Re: [OSM-talk-be] waymarked or not?
website of an authority, routes that are actively promoted, routes that were actively promoted for some event a few years ago and still can be found somewhere but are no longer maintained, routes where nobody really knows where they come from but they sound kind of official...It will get messy... Wouter On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, 09:51 Francois Gerin, wrote: +1 for the "end user's perspective". >From my point of view, two key rules make the ground for OSM as pointed out in >several places of the documentation: 1. Think to end users 2. Map what really exists "Map what really exists" is visible in many places in the docs, and this is indeed important, up to some "threshold". "Think to the end users" is much less visible, but is visible anyway. I'm afraid that, being driven mostly by technical profiles/mappers, the "Map what exists" rule seems to take the precedence because it is more visible. According to me, "Think to the end users" should be the first rule, in terms of priorities. Followed by "Map what really exists", at the very same priority as "Use your common sense" which is also very visible in the docs... => My 2 cents. On 13/10/20 09:37, Matthieu Gaillet wrote: At first I was going to agree with Tim and s8evq but hey, the world is changing and from an user perspective, having itineraries on the map is a plus, wether they are signposted or not. I personally never follow sign posts, I just follow ‘a' route on my OSM-sourced GPS. Regarding the question "what should be mapped or not", I believe the itineraries should appear in OSM only if their are proposed or designed by an official operator, not mr nobody. That’s enough to keep quality, not staying aside nice initiatives (even if virtual), and stay close to exhaustive when it comes to official itineraries. After all, a route, sign posted or not, is in a sense always virtual. Matthieu On 13 Oct 2020, at 08:49, Tim Couwelier wrote: I'm inclined to go by 'mapping verifiable ground truth'. Which means no - don't add them unless signposted along the way. Op di 13 okt. 2020 om 08:45 schreef s8evq : I do not think they should be in OSM, and I wouldn't mind deleting them. :) First of all, they are harder to keep up to date and verify. Secondly, like you said, where do you draw the line. Who's routes do we add and who's not? For example, Natuurpunt and some of the local tourism offices already have 'virtual' hikes, where they only suggest which node numbers to combine. On the ground, nothing is marked. I don't think this should be in OSM. If I get this correctly, 'Randonnées en Boucle' (SGR) are hikes made out of parts of existing GR trails? I wouldn't add that. The possibilities are just endless... On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:57:59 + (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote: > Hi, > > There is a guideline or rule that only waymarked hiking/cycle/... routes > should be added to OSM. Not everyone agrees and there are some non-waymarked > routes in OSM because nobody, not even me, dares to remove them. > Anyway, that rule/guideline is getting in trouble because some official > routes are not waymarked anymore. > Provincie Vlaams-Brabant enlarged the 'wandelnetwerk Getevallei', but the > new nodes and routes are not waymarked anymore (too expensive). But there is > a map, a website and an app. [1] > The municipality of Profondeville has the project '1000 bornes' (40 parcours > pour vélos de route et VTT): only gps-tracks on route-you. [2] > More will probably follow (or perhaps already exist). > > So, what do we do? Or where do we draw the line? Because the line between > what can be considered as official routes or not, could (in the future) > become very thin. Or what do we do with the 'Randonnées en Boucle' (SGR)? > What if Natuurpunt/Natagora starts with 'virtual' walking routes? > > What is your opinion? > > Regards, > > StijnRR > > P.S. The new map of 'wandelnetwerk De Merode' has OSM as background layer. > Thanks to everyone who contributed. > > [1] https://www.toerismevlaamsbrabant.be/pagina/werken-wandelnetwerken/ > [2] https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes > > ___ > 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 ___
[OSM-talk-be] waymarked or not?
