically made for commuting, connecting residential
> area with some work center in a rather straight line.
>
> As such, I think those could get tagged as a cycle route with some
> specific sub tags (like a special network).
>
> The question is though: are they verifiable on the ground. Or is it just
> that European list naming them. It should only be tagged when you see
> something on the ground that you can relate to bicycle highways.
>
> Regards,
> Sander
>
> 2016-01-24 15:00 GMT+01:00 Glenn Plas :
>
>> Nothing really special about them,  highway=cycleway should be
>> appropriate.
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>> On 24-01-16 13:12, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Below you will find some information about the developing bicycle
>> > highways (or fast cycling routes) a bit everywhere in the world.
>> >
>> > I was wondering if anything was foreseen to tag such highways ? If not,
>> > what's the best place to discuss this, since I guess this should be
>> > uniform at world level ?
>> >
>> > Thanks for your answer,
>> >
>> > Matthieu (sur iMobile)
>> >
>> > Début du message transféré :
>> >>
>> >> Une recherche, évidemment loin d’être exhaustive, m’a fourni une
>> >> première liste de ce que l’ECF (European Cyclists’ Federation) dénomme
>> >> les  */Fast Cycling Routes/** :*
>> >> •  CH: Velobahn (Schaffhouse), TransAgglo (Fribourg), .
>> >> •  DE: Radschnellwege  (Ruhr, Berlin, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, München,
>> …)
>> >> •  DK: Supercykelstier (Kobenhavn)
>> >> •  FR: REV, Réseau Express Vélo, Autoroute à vélos (Toulouse),
>> >> Vélostras (Strasbourg), Grenoble, Paris,
>> >> •  NL: SnelleFietsroutes, Snelbinder
>> >> Image en ligne
>> >> •  SV: Supercykelväg (Malmoe)
>> >> •  UK: Cycle Superhighways (London)
>> >> •  US: California Cycleway(1896)
>> >> •  VL: Fietsostrades (réalisations ; projets dans les 5 provinces)
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-be mailing list
>> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>> >
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[Talk-dk] Feriehuse på OSM

2016-01-24 Thread sba




På Spangsmosevej 30 i Nordborg findes et feriehussymbol, som undrede mig.

Det er oprettet af “dk-ferien”, som er et feriefirma, der udbyder huse. 

Der henvises til denne hjemmeside, 
https://www.dk-ferien.de/daenemark/ferienhaus/J000.html, hvor huset beskrives.


Er det i orden ???

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

Re: [Talk-dk] Feriehuse på OSM

2016-01-24 Thread Uffe Kousgaard





Nej, efter min mening er det reklame for noget, som ikke har
tilstrækkelig offentlig interesse.
Stedet er jo også nemt nok at finde ud fra adressen alene.

Havde det været et større feriecenter, en butik med åbningstider eller
lign. så er det en anden sag.

mvh
Uffe Kousgaard


s...@bukhmark.dk wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
  På Spangsmosevej 30 i Nordborg findes
et feriehussymbol, som undrede mig.
  Det er oprettet af “dk-ferien”,
som er et feriefirma, der udbyder huse. 
  Der henvises til denne hjemmeside, https://www.dk-ferien.de/daenemark/ferienhaus/J000.html,
hvor huset beskrives.
  
  
  Er det i orden ???
  /sba-dk
  
  
  

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




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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

2016-01-24 Thread Ruben Maes

Sunday 24 January 2016 18:13:02, Jo:
> You could add note on them, but there is no guarantee that it gets read or
> acted upon, so it's probably a waste of bytes to do so. There are tools
> that let you watch over certain areas that have your interest, then you can
> revert and send a message to the person who replaced with inferior data to
> no do so in that region.
> 
> I think that's the more sensible way to proceed, but I can't remember the
> names of those tools at the moment.

Thanks Jo. After some searching I found that 
http://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/ has such functionality.

-- 
This message is OpenPGP signed.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] places de stationnement pour autocars

2016-01-24 Thread Philippe Verdy

Sur les aires d'autoroute, le marquage n'indique pas réellement que c'est
seulement pour les cars, en fait c'est un marquage pour véhicules longs (ou
larges) qui autorise aussi les camions, et les véhicules avec remorque, qui
ne peuvent pas se garer sur les courts et étroits épis placés plus près du
bâtiment de la station (certaines places les plus proches étant en plus
réservés aux handicapés).

Mais si ces places courtes sont déjà prises, il n'y a visiblement rien qui
interdit aus autres véhicules d'utiliser ces places longues (qui ont la
particularité quand elles sont en épi de ne pas nécessiter de marche
arrière pour se garer ou en sortir, puisqu'il y a une voie devant et
derrière; ces places longues sont rarement parallèles à la voie (cela
nécessite des manoeuvres pas faciles à faire avec un véhicule long et une
plus grand longueur, notamment). Ces places sont également un peu plus
larges que pour les voitures pour éviter les frottements contre les autres
véhicules garés à côté, et les voies aussi sont un peu plus larges pour
faciliter les manoeuvres d'entrée et de sortie avec un rayon de braquage
plus grand).

Bref je dirait plutôt bus=no et truck=no sur les épis, mais sur les places
longues mettre seulement bus=designated et truck=designated.

En revanche on a des panneaux à l'entrée de la station guidant les camions
et camping cars vers ces aires de stationnement mieux adaptées (ce sont des
panneaux d'obligation pour ces véhicules, mais là encore les voies ne sont
pas interdites aux autres véhicules, contrairement aux voies menant vers
les épis pour voitures qui sont plus des interdictions pour les véhicules
longs ou larges).

Il ya aussi des voies et/ou parkings réservés au service (véhicules du
personnel de la station, véhicules de salage, véhicules d'urgence et de
secours...), interdits aux usagers, souvent fermés par une simple chaine
et/ou un panneau d'interdiction.

