Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>  new freeway was just renamed for a congress person

In this case “official_name=“ with the whole congresspersons name would be
good, keeping the commonly-used name in “name=“.

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Nemanja Bračko]

Thanks everyone for replying to this thread.

@Berjo, as I've noted in my first email we do not have any other signals at
the moment except imagery, and except for NSW where we have a base map.

@others, is it okay to make a polygon when we can recognize tarmac on a
airstrip and when we can clearly see start and the end of the runway
(zebras at the beginning and at the end)? Or if that 'airport' has official
code (e.g. ICAO)?

Thanks,
Nemanja

Sent from my phone

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 06:42 John Berkers  wrote:

> Hi Nemanja,
>
> It is worth noting that most airports/aerodromes in regional areas of
> Australia do not have control towers as they are centrally operated by Air
> Services Australia from one of 3 sites using remote cameras and such.  The
> presence or absence of a control tower should therefore not be the criteria
> on which to base whether it should be mapped.  While difficult to tell from
> Aerial imagery, there does appear to be a small building near the strip.
>
> Where feasible, adding the airport designations and runway numbers would
> be advantageous.  Is there a permissible dataset that contains this
> information?
>
> Digging into the listed source tag (ourairports.com) shows that they use
> OSM as the map layer, and drilling down to a chart takes you to SkyVector
> who also use OSM for map data (among other sources).
>
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 10:28 PM Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to manually add polygons around airports in whole
>> Australia. We have added polygons for very few airports that were marked
>> just with a single node.
>>
>>
>>
>> By using THIS  OverPass-Turbo link, you
>> can see that there are nearly 1,200 airports that needs to be inspected.
>>
>> We could recognize that other map competitors have properly marked most
>> of these airports as polygons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following
>> situation(s):
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214
>>
>>
>>
>> There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a proper name
>> Kulin Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.
>>
>> Should we add a polygon in such cases?
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that *we won’t add any polygons* if the
>> airport/airstrip/runway is on the water.
>>
>>
>>
>> We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a node of the
>> same feature. Especially because that node is somewhere at the center of
>> the airport and it doesn’t represent entry of the airport area or entry of
>> some building. Example should be Hamilton Airport @
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915. We would merge existing
>> node of the airport in to polygon of the same polygon and we would remove
>> tags from the merged node.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing airport node by
>> keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for the answers!
>>
>>
>>
>> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
>>
>> Nemanja
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-it] Amenity college in Italia

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Buongiorno lista,

ho trovato questo link:

https://www.regione.piemonte.it/web/temi/istruzione-formazione-lavoro/formazione-professionale/accreditamento-delle-strutture-formative-orientamento/sedi-accreditate-piemonte

Nella mia zona i centri di formazione dell'elenco li ho inseriti come
amenity=college.
Vorrei anche aggiungere il numero di autorizzazione, cosa ne pensate di:

authorization=*

Come per le tabaccherie?
Andrebbe bene anche ref, l'importante è usarlo in maniera uniforme.
Grazie
Francesco

Il lun 23 dic 2019, 00:37 Martin Koppenhoefer  ha
scritto:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 22. Dec 2019, at 20:28, Francesco Ansanelli 
> wrote:
>
>
> L'unico uso quasi documentato è:
> office =tutoring
> 
>
> Però è un significato diverso.
>
>
>
> non saprei come taggare queste aziende, ma concordo con Lorenzo che
> amenity=college è tutt’altro.
> Vale la pena chiedere in lista tagging.
>
> Ciao Martin
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Greg Morgan]

Please don't remove the alt_name tags.  They are useful and not that much
of a distraction or an error  For example, a new freeway was just renamed
for a congress person that helped with many AZ transportation projects.  I
added the alt_name tag so that the South Mountain Freeway can still be
found in a search.  The new name is months old while the old alt_name has
been used for decade.  Not everyone calls Pima County by its full name.
That's why I think that the mapper added the alt_name so that
searches would be successful.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78850121