Hi, There is a guideline or rule that only waymarked hiking/cycle/... routes should be added to OSM. Not everyone agrees and there are some non-waymarked routes in OSM because nobody, not even me, dares to remove them. Anyway, that rule/guideline is getting in trouble because some official routes are not waymarked anymore. Provincie Vlaams-Brabant enlarged the 'wandelnetwerk Getevallei', but the new nodes and routes are not waymarked anymore (too expensive). But there is a map, a website and an app. [1] The municipality of Profondeville has the project '1000 bornes' (40 parcours pour vélos de route et VTT): only gps-tracks on route-you. [2] More will probably follow (or perhaps already exist). So, what do we do? Or where do we draw the line? Because the line between what can be considered as official routes or not, could (in the future) become very thin. Or what do we do with the 'Randonnées en Boucle' (SGR)? What if Natuurpunt/Natagora starts with 'virtual' walking routes? What is your opinion? Regards, StijnRR P.S. The new map of 'wandelnetwerk De Merode' has OSM as background layer. Thanks to everyone who contributed. [1] https://www.toerismevlaamsbrabant.be/pagina/werken-wandelnetwerken/ [2] https://www.profondeville.be/loisirs/sport/1000bornes ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] regional cycle routes in Brussels
And don't forget the superroutes. They're still lcn. StijnRR On Thursday, September 3, 2020, 04:55:24 PM GMT+2, Jo wrote: Yes, I'll look at those as well. Jo On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 1:00 PM Yves bxl-forever wrote: Hello, Thanks for this. @Polyglot, I saw you updated numbered cycle routes (1 to 12). The Brussels cycle route network also has 7 routes with letters. I suppose we should apply the same change. A small circle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/237027 B middle circle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/116569 C large circle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7418111 CC: Canal/Kanaal: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1119347 SZ Senne/Zenne valley: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/116611 MM Maalbeek valley: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/114235 PP (King’s Palace): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2133184 Cheers. Yves On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:40:29 +0200 Jo wrote: > I had a look at them after downloading them using Overpass API and started > making them continuous where they were 'broken'. So I went ahead and also > converted them all to rcn. > > Jo > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:41 AM Jo wrote: > > > Hi Joost, > > > > In Flanders it depended more on topology than anything else. We used: > > > > lcn: for loops > > rcn: for the numbered node networks, this logic was taken to rwn and rhn > > later on > > ncn: for long routes going from A to B (LFx) and then later for the Fxxx > > cycle highways > > icn: for European routes going from A to B > > > > In Brussels rcn doesn't seem to be used and those routes are topologically > > more similar to the numbered routes system used in Flanders and Wallonia. > > > > I agree with you that it makes more sense to tag them as rcn. > > > > Jo > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:14 AM joost schouppe > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I was always a little confused that the regional cycle network is mapped > >> as lcn in Brussels. Since this network is organized by Brussels-the-region, > >> not Brussels-the-city, it seems logical that it should have the rcn tag. In > >> fact, more so than the Flemish cycle node network, which is composed of > >> several networks and almost by coincidence covers the region. > >> > >> This is also what we say in the wiki: > >> > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Cycle_Routes#Itin.C3.A9raires_Cyclables_R.C3.A9gionaux_-_Gewestelijke_Fietsroute > >> > >> But the example given there (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9623 > >> I believe), is now mapped as an lcn. > >> > >> Looking at the edit history, it looks like there was a minor edit war > >> about this, where user RoRay repeatedly changed it from rcn to lcn > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/8141976 > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/12902663 > >> (RoRay is still mapping, still using the not-very helpful default > >> changeset description "update") > >> > >> User BenoitL tried to change it back to rcn (with much better changeset > >> comments :) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/12849599), but I > >> guess he gave up. Polyglot later seems