Le 24 janvier 2016 à 10:38, Muselaar  a écrit :

> Le problème qui m'apparaît est que le plus souvent, aucun panneau
> n'indique d'interdiction pour les autres usagers, c'est seulement les
> marques aux sols qui impliquent l'usage destiné autocars ou les camions
> (sur les aires d'autoroute, par exemple). La perte de repère est suffisante
> pour que les voitures légères ne s'y garent pas. Pourtant, on en voit
> régulièrement, qui ne se formalisent pas pour si peu.
> Mais je chicane peut-être, entre interdiction et laisser-faire, c'est
> peut-être difficile à cartographier…
>
> Muselaar
>
>
> Le 24/01/2016 10:16, Pierre-Yves Berrard a écrit :
>
> Voire bus=only ?
>
> PY
>
> Le 24 janvier 2016 à 08:53, bernard  a écrit :
>
>> Bonjour
>> Par les tags :
>> access=no
>> bus=yes
>>
>>
>> Le 23/01/2016 22:25, Muselaar a écrit :
>>
>>> Bonjour,
>>>
>>> Comment tague-t-on le parkings ou places de parking pour autocars de
>>> tourisme ?
>>>
>>> Je n'ai rien trouvé dans le wiki, ni sur la liste. Je n'ai peut-être pas
>>> mis les bons mots…
>>>
>>> Muselaar
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-fr mailing list
>>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing 
> listTalk-fr@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] BANO cadastre.openstreetmap plus d'actualisation

Ok merci pour l'info.

Vous avez pas une liste pour alerter sur la maintenance des services?

Le 24 janvier 2016 à 17:07, Christian Quest  a
écrit :

> C'est à nouveau disponible.
>
> J'étais en train d'upgrader postgresql et postgis sur le serveur
> 'layers/osm105'... et ça a pris plus de temps que je ne pensais !
>
> Le 24 janvier 2016 à 16:46, Jérôme Seigneuret 
> a écrit :
>
>> Bonjour l'actualisation du service ne fonctionne plus pour voir les voies
>> rapprochées
>>
>> Jérôme
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] live.openstreetmap.fr

2016-01-24 Thread Christian Quest

Voilà, j'ai remis un petit marqueur... assez générique (gris foncé)

Le 24 janvier 2016 à 17:36, Jocelyn Jaubert  a
écrit :

> Le 24/01/2016 17:22, Laurent Combe a écrit :
>
>> j'apprécie la page live.openstreetmap.fr 
>> elle me sert quand je parle d'osm autour de moi
>>
>> les lieux de modifications ne font plus apparaitre de "marker" mais le
>> navigateur firefox affiche un symbole signifiant image non trouvée
>> (c'est moche)
>>
>>
> Effectivement, ça va chercher un marqueur sur un site externe, marqueur
> qui n'existe plus.
>
> Une idée d'un marqueur à utiliser ?
>
> il y avait aussi un drapeau en face des contributeurs
>> maintenant les drapeaux ont disparu
>>
>
> Hum, je crois qu'on avait déjà essayer de remettre les drapeaux en place,
> mais sans succès. En tout cas, je me rappelle que je n'avais pas trouvé
> quel code faisait la géolocalisation.
>
> Pour information, le code source se trouve ici:
> https://github.com/cstenac/osm-livechanges
>
> --
> Jocelyn
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] live.openstreetmap.fr

2016-01-24 Thread Philippe Verdy

Je veux dire que je vois la carte et les marqueurs, les noms des
contributeurs, en revanche le drapeau du pays est juste blanc (ça n'a pas
grande importance à mon avis, la géolocalisation des contributeurs est
hasardeuse, intrusive si basée sur l'IP, ou souvent renseignée manuellement
selon les zones d'intérêt du moment)

Le 24 janvier 2016 à 17:22, Laurent Combe  a écrit :

> Bonjour
>
> j'apprécie la page live.openstreetmap.fr
> elle me sert quand je parle d'osm autour de moi
>
> par contre deux petits détails
> les lieux de modifications ne font plus apparaitre de "marker" mais le
> navigateur firefox affiche un symbole signifiant image non trouvée (c'est
> moche)
>
> il y avait aussi un drapeau en face des contributeurs
> maintenant les drapeaux ont disparu
>
> Peut-on rétablir le fonctionnement de live.openstreetmap.fr sur ces deux
> points ?
>
> ___
> 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-dk] Feriehuse på OSM

2016-01-24 Thread Michael Larsen

Hej,

De findes mange steder i danmark - og jeg er heller ikke glad for dem!  Jeg 
har lagt mærke til, at de ofte har et 'name=xxx' tag og jeg tror ikke disse 
navne findes andre steder end i deres katalog, hvilket vil sige de ikke er OK 
(jeg har dog ikke nogen statistik for om alle navnene er opdigtede). Jeg tror 
også disse data nemt kan blive outdated, fx når et givet sommerhus ikke 
længere bliver udlejet af det givne firma...

/MichaelVL

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:32:41 PM s...@bukhmark.dk wrote:
> På Spangsmosevej 30 i Nordborg findes et feriehussymbol, som undrede mig.
> 
> Det er oprettet af “dk-ferien”, som er et feriefirma, der udbyder huse. 
> 
> Der henvises til denne hjemmeside,
> https://www.dk-ferien.de/daenemark/ferienhaus/J000.html, hvor huset
> beskrives.

> 
> Er det i orden ???
> 
> /sba-dk

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

2016-01-24 Thread Sander Deryckere

Ruben,

The import is a lot more complicated than the CRAB import, but also less
monkey work, so there will only be a few people doing that import. Normally
those will also be careful about what they import, but they should also be
easy to contact, so you can warn them on beforehand.

However, now it's just in some sort of testing phase, so it's not yet known
who will occupy himself with the import.

Regards,
Sander

2016-01-24 17:48 GMT+01:00 Ruben Maes :

> Thursday 21 January 2016 05:35:11, Marc Gemis:
> > At this moment someone is working on converting the GRB data into
> something
> > that can be "easily" imported.
> > (...)
>
> Great that we'll have a more or less complete map of the buildings in
> Flanders.
>
> I know some places where OSM already has much better building information
> than Agiv, mapped with love and local knowledge. Can I make sure those
> don't get overridden by inferior data with a note in the data or something?
>
> --
> This message is OpenPGP signed.
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

2016-01-24 Thread Brian Prangle

DY almost complete so you need to pick another area. TF needs some
attention rgds Brian
On 24 Jan 2016 14:36, "Lester Caine"  wrote:

> On 24/01/16 13:09, Lester Caine wrote:
> > That just leave 4 more objects to check :)
>
> OK most of the 'red dot' items were out of area, but I've tidied them up
> anyway as they are still Worcestershire.
>
> Pershore College has been sort of solved by following the current
> signage ;) It has 'Part of Warwickshire College' on the entrance signs,
> so I've added that to the name.
>
> The campuses of 'Heart of Worcestershire College' all seem to have new
> signs with that on but nothing else, so I've added a '- xxx' with the
> campus name taken from their website. On my todo list still is to add
> the rest of the missing sites.
>
> Think hat this just leaves the Abbey Park Schools problem and the New
> College Worcester to be sorted. The information is in the database, just
> the progress display showing a problem.
>
> Next month I'll move on to 'DY' as a lot of that is still
> 'Worcestershire' :)
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> ___
> 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-be] Agiv import

2016-01-24 Thread Marc Gemis

As the other pointed out, the import has to be done /will be done
carefully. Glenn try it in a mostly empty area and of course it goes
much faster. In an area with buildings, we will keep all existing
information. The replace geometry functionality in JOSM + utilsplugin2
is your friend.