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 6:26 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> I’ve noticed that a number of counties in California and Arizona have what
> seems to be unneeded alt_name tags in their boundary relations. For example
> Pima County, Arizona has name=“Pima County” and alt_name=“Pima”. Same for
> Pinal County in Arizona and Riverside, Orange, Kern and Ventura counties in
> California. But this does not seem universal as the few counties I looked
> at in Washington state have only a name=* tag (e.g. name=“Columbia County”).
>
> I don’t see a wiki page for the standard for this in the United States. Is
> there one I’ve missed?
>
> Assuming there is not standard for this, should there be? And what should
> it be? (My preference is to remove an alt_name that is simply the name
> without “County”.)
>
> For what it is worth, it looks like the alt_names for counties in Arizona
> and California were added in 2014 by the user “revent” who is still
> actively mapping borders around the world.
>
> Thanks!
> Tod
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[John Berkers]

Hi Nemanja,

It is worth noting that most airports/aerodromes in regional areas of
Australia do not have control towers as they are centrally operated by Air
Services Australia from one of 3 sites using remote cameras and such.  The
presence or absence of a control tower should therefore not be the criteria
on which to base whether it should be mapped.  While difficult to tell from
Aerial imagery, there does appear to be a small building near the strip.

Where feasible, adding the airport designations and runway numbers would be
advantageous.  Is there a permissible dataset that contains this
information?

Digging into the listed source tag (ourairports.com) shows that they use
OSM as the map layer, and drilling down to a chart takes you to SkyVector
who also use OSM for map data (among other sources).

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 10:28 PM Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> We would like to manually add polygons around airports in whole Australia.
> We have added polygons for very few airports that were marked just with a
> single node.
>
>
>
> By using THIS  OverPass-Turbo link, you
> can see that there are nearly 1,200 airports that needs to be inspected.
>
> We could recognize that other map competitors have properly marked most of
> these airports as polygons.
>
>
>
> Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following situation(s):
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214
>
>
>
> There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a proper name
> Kulin Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.
>
> Should we add a polygon in such cases?
>
>
>
> Please note that *we won’t add any polygons* if the
> airport/airstrip/runway is on the water.
>
>
>
> We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a node of the
> same feature. Especially because that node is somewhere at the center of
> the airport and it doesn’t represent entry of the airport area or entry of
> some building. Example should be Hamilton Airport @
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915. We would merge existing
> node of the airport in to polygon of the same polygon and we would remove
> tags from the merged node.
>
>
>
> If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing airport node by
> keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for the answers!
>
>
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
>
> Nemanja
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Phil Wyatt]

So how about this map? Is one click still a lack of attribution?

 

https://www.rolexsydneyhobart.com/tracker/

 

From: Nuno Caldeira  
Sent: Thursday, 26 December 2019 6:17 AM
To: · Michael Medina 
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

doesn't surprise me. check this 
https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/ plenty of 
space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is not hidden under an 
"i". I have reported another client of theirs that I have reached out to ask 
for attribution, which they understood, but still haven't fixed it. let's see 
if mapbox is in good will. 

 

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, mailto:recycleore...@gmail.com> > wrote:

As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on Mapbox’s 
part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint against Mapbox or 
deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to go through the regular 
help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate this issue to their top 
administrators.  I know the board likes to play nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing 
nice so no reason to as far as I can tell. 

 

Michael Medina 

 

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06 mailto:talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:

Send talk mailing list submissions to
talk@openstreetmap.org  

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org  

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org  

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
  (Nuno Caldeira)


--

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +
From: Nuno Caldeira mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> >
To: Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> 
>
Cc: joost schouppe mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com> 
>, OSMF Talk
mailto:osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org> >, 
OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
update
Message-ID: mailto:ea8605f7-ac7d-040e-c38a-f80c2cbc8...@gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Hi Mateusz,


They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018, 
yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed. 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing


On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Have they responded with anything
> (except automatic reply) ?
>
> Is there an assigned issue id?
>
>
> 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com 
>  :
>
> I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
>
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
> mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>  
>  >> wrote:
>
>
> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via
> Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without attribution
> requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
> reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
> They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to
> comply over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license
> in every aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read
> Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated
> offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing
> lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
>
> https://map.snapchat.com/
>
> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is
> going on for over a year with these two companies that are
> corporate members of OSMF and should be the first ones to
> give examples. Enough with excuses.
>
>
> The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do
> things. If there's space for Mapbox, there's space for
> OpenStreetMap. But I don't think Snapchat has anything to do
> with Facebook.
>
> Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

___
talk mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I agree that the current OpenStreetMap data is wrong.

For example, I grew up in the Klamath National Forest, and that area should
include the Marble Mountain wilderness, it’s shouldn’t be a hole in the
National Forest.