to have mapped most of the other > >> routes; my guess is he just went with lcn because that's how the others > >> were mapped. > >> > >> Apart from the network not showing up when it should on some maps, it > >> doesn't really matter much. However, bxl-forever is now mapping -actual- > >> lcn routes in the Brussels region, operated by Anderlecht municipality. > >> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11544325 > >> Putting both types of routes in the same level is just wrong IMHO. > >> > >> Can anyone provide some more context? Based on my own research, I'd > >> suggest we simply retag all the regional operated routes from lcn to rcn. > >> > >> Best, > >> Joost Schouppe > >> ___ > >> 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
[OSM-talk-be] slowroads conventions
Hi, A side step from the discussion of the previous days. This page exists [1], but it isn't listed under the conventions here [2]. If I'm not mistaken it once was, but has disappeared from that list after a while. Does somebody know why? Or did it just fall off... Or is it because it still has a 'draft' status? Then it is maybe time to accept this proposal instead of leaving it for years as a draft. Anyway, if that page were a bit more visible, perhaps more people would follow those (draft) conventions (and also use the correct tags, e.g. vicinal_ref instead of ref or name). Regards, StijnRR [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] RFC: explicit tagging of 'Jaagpaden'
Hi, 'Jaagpaden' are not always paved roads. Often compacted, gravel, earthen, grassy, ... roads/tracks and then highway=track seems a better choice. Sometimes the only thing that's left is just a path. Then the tag service=towpath is rather odd. I use description=jaagpad.And what about similar roads which usually have the same access restrictions but are called 'haven' or 'havengebied' instead of 'jaagpad'? Regards, StijnRR Op dinsdag 3 maart 2020 16:28:46 CET schreef Pieter Vander Vennet : Hey Marc, Thanks for your response. IMHO all towpaths are indeed peculiar service roads, thus 'highway=service' + 'service=towpath'. The wiki even mentions explicitly that it should be a service road. The examples you sent are excellent examples where the legal signposting didn't catch up with the historic usage. These clearly used to be towpath but they didn't gain the legal recognition of a 'jaagpad'. Personally, I would tag those with 'service=towpath' (reflecting the historic usage) but not with 'towpath=yes', but this is very subject to change. We might even consider `towpath=no` (with a note clarifying this is legally _not_ a 'jaagpad') or `legal:towpath=no` or something similar. Another thought: if we are about using 'towpath=yes' to reflect the legal status, I'm doubting that there is no better tag scheme for this. Kind regards, Pieter On 03.03.20 16:12, Marc Gemis wrote: > I'm fine with explicitly mapping them. > Isn't service=towpath strange on a way that is not tagged as > highway=service? (but you know that I think they should have been > mapped as highway=service in the first place, but this is not the > case) > > So it's meant for all those that are explicitly signed as "Jaagpad" > and not for any others? So this > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3T0U_uBJxNXHfrgwdztQDQ is not a > Jaagpad? (a bit further > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.05439739997222=4.4334043=17=photo=cmVJ5z_VXnZqwsdrEK0aHw > , but that still does not make it a Jaadpad?) > > m. > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 2:14 PM Pieter Vander Vennet > wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> Even though the legal restrictions of 'Jaagpaden' (towpaths in proper >> English) is already described in detail on the wiki, it would still be >> useful to reflect the special status explicitly, in our case to give a >> comfort bonus in cycling route planning but also for historical purposes. >> >> For context, a 'jaagpad', 'trekpad' or towing path is a path that used to be >> used to (literally) tow boats through the canals, either with manpower or >> horsepower and a rope attached to the boat - hence there are never trees >> between a towpath. >> >> With the rise of cheap and powerful combustion engines, this practice became >> disused and towpaths became service roads and cycleways. >> >> As stated, these often are excellent and heavily preferred by cyclists. >> Normally, they are wide, asphalted, there are very few cars and especially: >> there is the very nice scenery of the canal. >> >> Therefore, I would propose to introduce tagging in Belgium to tag towpaths. >> >> >> There are two ways to achieve this: >> >> - A towpath is typically a specific