The quality of the data after the import will depend on the person
that does the import. I noticed, e.g. that many peoples do not have
nice corners. So I did a "q" on them. Maybe other will "forget" that
step. I also removed several additional nodes. I prefer to go a bit
slower, but deliver a nicer result. Others might import more and clean
up less. We see the same with the import of the addresses so far. Some
just draw a bunch of rectangles for the houses, regardless of the
actual shape.

It all depends on your goals.

Depending on the town, you might notice that the data can be a bit of
of date or sometimes it can be drawn a bit clumsy. It's up to the
importer to be alert and fix it IMHO.

I hope we can organize a meetup or a hangout to explain the tools and
the tips and tricks to some people later on.

regards

m

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Ruben Maes  wrote:
> Thursday 21 January 2016 05:35:11, Marc Gemis:
>> At this moment someone is working on converting the GRB data into something
>> that can be "easily" imported.
>> (...)
>
> Great that we'll have a more or less complete map of the buildings in 
> Flanders.
>
> I know some places where OSM already has much better building information 
> than Agiv, mapped with love and local knowledge. Can I make sure those don't 
> get overridden by inferior data with a note in the data or something?
>
> --
> This message is OpenPGP signed.
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Grand Lacs / Great Lakes

2016-01-24 Thread Adam Martin

Hello Sebastien,

I remember seeing a discussion of this issue - not on the talk.ca mailing
list, but on the subreddit for Openstreetmap (
https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/3z7w9d/where_are_the_great_lakes/).
In it, the OP notes that the Great Lakes have disappeared off the map at
higher zoom levels. The reason was traced to the acts of one user whom
seemingly decided to unilaterally changed all the tags on the Lakes from
Coastline to Natural=Water, thus killing the rendering of the Lakes at
those zoom levels. But this rendering is only a problem for the default
renderer - many others will display it correctly.

Haven't heard of a consensus on the matter. Technically, the coastline tag
is incorrect as these are Lakes, not Oceans / Seas. So this change is
technically for the better as it is more accurate. But the rendering has
been coastline for sometime.

Adam

2016-01-24 14:38 GMT-03:30 Sebastien Duthil :

> English version follows.
>
> Bonjour à tous,
>
> j'ai remarqué que, sur le zoom 5 du rendu standard OSM [1], seul le lac
> Huron apparaît. S'en suivent plusieurs questions:
>
> - Est-ce normal?
> - Le wiki OSM [2][3] fait état que les Grands Lacs font partie des rares
> lacs qui soient taggés natural=coastline et de ce fait, ils devaient
> toujours être visibles.
> - En regardant de plus près les relations de ces lacs, je n'ai pas vu le
> tag natural=coastline. J'ai trouvé les changesets suivants, qui
> suppriment le tag natural=coastline:
>
>   - Lac Supérieur: 15 janvier 2016 [4]
>   - Lac Michigan: 15 janvier 2016 [5]
>   - Lac Huron: 08 janvier 2016 [6]
>   - Lac Ontario: 02 mars 2015 [7]
>   - Lac Erie: 25 décembre 2015 [8]
>
> - La dernière discussion que j'aie vu sur talk-us/talk-ca à ce propos
> date du 26 avril 2015 [9], où le tag natural=coastline a été conservé,
> sauf pour le lac Ontario, qui ne l'avait déjà plus. Avez-vous
> connaissance d'une autre discussion plus récente à ce sujet sur d'autres
> listes qui pourrait justifier cette modification?
> - Devrions-nous remettre le tag natural=coastline? Mon avis est que oui,
> s'il n'y a pas eu discussion antérieure. Sa disparition doit être
> discutée en amont.
> - Étant donné que plus aucun Grand Lac n'a natural=coastline, pourquoi
> seul le lac Huron est-il visible?
>
> --
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I see that the standard rendering of OSM on zoom 5 [1] only shows Lake
> Huron, but not the other Great Lakes. Here are my questions:
>
> - Is this normal?
> - The OSM wiki [2] [3] says that the Great Lake are the few exceptions
> of lakes being tagged as natural=coastline, which should make them
> visible at any zoom level.
> - By looking at the different lakes' relations, I did not see any
> natural=coastline tag. Here are the changesets removing natural=coastline:
>
>   - Lake Superior: January 15th 2016 [4]
>   - Lake Michigan: January 15th 2016 [5]
>   - Lake Huron: January 8th 2016 [6]
>   - Lake Ontario: March 2nd 2015 [7]
>   - Lake Erie: December 25th 2015 [8]
>
> - The latest discussion I've seen on this topic on talk-us/talk-ca was
> on April 26th 2015 [9], where the decision was to restore
> natural=coastline instead of natural=water (except on Lake Ontario,
> which already had natural=water). Do you know of any more recent
> discussion about this on other lists, that would support this change?
> - Should we restore natural=coastline on the Great Lakes? My opinion is
> yes, if there were no prior discussions. Then if someone wants to change
> it, he should discuss it first.
> - Since no Great Lake has natural=coastline anymore, why is Lake Huron
> the only one to show on the standard rendering?
>
> --
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/43.866/-85.034
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Great_Lakes
> [3]
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#What_about_lakes.3F
> [4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36589478
> [5] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36589361
> [6] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36454539
> [7] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29200524
> [8] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36168843
> [9]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-April/014812.html
>
> --
> Sébastien Duthil
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-dk] Cykelsti-netværk

2016-01-24 Thread Peter Leth

Hej

Jeg tillader mig lige at bidrage til debatten.
For det første er området omkring den sydlige del af Holstebro Kommune mit
hjemmeområde, og jeg mener at vi har rimelig styr på det meste.Jeg skal
gerne gå det efter den kommende tid. Der har vi i hvert fald en god flok
turister og en tilsvarende godt netværk af cykelstier.
Det andet jeg gerne vil sige at jeg håber at man benytter dette forum til
at efterspørge mapping-opgaver - jeg hjælper gerne.