-Joseph

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:40 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some
> designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in.
> For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer
> on the Los Padres National Forest [2].
>
> This does not seem correct to me. In this specific case the wilderness is
> administered as part of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District of the Los Padres
> National Forest. I believe the same situation exists with the San Mateo
> Wilderness in the Cleveland National Forest.
>
> What is our tagging policy on this? Should the wilderness be shown as part
> of the forest that contains it? (I realize there may be wilderness areas
> that cover multiple forests but the usual case is that a wilderness area is
> a subset of a forest both geographically and administratively.
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks
> Tod
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2779216#map=12/34.7913/-119.1759
> [2]
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2784140#map=11/34.7975/-119.2302
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?

[Tod Fitch]

If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some 
designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in. For 
example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer on the 
Los Padres National Forest [2].

This does not seem correct to me. In this specific case the wilderness is 
administered as part of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District of the Los Padres 
National Forest. I believe the same situation exists with the San Mateo 
Wilderness in the Cleveland National Forest.

What is our tagging policy on this? Should the wilderness be shown as part of 
the forest that contains it? (I realize there may be wilderness areas that 
cover multiple forests but the usual case is that a wilderness area is a subset 
of a forest both geographically and administratively.

Comments?

Thanks
Tod


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2779216#map=12/34.7913/-119.1759
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2784140#map=11/34.7975/-119.2302


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Tod Fitch]

I’ve noticed that a number of counties in California and Arizona have what 
seems to be unneeded alt_name tags in their boundary relations. For example 
Pima County, Arizona has name=“Pima County” and alt_name=“Pima”. Same for Pinal 
County in Arizona and Riverside, Orange, Kern and Ventura counties in 
California. But this does not seem universal as the few counties I looked at in 
Washington state have only a name=* tag (e.g. name=“Columbia County”).

I don’t see a wiki page for the standard for this in the United States. Is 
there one I’ve missed?

Assuming there is not standard for this, should there be? And what should it 
be? (My preference is to remove an alt_name that is simply the name without 
“County”.)

For what it is worth, it looks like the alt_names for counties in Arizona and 
California were added in 2014 by the user “revent” who is still actively 
mapping borders around the world.

Thanks!
Tod



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-it-trentino] raccolta dei numeri civici in trentino da parte della provincia

[Alessandro Vitali]

Napo che bella notizia!
Per la Bassa Valsugana (ed eventualmente anche Alta, ma prioritariamente
Bassa) sicuramente io! Attendo ulteriori riguardo l'impegno ed i tempi da
rispettare.
Non conosco nessuno degli strumenti che hai scritto, io uso Vespucci, ma si
può imparare tutto!

Grazie e auguri a tutti!!
Ale Vit

Il Mer 25 Dic 2019, 19:00 Maurizio Napolitano  ha
scritto:

> Ciao a tutt*
> vi scrivo per informarvi che la Provincia sta concludendo una
> sperimentazione per gli strumenti di raccolta dei numeri civici in
> Trentino.
> La sperimentazione si è concentrata sulĺ'uso di strumenti di alta
> precisione per la raccolta dei dati via gps attraverso il gps
> differenziale offerto dalla rete TPOS (
> http://www.tpos.provincia.tn.it ), assieme a questa sono state
> valutate altre soluzioni fra cui filedpapers, opendatakit e esri
> collector.
> Fra non molto scriverò meglio in merito.
> Mi chiedono quanto i mappers potrebbero essere interessati ad un
> coinvolgimento o di fare parte di un tavolo di discussione.
> Buon Natale
>
>
> --
> Maurizio "Napo" Napolitano
> http://de.straba.us
>
> ___
> Talk-it-trentino mailing list
> Talk-it-trentino@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it-trentino
>
___
Talk-it-trentino mailing list
Talk-it-trentino@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it-trentino

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[cleary]

I agree with Warin's comments.