Jeg håber at vi ét skridt ad gangen får positioneret OSM som det mest
valide værktøj / indhold til at finde vej mm.
Hvis en højere grad af organisering af vores fællesskab her i øvrigt kan
være med til at give OSM en profil ud af til , også overfor Cykelforbundet
m.fl. så synes jeg også det kunne være en spændende snak at have med jer
her på listen. Selv sidder jeg i Creative Commons og selv om vi ikke laver
noget og ikke har penge til noget (ligesom Wikipedia DK måske ville sige)
så giver det bare en kant ud af til, at vi har en "forening".

Jeg er ny på listen og ved ikke om man lægger ud med et nyt emne i
besvarelser - så bør (evt) over med mig.

Hilsen
Peter Leth


Den 23. januar 2016 kl. 18.41 skrev Andreas Hammershøj 
:

> Hej,
> Cyklistforbundet og foreningen Dansk Cykelturisme er ved at lave nye
> landsdækkende cykelkort. Da jeg ikke er leverandør på den opgave bruges der
> primært FOT-data, men de er løbet ind i problemer ift. cykelstier.
> FOT har masser af stier, men de er ikke ordentlig kategoriseret i det
> brugte datasæt. Jeg er blevet bedt om at undersøge kvaliteten i OSM og har
> været en tur i QGIS og sammenligne FOT med udvalgte områder i OSM. Der er
> ingen tvivl om at OSM er bedre, spørgsmålet er hvor god indtegningen er på
> landsplan? Det er svært at sige når man ikke har noget at sammenligne med
> og ikke har tid til at sidde og gennemgå hele landet med luftfoto. Jeg ved
> at Københavnsområdet er fint og har et godt indtryk af Nordsjælland og Fyn,
> men hvordan vil I bedømme kvaliteten i jeres områder?
>
> Vh
> Andreas Hammershøj
>
> 
>  This
> email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#-148802714_DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> Talk-dk mailing list
> Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk
>
>


-- 
Med venlig hilsen

Peter Leth
pe...@pluk.dk
l...@creativecommons.dk

T. 9749 1180
Skype. peter.leth1
___
Talk-dk mailing list
Talk-dk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk

[Talk-cz] Hospoda Brno 2016.01

2016-01-24 Thread Tom Ka

Ahoj, uz jsme se zase delsi dobu nevideli v Brne. Jak jste na tom? Ja
mam ted trochu ziveji, ale jeden vecer se urvu.
Pro zacatek zkousim pristi tyden St a Pa, hlasujte prosim at vidim jak
jsme na tom.

http://doodle.com/poll/iwb2u65p9yhkqamp

Pokud to bude vypadat blede, zkusim pak nejake navrhy pro dalsi tyden.

Zatim.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

2016-01-24 Thread Marc Gemis

It's up to the mapper that does the import to check each building individually.
It's not different than noticing that a building is partly destroyed
on the AGIV imagery and adapting the GRB building according to that.

m

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Ruben Maes  wrote:
> Sunday 24 January 2016 19:03:35, Glenn Plas:
>> (...)
>> In the whole of Stekene, I probably deleted no more than 20 buildings
>> on multiple thousands that got imported with good reasons.  Deleting
>> is not an issue.
>> (...)
>> Tag migration and merging takes more time than replaceing the geometry
>> itself.  Every time the merge conflict dialog pops up, you'll loose 15
>> seconds, multiply that by thousands of buildings...
>> (...)
>
> I also mean when the geometry in OSM is actually better than in the GRB. I'm 
> thinking in particular about VIVES in Bruges. The GRB building shape is just 
> wrong. In OSM it's better (may be not perfect, it's a complex building) and 
> 3D mapped.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.18741/3.20325
>
> --
> This message is OpenPGP signed.
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>

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

Re: [Talk-dk] Feriehuse på OSM

2016-01-24 Thread Flemming Bruun


Kunne man spørge dk-ferien om hvad formålet med deres ændringer er?

Mvh
Flemming Bruun


Den 24-01-2016 kl. 17:59 skrev Uffe Kousgaard:
Nej, efter min mening er det reklame for noget, som ikke har 
tilstrækkelig offentlig interesse.

Stedet er jo også nemt nok at finde ud fra adressen alene.

Havde det været et større feriecenter, en butik med åbningstider eller 
lign. så er det en anden sag.


mvh
Uffe Kousgaard


s...@bukhmark.dk wrote:


På Spangsmosevej 30 i Nordborg findes et feriehussymbol, som undrede mig.
Det er oprettet af “dk-ferien”, som er et feriefirma, der udbyder 
huse .
Der henvises til denne hjemmeside, 
https://www.dk-ferien.de/daenemark/ferienhaus/J000.html, hvor huset 
beskrives.


Er det i orden ???
/sba-dk


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


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

[Talk-ca] Grand Lacs / Great Lakes

2016-01-24 Thread Sebastien Duthil

English version follows.

Bonjour à tous,

j'ai remarqué que, sur le zoom 5 du rendu standard OSM [1], seul le lac
Huron apparaît. S'en suivent plusieurs questions:

- Est-ce normal?
- Le wiki OSM [2][3] fait état que les Grands Lacs font partie des rares
lacs qui soient taggés natural=coastline et de ce fait, ils devaient
toujours être visibles.
- En regardant de plus près les relations de ces lacs, je n'ai pas vu le
tag natural=coastline. J'ai trouvé les changesets suivants, qui
suppriment le tag natural=coastline:

  - Lac Supérieur: 15 janvier 2016 [4]
  - Lac Michigan: 15 janvier 2016 [5]
  - Lac Huron: 08 janvier 2016 [6]
  - Lac Ontario: 02 mars 2015 [7]
  - Lac Erie: 25 décembre 2015 [8]

- La dernière discussion que j'aie vu sur talk-us/talk-ca à ce propos
date du 26 avril 2015 [9], où le tag natural=coastline a été conservé,
sauf pour le lac Ontario, qui ne l'avait déjà plus. Avez-vous
connaissance d'une autre discussion plus récente à ce sujet sur d'autres
listes qui pourrait justifier cette modification?
- Devrions-nous remettre le tag natural=coastline? Mon avis est que oui,
s'il n'y a pas eu discussion antérieure. Sa disparition doit être
discutée en amont.
- Étant donné que plus aucun Grand Lac n'a natural=coastline, pourquoi
seul le lac Huron est-il visible?