Some years ago someone did a mass import from a public-domain website with 
"airport" information. Personally I think of an airport as a location which is 
accessible to the public and which offers regular commercial flights.  Most of 
the "airports" shown in Australia are private runways which are used only in 
medical emergencies or if local roads are unusable for an extended period.  
Some are almost compeletely disused and some cannot be found in the satellite 
imagery.  Many do not have boundaries - as Warin noted. I would be concerned at 
mapping non-existent features.  I expect most of the "airports" are like the 
example cited at Kulin WA.  OSM also shows another aeroway node a few 
kilometres away from that location, this second one being for the Kulin Bush 
Races, which are held on one weekend each year. The runway appears to be on a 
farm located near the racetrack and there appear to be no boundaries that could 
be mapped.

I support mapping boundaries that actually do exist, provided we have the 
relevant information. But I expect this will be a small proportion of all the  
airports or aerodromes on the map.




On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, at 11:26 AM, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au wrote:
>  
> Hi everyone,
> 
> 
> We would like to manually add polygons around airports in whole 
> Australia. We have added polygons for very few airports that were 
> marked just with a single node.
> 
> 
> By using THIS  OverPass-Turbo link, 
> you can see that there are nearly 1,200 airports that needs to be 
> inspected.
> 
> We could recognize that other map competitors have properly marked most 
> of these airports as polygons.
> 
> 
> Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following situation(s):
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214
> 
> 
> There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a proper 
> name Kulin Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.
> 
> Should we add a polygon in such cases?
> 
> 
> Please note that *we won’t add any polygons* if the 
> airport/airstrip/runway is on the water.
> 
> 
> We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a node of the 
> same feature. Especially because that node is somewhere at the center 
> of the airport and it doesn’t represent entry of the airport area or 
> entry of some building. Example should be Hamilton Airport @  
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915. We would merge existing 
> node of the airport in to polygon of the same polygon and we would 
> remove tags from the merged node.
> 
> 
> If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing airport node 
> by keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for the answers!
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
> 
> Nemanja
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Warin]

Many of these 'airports' have no effective boundary and are best 
represented by a node.


Some are 'operated' by the local council and the council owns a large 
area of land around the 'airport'.


Some may be 'operated by the local station (in American 'ranch') and 
they may own some 100s of miles around the 'airport'.


These 'operators' see little point in paying scarce money to fence in 
the 'boundaries'.


Many of them have no 'regular commercial' flights, some have regular 
postal deliveries (by plane), some have the Doctor fly in (google Royal 
Flying Doctor Service).


For the state of New South Wales you may find the LPI Base Map usefull 
to find the legal boundaries, those may not exist for some of these 
'airports'.


I would not be too anxious to add closed ways for these 'airports'. Few 
people use them.



On 26/12/19 07:56, Nemanja Bračko wrote:
Yes. We do not have other signals. It is possible to miss official 
bounding box (when it is hard to see fence or when there is no fence 
at all), but it will be close enough and it will represent airport 
area. I could see that couple of airports have really rough 
approximation of the boundaries.



Thanks,
Nemanja

Sent from my phone

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019, 21:42 Ben Kelley > wrote:


Hi.

That seems like a good idea. How will you know the bounds of the
airport? Just from aerial photos?

 - Ben.

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 22:28, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via
Talk-au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hi everyone,

We would like to manually add polygons around airports in
whole Australia. We have added polygons for very few airports
that were marked just with a single node.

By using THIS  OverPass-Turbo
link, you can see that there are nearly 1,200 airports that
needs to be inspected.

We could recognize that other map competitors have properly
marked most of these airports as polygons.

Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following
situation(s):

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214

There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a
proper name Kulin Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.

Should we add a polygon in such cases?

Please note that *we won’t add any polygons* if the
airport/airstrip/runway is on the water.



Umm some of the 'water' is very intermittent .. to the degree that 
farmers plough it and plant crops on it.


We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a
node of the same feature. Especially because that node is
somewhere at the center of the airport and it doesn’t
represent entry of the airport area or entry of some building.
Example should be Hamilton Airport @
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915
. We would merge
existing node of the airport in to polygon of the same polygon
and we would remove tags from the merged node.

If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing
airport node by keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.

Thanks in advance for the answers!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,

Nemanja


_



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [Tagging-fr] Proposition - approuvée - Points de distribution télécoms

[François Lacombe]

Bonsoir et merci pour vos messages :)

Le mar. 24 déc. 2019 à 17:57, severin.menard 
a écrit :

> Salut François,
>
> Super pour la validation de ces nouveaux attributs. Quelle sera ta
> prochaine thématique de travail ?
>

Normalement la première propal de 2020 sera pour line_management, qui
permet de renseigner des situations particulières de topologie de lignes
aériennes (les symboles sont évocateurs).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management

C'est la 2ème couche de nettoyage de la clé tower:type, plus d'infos en
anglais ici : https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058
La 1ere pour line_attachment marche plutôt bien en Afrique et le nord de
l'Europe.

Je prendrai évidemment le temps de traduire tout ça pour les francophones
pour poursuivre la RFC.

A suivre pour de nouvelles aventures

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

[talk-cz] Návrh na import jeskyní

[Miroslav Suchý]

Tohle:
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SJCR_Import
bych chtěl poslat na tagging list. Než to tam pošlu, tak uvítám případné 
připomínky.


I když se to nedoporučuje, tak s ohledem na komplexnost jsem provedl 
vzorový import jedné jeskyně (což se dá v případě jednoduše revertovat).


  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10478883

K tomu uvítám také připomínky.
Další nebudu dělat dokud nebude import schválen.


Mirek

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Nemanja Bračko]

Yes. We do not have other signals. It is possible to miss official bounding
box (when it is hard to see fence or when there is no fence at all), but it
will be close enough and it will represent airport area. I could see that
couple of airports have really rough approximation of the boundaries.


Thanks,
Nemanja

Sent from my phone

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019, 21:42 Ben Kelley  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> That seems like a good idea. How will you know the bounds of the airport?
> Just from aerial photos?
>
>  - Ben.
>
> On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 22:28, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au <
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to manually add polygons around airports in whole
>> Australia. We have added polygons for very few airports that were marked
>> just with a single node.
>>
>>
>>
>> By using THIS  OverPass-Turbo link, you
>> can see that there are nearly 1,200 airports that needs to be inspected.
>>
>> We could recognize that other map competitors have properly marked most
>> of these airports as polygons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following
>> situation(s):
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214
>>
>>
>>
>> There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a proper name
>> Kulin Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.
>>
>> Should we add a polygon in such cases?
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that *we won’t add any polygons* if the
>> airport/airstrip/runway is on the water.
>>
>>
>>
>> We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a node of the
>> same feature. Especially because that node is somewhere at the center of
>> the airport and it doesn’t represent entry of the airport area or entry of
>> some building. Example should be Hamilton Airport @
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915. We would merge existing
>> node of the airport in to polygon of the same polygon and we would remove
>> tags from the merged node.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing airport node by
>> keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for the answers!
>>
>>
>>
>> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
>>
>> Nemanja
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Ben Kelley]

Hi.

That seems like a good idea. How will you know the bounds of the airport?
Just from aerial photos?

 - Ben.

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 22:28, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> We would like to manually add polygons around airports in whole Australia.
> We have added polygons for very few airports that were marked just with a
> single node.
>
>
>
> By using THIS  OverPass-Turbo link, you
> can see that there are nearly 1,200 airports that needs to be inspected.
>
> We could recognize that other map competitors have properly marked most of
> these airports as polygons.
>
>
>
> Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following situation(s):
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214
>
>
>
> There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a proper name
> Kulin Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.
>
> Should we add a polygon in such cases?
>
>
>
> Please note that *we won’t add any polygons* if the
> airport/airstrip/runway is on the water.
>
>
>
> We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a node of the
> same feature. Especially because that node is somewhere at the center of
> the airport and it doesn’t represent entry of the airport area or entry of
> some building. Example should be Hamilton Airport @
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915. We would merge existing
> node of the airport in to polygon of the same polygon and we would remove
> tags from the merged node.
>
>
>
> If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing airport node by
> keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for the answers!
>
>
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
>
> Nemanja
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-it-trentino] raccolta dei numeri civici in trentino da parte della provincia

[Marco Ciampa]

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 07:00:07PM +0100, Maurizio Napolitano wrote:
> Ciao a tutt*
> vi scrivo per informarvi che la Provincia sta concludendo una
> sperimentazione per gli strumenti di raccolta dei numeri civici in
> Trentino.
> La sperimentazione si è concentrata sulĺ'uso di strumenti di alta
> precisione per la raccolta dei dati via gps attraverso il gps
> differenziale offerto dalla rete TPOS (
> http://www.tpos.provincia.tn.it ), assieme a questa sono state
> valutate altre soluzioni fra cui filedpapers, opendatakit e esri
> collector.
> Fra non molto scriverò meglio in merito.
> Mi chiedono quanto i mappers potrebbero essere interessati ad un
> coinvolgimento o di fare parte di un tavolo di discussione.
> Buon Natale

Ottime notizie e buone feste!