--

Hello everyone,

I see that the standard rendering of OSM on zoom 5 [1] only shows Lake
Huron, but not the other Great Lakes. Here are my questions:

- Is this normal?
- The OSM wiki [2] [3] says that the Great Lake are the few exceptions
of lakes being tagged as natural=coastline, which should make them
visible at any zoom level.
- By looking at the different lakes' relations, I did not see any
natural=coastline tag. Here are the changesets removing natural=coastline:

  - Lake Superior: January 15th 2016 [4]
  - Lake Michigan: January 15th 2016 [5]
  - Lake Huron: January 8th 2016 [6]
  - Lake Ontario: March 2nd 2015 [7]
  - Lake Erie: December 25th 2015 [8]

- The latest discussion I've seen on this topic on talk-us/talk-ca was
on April 26th 2015 [9], where the decision was to restore
natural=coastline instead of natural=water (except on Lake Ontario,
which already had natural=water). Do you know of any more recent
discussion about this on other lists, that would support this change?
- Should we restore natural=coastline on the Great Lakes? My opinion is
yes, if there were no prior discussions. Then if someone wants to change
it, he should discuss it first.
- Since no Great Lake has natural=coastline anymore, why is Lake Huron
the only one to show on the standard rendering?

--

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/43.866/-85.034
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Great_Lakes
[3]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#What_about_lakes.3F
[4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36589478
[5] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36589361
[6] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36454539
[7] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29200524
[8] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36168843
[9] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-April/014812.html

-- 
Sébastien Duthil

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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: State Park Boundary shp file

2016-01-24 Thread Paul Johnson

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On 01/23/2016 01:48 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
>> New York courts are free to rule any way they want, but copyright
>> doesn't allow you to own facts. This is well-adjudicated in higher
>> courts.
>>
>> If you could claim a copyright on facts, you could control people's
>> speech, and the First Amendment does not allow that. The freedom of
>> factual information is very strongly protected in the US. No matter
>> what Suffolk County thinks.
>
>
This could have happened only in one of the handful of states that
> allow copyright to subsist in government works. In most states,
> government works, like those of the Federal government, are born
> in the public domain.
>

Be it as it relates to the topic at hand, ie, Oklahoma Department of
Recreation and Tourism's state park and state resort boundaries, I'm
wondering if we can get our legal involved in reviewing the situation.  I
*think*, based on this thread, the copyright argument is moot anyway under
the Oklahoma Open Records Act and ODRT's just being a stickler for
bureaucracy.

http://www.odl.state.ok.us/lawinfo/docs/2006-librarylaws-parte.pdf

What's really odd is the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation does
offer up their boundary data directly over the web...

> I quite agree with you that it seems to contradict established law,
> and conflict with constitutional principles of both freedom
> of speech and open government, but until and unless the Supremes
> speak on it again, it's precedent in the Second Circuit.
>
> The law is an ass.

At least it's not 10th Circuit...I basically cringe every time anything
relating to technology or e-business comes up in my circuit.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: State Park Boundary shp file

2016-01-24 Thread Paul Johnson

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Ian Butler  wrote:

> Another possibility for state park boundary shp files might be the
> Oklahoma Protected Areas Database at the Oklahoma Biological Survey.
> I have not seen this data; but I worked on the original public lands layer
> for the Oklahoma GAP project.
>
> http://biosurvey.ou.edu/PAD/PAD.html
>
> "PAD-OK is an aggregated dataset, incorporating data as provided by land
> owners, administrators, or best available sources.
> Inconsistencies in data quality and scale may be present. Because of
> possible data inconsistencies, PAD-OK is best for landscape
> level analysis (1:100,000 or greater)..."
>
> Contact Todd Fagin: tfagin at ou dot edu for info.
>
> I hope this helps.
>

Granted, I'm at the office right now and can't do a proper vetting, but
based on the dbf available, it might just be centroids.  I'll take a look
at the SHP when I have my own system in front of me.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

2016-01-24 Thread Glenn Plas

The current test procedure respects previous editing work, because the
goal is not to import GRB data (not = CRAB) into OSM, but to improve
OSM data with GRB.

That means keeping history on an existing building intact, taking into
account that a human has entered the original tags in case of doubt,
the editor needs to decide what's appropriate.

In the whole of Stekene, I probably deleted no more than 20 buildings
on multiple thousands that got imported with good reasons.  Deleting
is not an issue.

What will be a challenge is training and guidance in a working
procedure, making sure we take acceptable decisions in area's of conflict.

It will also never be fully automated due to the fact that it's not
going to be a flat import but more like a merger of data.

The speed is depending on how much conflict you encounter, existing
buildings are not a problem, but it's indeed easier and faster when
nothing is 'in the way' . But even in crowded places where houses
existed, merging a building just takes 100% attention, a few seconds
and a lot of coffee on the side.

Existing data actually helps on deciding.  The real time consuming
bit's are when existing buildings were addressed incorrectly in OSM
(offset housenumbers by 1 building -for example- is a pain in the butt)

Tag migration and merging takes more time than replaceing the geometry
itself.  Every time the merge conflict dialog pops up, you'll loose 15
seconds, multiply that by thousands of buildings...

I believe that crowded cities will be intensive to merge.