-- 

Saluton,
Marco Ciampa

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Nuno Caldeira]

doesn't surprise me. check this
https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/attribution-position/ plenty
of space for visible attribution, well mapbox attribution is not hidden
under an "i". I have reported another client of theirs that I have reached
out to ask for attribution, which they understood, but still haven't fixed
it. let's see if mapbox is in good will.

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, 17:20 · Michael Medina, 
wrote:

> As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on
> Mapbox’s part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint
> against Mapbox or deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to
> go through the regular help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate
> this issue to their top administrators.  I know the board likes to play
> nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing nice so no reason to as far as I can tell.
>
> Michael Medina
>
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06  wrote:
>
>> Send talk mailing list submissions to
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
>>   (Nuno Caldeira)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +
>> From: Nuno Caldeira 
>> To: Mateusz Konieczny 
>> Cc: joost schouppe , OSMF Talk
>> , OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
>> update
>> Message-ID: 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> Hi Mateusz,
>>
>>
>> They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018,
>> yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed.
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> > Have they responded with anything
>> > (except automatic reply) ?
>> >
>> > Is there an assigned issue id?
>> >
>> >
>> > 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:
>> >
>> > I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
>> >
>> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
>> > mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via
>> > Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without attribution
>> > requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
>> > reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
>> > They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to
>> > comply over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license
>> > in every aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read
>> > Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated
>> > offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing
>> > lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
>> >
>> > https://map.snapchat.com/
>> >
>> > Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is
>> > going on for over a year with these two companies that are
>> > corporate members of OSMF and should be the first ones to
>> > give examples. Enough with excuses.
>> >
>> >
>> > The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do
>> > things. If there's space for Mapbox, there's space for
>> > OpenStreetMap. But I don't think Snapchat has anything to do
>> > with Facebook.
>> >
>> > Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through
>> Facebook.
>> >
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20191224/e4cbcf8f/attachment.htm
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> End of talk Digest, Vol 184, Issue 39
>> *
>>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-it-trentino] raccolta dei numeri civici in trentino da parte della provincia

[Francesco Pelullo]

Il mer 25 dic 2019, 19:00 Maurizio Napolitano  ha
scritto:

>
> Mi chiedono quanto i mappers potrebbero essere interessati ad un
> coinvolgimento o di fare parte di un tavolo di discussione.
> Buon Natale
>


Ciao Maurizio, ciao lista
Innanzitutto Buon Natale a tutti.

Non mi è chiaro quale sia il supporto richiesto, in ogni caso sarei
disponibile a dare una mano nei limiti delle mie conoscenze.

Rinnovo gli auguri a tutti.

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

[Talk-it-trentino] raccolta dei numeri civici in trentino da parte della provincia

[Maurizio Napolitano]

Ciao a tutt*
vi scrivo per informarvi che la Provincia sta concludendo una
sperimentazione per gli strumenti di raccolta dei numeri civici in
Trentino.
La sperimentazione si è concentrata sulĺ'uso di strumenti di alta
precisione per la raccolta dei dati via gps attraverso il gps
differenziale offerto dalla rete TPOS (
http://www.tpos.provincia.tn.it ), assieme a questa sono state
valutate altre soluzioni fra cui filedpapers, opendatakit e esri
collector.
Fra non molto scriverò meglio in merito.
Mi chiedono quanto i mappers potrebbero essere interessati ad un
coinvolgimento o di fare parte di un tavolo di discussione.
Buon Natale


-- 
Maurizio "Napo" Napolitano
http://de.straba.us

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[· Michael Medina]

As a native English speaker this reads as complete stonewalling on Mapbox’s
part. I don’t know why OSM doesn’t just file a DMCA complaint against
Mapbox or deny them access. The OSM board should also not have to go
through the regular help channel to get answers. Mapbox should escalate
this issue to their top administrators.  I know the board likes to play
nice, but Mapbox isn’t playing nice so no reason to as far as I can tell.