Glenn

On 24-01-16 18:18, Marc Gemis wrote:
> As the other pointed out, the import has to be done /will be done
> carefully. Glenn try it in a mostly empty area and of course it goes
> much faster. In an area with buildings, we will keep all existing
> information. The replace geometry functionality in JOSM + utilsplugin2
> is your friend.
> 
> The quality of the data after the import will depend on the person
> that does the import. I noticed, e.g. that many peoples do not have
> nice corners. So I did a "q" on them. Maybe other will "forget" that
> step. I also removed several additional nodes. I prefer to go a bit
> slower, but deliver a nicer result. Others might import more and clean
> up less. We see the same with the import of the addresses so far. Some
> just draw a bunch of rectangles for the houses, regardless of the
> actual shape.
> 
> It all depends on your goals.
> 
> Depending on the town, you might notice that the data can be a bit of
> of date or sometimes it can be drawn a bit clumsy. It's up to the
> importer to be alert and fix it IMHO.
> 
> I hope we can organize a meetup or a hangout to explain the tools and
> the tips and tricks to some people later on.
> 
> regards
> 
> m
> 
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Ruben Maes  wrote:
>> Thursday 21 January 2016 05:35:11, Marc Gemis:
>>> At this moment someone is working on converting the GRB data into something
>>> that can be "easily" imported.
>>> (...)
>>
>> Great that we'll have a more or less complete map of the buildings in 
>> Flanders.
>>
>> I know some places where OSM already has much better building information 
>> than Agiv, mapped with love and local knowledge. Can I make sure those don't 
>> get overridden by inferior data with a note in the data or something?
>>
>> --
>> This message is OpenPGP signed.
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Agiv import

2016-01-24 Thread Ruben Maes

Sunday 24 January 2016 19:03:35, Glenn Plas:
> (...)
> In the whole of Stekene, I probably deleted no more than 20 buildings
> on multiple thousands that got imported with good reasons.  Deleting
> is not an issue.
> (...)
> Tag migration and merging takes more time than replaceing the geometry
> itself.  Every time the merge conflict dialog pops up, you'll loose 15
> seconds, multiply that by thousands of buildings...
> (...)

I also mean when the geometry in OSM is actually better than in the GRB. I'm 
thinking in particular about VIVES in Bruges. The GRB building shape is just 
wrong. In OSM it's better (may be not perfect, it's a complex building) and 3D 
mapped.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.18741/3.20325

-- 
This message is OpenPGP signed.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

On 24/01/16 17:53, Brian Prangle wrote:
> DY almost complete so you need to pick another area. TF needs some
> attention rgds Brian

I'll head over to HR ... although the corner of 'B' covering
Worcestershire still needs some work. Covering areas I've contacts who
can check things on the ground. ;)

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

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

[OSM-talk-be] Grote Routepaden (GR)

2016-01-24 Thread Jo

Hi,

On Thursday I'm meeting people from Toerisme Vlaanderen at 10h15 near to
Antwerpen-Centraal for an informal discussion. If somebody wants to join
us, or if there is something I should definitely mention to them, let me
know.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

2016-01-24 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)

On 24 January 2016 at 16:14, Dave F  wrote:
> Would it be possible to add the area location so we can check the ones where
> we have more local knowledge?

I've added the postcodes from the official data to the second table on
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/matching-queries.html . It's not
easy to determine a location area for the unmatched schools in the
first table -- essentially all I have is the coordinates of the OSM
object. Hopefully the postcodes in the second table will be helpful.

> If we let you know the why certain schools are flagging an error could you
> update your list with an extra column to indicate the reason? It would save
> users from double checking.

Maybe. Though it's not clear exactly how best to implement it.
Possibly the note would have to be tied to the OSM object number. I'll
have a think about it. The highlighting (see below) may help people
only check on things that have changed recently though, so it may not
be that much of a problem.

> On your OSM Keys page, what's the significance of the yellow/grey shading?

On many of the tables in my tools, the grey backgrounds are the
default, and the yellow highlights are to indicate rows where the OSM
last edit is recent. (Currently 'recent' means within the last 10
days.) To complicate things further, in the table at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/osm-tag-keys.html rows that have
an explanatory note never get highlighted. The idea there was to
highlight recent unusual / unexpected key names for checking, hence
wanting to exclude things that were understood. I'm not sure whether
this is a good idea though, or just more confusing.

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

[Talk-es] Dudas de novato

2016-01-24 Thread Ivens Huertas


Muy buenas a todos,

Soy algo novato y necesito un poco de orientación en estos temas de OSM...

La cuestión es que voy a emprender un proyecto en el que quisiera 
colocar puntos de interés (POI) en un mapa. Las coordenadas y nombres de 
estos estos POI los tendría almacenados en una BD mía, por lo que 
solamente necesitaría un "lienzo" donde plasmarlos: ahí es donde 
entraría en juego OSM.


Dado que he optado por OSM en lugar de Google Maps u otros modelos 
privativos, mis preguntas iniciales son:


1. ¿Qué coste tendría el utilizar OSM? Presupongo que es gratuito,
   pero... ¿sin importar el consumo que se haga? (mirando el futuro
   optimista)
2. He visto que se pueden utilizar otras capas (aún no tengo muy claro
   todo esto), como MapQuest MapBox, CartoDB, Google,... Si utilizo la
   estándar de OSM, ¿tiene algún coste? ¿sin importar el consumo?
3. Y por último (de momento), si quiero añadir un buscador interno para
   que me posicione ciudades en el mapa... la misma pregunta: ¿tiene
   algún coste? ¿importa el consumo?

¡Muchas gracias!

Quiero empezar un proyecto, pero necesito tener claras algunas cosas 
antes de meterme en ello.


¡Un saludo!

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Bicycle highways

2016-01-24 Thread Marc Gemis

The Fiets-o-Strade between Antwerpen en Mechelen is a relation [1]. I
don't know who created it.
As far as I remember there are "maps" along the route. I think the
blue sign [2] is indicating it.
For the rest you will only see destination signs for cyclist [3]

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1948657
[2] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/YW7xYSxMsa0173CATpNI9g/photo
[3] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/npqKaMq-nByoT1qf4TYi4Q/photo