Michael Medina

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 04:06  wrote:

> Send talk mailing list submissions to
> talk@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
>   (Nuno Caldeira)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +
> From: Nuno Caldeira 
> To: Mateusz Konieczny 
> Cc: joost schouppe , OSMF Talk
> , OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
> 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status
> update
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi Mateusz,
>
>
> They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018,
> yes _*2018*_. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > Have they responded with anything
> > (except automatic reply) ?
> >
> > Is there an assigned issue id?
> >
> >
> > 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:
> >
> > I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe,
> > mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via
> > Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without attribution
> > requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a
> > reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
> > They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to
> > comply over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license
> > in every aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read
> > Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated
> > offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing
> > lists, nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
> >
> > https://map.snapchat.com/
> >
> > Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is
> > going on for over a year with these two companies that are
> > corporate members of OSMF and should be the first ones to
> > give examples. Enough with excuses.
> >
> >
> > The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do
> > things. If there's space for Mapbox, there's space for
> > OpenStreetMap. But I don't think Snapchat has anything to do
> > with Facebook.
> >
> > Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through
> Facebook.
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20191224/e4cbcf8f/attachment.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> --
>
> End of talk Digest, Vol 184, Issue 39
> *
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-at] geoimage.at geändert

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 06:45:24 +0100
Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

> Bei mir ging seit einiger Zeit der geoimage.at-Hintergrund nicht mehr. Weil 
> ein vorübergehender Serverausfall nicht so lang dauern kann, bin ich der 
> Sache jetzt mal auf den Grund gegangen. Also für den Fall, dass ihr das 
> selbe Problem habt:
> 
> Die haben heimlich die Parameter geändert. Statt...
> LAYERS=Luftbild_MR,Luftbild_1m,Luftbild_8m,Satellitenbild_30m
> ...müsst ihr jetzt angeben einfach:
> LAYERS=Luftbild
> 

In JOSM ist diese Änderung schon umgesetzt, soweit ich das sehe.

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)

[joost schouppe]

Hi Jo,

I think that's the right thing to do, thank you.

What I'm still a bit unclear about: if the route itself is unfinished, but
large sections of them are, then I would think the finished parts do
deserve a "ready for use state". We talked about this briefly before, maybe
someone here has an idea how to split up the route (say F3) in three types
of subrelations :

- usable, ready and waymarked (so similar to any "normal" cycle route)
- usable but not ready or waymarked (here the route is proposed, I'd say)
- unusable (here the ways themselves are proposed)

As stated by Stijn and Eebie, the connections "invented" by Jo don't belong
in OSM. However some of these detours are in fact waymarked. For example,
in the cycle highway Brussel-Halle there is an official detour that will be
in place for two years. I'm not sure if this kind of situation needs to ge
in a fourth type...

Joost

Op di 24 dec. 2019 10:57 schreef Jo :

> All the figments of my imagination have been removed. I reviewed the
> remaining ones, and fixed them here and there. Where it's not possible to
> use them today to get from the start till the end, they are marked as
> state=proposed.
>
> 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

[talk-au] Adding polygons of the aerodromes

[Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au]

Hi everyone,

We would like to manually add polygons around airports in whole Australia. We 
have added polygons for very few airports that were marked just with a single 
node.

By using THIS OverPass-Turbo link, you can see 
that there are nearly 1,200 airports that needs to be inspected.
We could recognize that other map competitors have properly marked most of 
these airports as polygons.

Anyway, we have doubt should we add polygons in the following situation(s):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73310214

There are no control tower nor any other buildings. It has a proper name Kulin 
Airport @-32.6721992, 118.1689987.
Should we add a polygon in such cases?

Please note that we won't add any polygons if the airport/airstrip/runway is on 
the water.

We believe that there is no need to preserve both way and a node of the same 
feature. Especially because that node is somewhere at the center of the airport 
and it doesn't represent entry of the airport area or entry of some building. 
Example should be Hamilton Airport @ 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/407705915. We would merge existing node of 
the airport in to polygon of the same polygon and we would remove tags from the 
merged node.

If we are adding new polygon, we would preserve existing airport node by 
keeping this node as a part of the new polygon.

Thanks in advance for the answers!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Nemanja

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