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Jo  wrote:
> Between Leuven and Brussels they are marked in a way that is verifiable on
> the ground.
>
> We need a separate 'network' tag for them though, and it would be nice to
> see they get rendered on the specialised bicycle maps.
>
> Jo
>
> 2016-01-24 15:31 GMT+01:00 Sander Deryckere :
>>
>> Bicycle highways are more like bicycle routes than different highway
>> types.
>>
>> They are a route specifically made for commuting, connecting residential
>> area with some work center in a rather straight line.
>>
>> As such, I think those could get tagged as a cycle route with some
>> specific sub tags (like a special network).
>>
>> The question is though: are they verifiable on the ground. Or is it just
>> that European list naming them. It should only be tagged when you see
>> something on the ground that you can relate to bicycle highways.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sander
>>
>> 2016-01-24 15:00 GMT+01:00 Glenn Plas :
>>>
>>> Nothing really special about them,  highway=cycleway should be
>>> appropriate.
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>> On 24-01-16 13:12, Matthieu Gaillet wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Below you will find some information about the developing bicycle
>>> > highways (or fast cycling routes) a bit everywhere in the world.
>>> >
>>> > I was wondering if anything was foreseen to tag such highways ? If not,
>>> > what's the best place to discuss this, since I guess this should be
>>> > uniform at world level ?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your answer,
>>> >
>>> > Matthieu (sur iMobile)
>>> >
>>> > Début du message transféré :
>>> >>
>>> >> Une recherche, évidemment loin d’être exhaustive, m’a fourni une
>>> >> première liste de ce que l’ECF (European Cyclists’ Federation) dénomme
>>> >> les  */Fast Cycling Routes/** :*
>>> >> •  CH: Velobahn (Schaffhouse), TransAgglo (Fribourg), .
>>> >> •  DE: Radschnellwege  (Ruhr, Berlin, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, München,
>>> >> …)
>>> >> •  DK: Supercykelstier (Kobenhavn)
>>> >> •  FR: REV, Réseau Express Vélo, Autoroute à vélos (Toulouse),
>>> >> Vélostras (Strasbourg), Grenoble, Paris,
>>> >> •  NL: SnelleFietsroutes, Snelbinder
>>> >> Image en ligne
>>> >> •  SV: Supercykelväg (Malmoe)
>>> >> •  UK: Cycle Superhighways (London)
>>> >> •  US: California Cycleway(1896)
>>> >> •  VL: Fietsostrades (réalisations ; projets dans les 5 provinces)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ___
>>> > Talk-be mailing list
>>> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-be mailing list
>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Grote Routepaden (GR)

2016-01-24 Thread joost schouppe

I'll be somewhere  around there for the Trager Wegen event, so maybe I can
hop over. Let me know the details.
Op 24-jan.-2016 21:03 schreef "Jo" :

> Hi,
>
> On Thursday I'm meeting people from Toerisme Vlaanderen at 10h15 near to
> Antwerpen-Centraal for an informal discussion. If somebody wants to join
> us, or if there is something I should definitely mention to them, let me
> know.
>
> Jo
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] BANO cadastre.openstreetmap plus d'actualisation

J'ai fait une demande sur la liste. IRC je m'en suis servi genre 2 fois.
Twitter... Je suis pas trop dessus et c'est bloqué au taf.

Merci pour les infos

Jérôme


Le 24 janvier 2016 à 22:13, Vincent de Château-Thierry  a
écrit :

> Bonsoir,
>
> Le 24/01/2016 17:50, Jérôme Seigneuret a écrit :
>
>> Bon j'ai toujours le même message. "Problème lors de la mise à jour"
>>
>> Je vais faire une pause ;-)
>>
>
> C'est corrigé et rétabli, il y avait des petits effets collatéraux suite à
> l'upgrade.
>
> Pour ton autre question : on ne tient pas vraiment de planning de
> maintenance, non. Quand un service passe en KO, ça sera vu & dit ici, ou
> sur le forum, ou sur IRC (#osm-fr-tech) voire sur la liste 'tech' [1],
> voire encore sur twitter. Bref, on ne peut pas parler d'organisation.
>
> vincent
>
> [1] : http://listes.openstreetmap.fr/wws/info/tech
>
>
> ___
> 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-cz] Oprava vadne fotky rozcestniku?

2016-01-24 Thread Michal Grézl

ja to presunu, kdyz reknes presne kam.
presouvaci funkce bude az na novym osm.cz

fakt 3 metry? to nema cenu ani resit, to je uplne v ramci chyby gps

2016-01-20 17:18 GMT+01:00 Petr Vozdecký :
> Ahoj,
>
> nahodne jsem zaregistroval vadne umistenou fotku rozcestniku
>
> jde o http://api.openstreetmap.cz/table/id/4517
>
> zrovna jsem jej sam pred par dny fotil, ale jednak je ho v systemu jen pulka
> (druha je na druhe strane stromu) a soucasne plati, ze ma souradnice
> umistene o 3.217 m vzdusnou carou jinde...
>
> Jak postupovat? Zatim jsem udelal to, ze jserm na vyse uvedenem URL editoval
> pole poznamka a tam jsem to strucne uvedl...
>
> vop
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>



-- 
Michal Grézl
http://openstreetmap.cz

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

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

2016-01-24 Thread Andrew Davidson

 The boundaries of the parks and forests are not going to be roads as
they consist of a number of property lots that get declared for that
purpose. Property boundaries don't run down the middle of the road,
they'll be offset (at times the existing road isn't within the road
reserve anymore).  Property boundaries can be rivers (bank or thalweg
depending) or the MHWM (also known as the "coast" in OSM). 

- Original Message -
From: "Warin" 
To:
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:22:08 +1100
Subject:Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers

On 23/01/2016 2:36 PM, Nev Wedding wrote:
  thanks it appears that the boundaries here sometimes follow a topo
contour and that abuts the next defined boundary which seems
reasonable.
  On 23 Jan 2016, at 1:22 PM, Ross < [1]i...@4x4falcon.com [2]> wrote:

  Looks good to me.

On 23/01/16 13:19, Nev Wedding wrote:
  Done…Here it is   http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5892156
[3]  
  On 23 Jan 2016, at 12:43 PM, Ross  wrote: 

On 23/01/16 12:26, Nev Wedding wrote:
  I have followed this process for Kooyong State Conservation Area
which has gone well after opening the kms file and have simplified and
added all the tags,  …but on trying to upload the final boundary I
get this ominous message
 “ You are about to upload data from the layer 'Kooyong.kml'.

 Sending data from this layer is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. If you
continue,
 it may require you subsequently have to revert your changes, or force
other contributors to.

Are you sure you want to continue?  “ 
 I assume the warning is to dissuade mappers from careless import of
large uncorrected datasets.? 

 Yes.

   Sooo…, am I ok to continue or is there another reason?  ..I am
on-hold here until I see a reply 
 Nev  

However you may want to upload one, provide a link to it and then
see what others think.

 Cheers
 Ross

  On 22 Jan 2016, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Davidson <
[5]u...@internode.on.net [6]> wrote: 
 You can extract the geometries from the database directly, you don't
have to scan them. I tried this on three park areas to see how much
work was involved. The recipe I followed was:

 1. Use the query tool to find out how many objects have the name that
you are looking for. You do this with:

http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query
[7]

 with the return format set to html. Names must be in upper case and
you need to see what object ids are returned. For example if you
search for Yanununbeyan with:

http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/arcgis/rest/services/public/NSW_Administrative_Boundaries/MapServer/6/query?text=YANUNUNBEYAN==esriGeometryEnvelope==esriSpatialRelIntersects=false=false=truehtml
[8]

 You get three different ids (198,208,1131) because there is a
Yanununbeyan State Conservation Area, Yanununbeyan Nature Reserve, and
Yanununbeyan National Park. All of which need to be tagged
differently. Follow the object links to find out what type of area
they are.

 2. Having found the object id you need you get the geometry by using
the query tool and setting the object id, setting the output spatial
reference to 4326 (WGS84), and changing the output format to JSON.

 3. Save the resulting page, say output.json

 4. Use ogr2ogr from GDAL to convert the output into something JOSM
can read:

 ogr2ogr -f "KML" output.json output.kml

 5. If you have the opendata plugin installed you can open output.kml
in JOSM.

 6. Use the simplify way option in JOSM as there are far too many
points in the resulting kml. I personally thought that the default 3m
looks OK.

 7. Tag the ways with an appropriate source:geometry and add a note to
the effect that the way has been simplified using a max error
criterion set to whatever you used.

 8. Now comes the difficult and time consuming bit. You have to cut up
and conflate the new boundaries with the existing data as you merge
each new way from the layer you opened the kml in to the layer the osm
data is in. This is the step where you could really make a mess. 
At some point I would add 
 Compare to the LPI base Map for any boundary that is a feature
(river, stream, road) so that it can be tagged correctly and added as
a feature. (Not all features are in the OSM data base, so checking
against the LPI Base Map may be beneficial). 

 In part 8 .. I simply merge the entire layer. Then check each way. 

 I found while doing the few test cases that I had to:

 - Make sure that common boundaries use only one way (which means that
the more parks, state forests, admin areas, etc that share ways the
more time consuming it gets)

 - Make judgement calls about if you should use the new boundary or
keep the existing way where the boundary is something physical on the
ground like a river bank or coastline. This is why I tagged the new
ways with source:geometry so other mappers can see where they came
from.

 - If there are already ways in place, using the replace geometry
function of the utils2

[OSM-talk-fr] Traduction WeeklyOSM

2016-01-24 Thread Gwen

bonjour

En mai 2015 Emmanuel lançait sur cette liste un appel pour traduire
en français la revue hebdomadaire WeeklyOSM :
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Besoin-d-aide-pour-WeeklyOSM-en-francais-td5846564.html

Intéressée alors par ce projet j'ai profité du STOM 2015 à  Brest pour
rencontrer d'autres contributeurs motivés.

Depuis, ma vie prend progressivement une autre direction et m'éloigne
des écrans.

Je suis sincèrement désolée mais je ne peux plus désormais m'engager sur
ce projet malgré tout son intérêt.

J'ai contacté collectivement les personnes qui avaient manifesté leur
intérêt pour les en informer. Au moins une est inscrite sur cette liste.

Pour celles et ceux qui seraient intéressées pour participer à la
traduction, Emmanuel donne quelques explications dans son mail du 1er
juin 2015 :
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Besoin-d-aide-pour-WeeklyOSM-en-francais-tp5846564p5846761.html

@+

Gwen

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

[OSM-co] Fwd: El envio a Talk-co de ang...@gmail.com precisa de aprobacion

2016-01-24 Thread Artesano

-- Mensaje reenviado --
De: 
Fecha: 24/1/2016 3:37 p. m.
Asunto: El envio a Talk-co de ang...@gmail.com precisa de aprobacion
Para: 
Cc:

Como administrador de listas, se  requiere su autorización para enviar un
mensaje
a la siguiente lista de distribución:

Lista: Talk-co@openstreetmap.org
Remitente: ang...@gmail.com
Asunto:Mapeado cerca de la U Javeriana de Bogotá
Razón para retenerlo:  Mensaje dirigido a una lista privada procedente
de una dirección que no pertenece a la lista

Cuando pueda, acceda a la página:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/admindb/talk-co

para aprobar o denegar el envío


-- Mensaje reenviado --
From: Andres Gomez Casanova 
To: OpenStreetMap Colombia 
Cc:
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:36:45 -0500
Subject: Mapeado cerca de la U Javeriana de Bogotá
Saludos a todos los maderos,

He visto que por cercanías de la Universidad Javeriana de Bogotá hay varios
elementos mapeados, principalmente edificios.
Por los tiempos en que se han realizado los changesets, pareciera que como
parte de una asignatura consistiera mapear los alrededores de la
universidad y otras zonas de Bogotá.

Sin embargo, dichas modificaciones no tienen en cuanto muchos elementos de
mapeo, y se están creando edificios con nodos compartidos con las calles,
lo cual es incorrecto.

Deberíamos revisar esa zona para corregir los problema, y por qué no
intentar contactar al profesor de la asignatura para que estos cursos de
mapeo no sean solo para estudiantes sino para la comunidad.

Cordialmente,



Andres Gomez
AngocA


-- Mensaje reenviado --
From: talk-co-requ...@openstreetmap.org
To:
Cc:
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 20:36:56 +
Subject: confirm 2f5aaeb67da4472c8a919bece26e99d36aa8e421
Si responde a este mensaje manteniendo la cabecera Subject: (Asunto)
intacta, Mailman descartará el mensaje retenido. Haga esto si el
mensaje es spam. Si responde a este mensaje incluyendo una cabecera
Approved: con la contraseña de la lista en ella, se aprobará el
mensaje para que se entregue a la lista. La cabecera Approved: puede
aparecer también en la primera línea del cuerpo de la respuesta.
___
Talk-co mailing list
Talk-co@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co

Re: [talk-au] JOSM Scanaerial plugin on NSW LPI layers