type of service road, so we can add >> `service=towpath` >> >> - In the UK, the towpaths are tagged with `towpath=yes` >> >> Note that towpaths in Flanders are mostly signposted with an official sign, >> even though that this is a bit of a legal remnant of a previous era. >> However, it makes it very explicit and thus unambiguous to map. >> >> But now, for the serious questions: >> >> - what are your thoughts of mapping them somehow? IMHO it is an added value >> and I'm quite in favour of them. >> >> - What is the best way of mapping them? I'm a bit on the edge of the options >> above: `service=towpath` is IMHO semantically the most correct form, as it >> indicates that it is a service road originally built for towing. >> `towpath=yes` reeks more of the legal status (i.e. having a formal road sign >> indicating 'jaagpad'). The latter has the advantage of already being in use >> in the UK with over 3500 instances according to taginfo. service=towpath is >> not in use at the moment. >> >> >> PS: fun etymological fact: the English verb 'to tow' is derived from the >> Dutch word for rope: 'touw' >> >> -- >> Met vriendelijke groeten, >> Pieter Vander Vennet >> >> ___ >> 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 -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Pieter Vander Vennet ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
Re: [OSM-talk-be] RFC: removing OpenGeoDB and is_in tags (RFC by 29 Feb 2020)
Hi,
I agree with both. I've been removing is_in tags here and there since a few
months as JOSM encourages to do so.By the way, I also noticed that at some
places streets (highways) have an is_in tag.
Regards,
StijnRR
Op woensdag 5 februari 2020 16:37:26 CET schreef Midgard
:
Dear mappers
If you ever touched a place node, chances are you saw it was cluttered with:
- tags with a "openGeoDB:" prefix and
- "is_in" tags.
I hereby propose a mechanical edit to delete those from all features in Belgium.
The Overpass query to fetch the data is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qqa
- The openGeoDB tags date to 2008, when the plan was to keep populations
updated from the openGeoDB
database. This never happened and probably never will.
Information about OpenGeoDB on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenGeoDB
For an example, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/79382706/history
- The is_in tags are largely obsolete. The administrative boundaries replace
them.
They're also not uniform in OSM to begin with. Some examples:
- Beernem: is_in=Belgie, Vlaanderen, West-Vlaanderen
- Sint-Andries: is_in=Brugge,West-Vlaanderen,Belgium,Europe
- Hoekskensstraat: is_in=Lebbeke, Oost-Vlaanderen
- Meise: is_in=Vlaams-Brabant,Belgium,Europe
is_in:continent=Europe
is_in:country=Belgium
is_in:province=Flemish Brabant
Why remove them? For data users they create the impression that this is data
they can use.
Mappers may be confused about them and waste time maintaining them. They are
not useful to anyone.
I'd like to collectively make a decision ("go" or "no go") by the end of the
month, 29 February.
Please send in your comments, even if it's just "not sure, maybe we shouldn't
do this"!
Kind regards,
Midgard
___
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
[OSM-talk-be] Infrabel Open Data
Hi, There is this page (1), which has a wealth of interesting information for those who want to waste their time updating, improving and correcting the railway related things in OSM. As far as I can see the licence is OK, except for point 5.1.6 which requires us to mention the Open Data Infrabel-platform as a source, with the date of the last update. But does it suffice to add them to this page (2)? Perhaps with ... "These data are being updated continuously." ;-) Regards, StijnRR (1) https://opendata.infrabel.be(2) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Belgium ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Tagging proposal for cycling highways (Fietssnelwegen)
Hi, I don't understand why nobody else objects to the 'alternatives'. They're just somebody's personal inventions, but they do not exist. If we allow Jo's alternatives, then we have to allow anybody's alternatives, suggestions , etc. for cycle highways or any other kind of hiking, cycle, ... routes. E.g. the cycle highway between Diest and Hasselt has been deleted: can I add to OSM a good alternative that I use daily? I hope the aswer is no. I don't mind that somebody suggests on some website alternatives for the cycle highways which do not yet exist. It's even a very good idea, but please keep them out of the OSM database.In my opinion, only those parts which are already waymarked should be in OSM as cycle highways (and shown on e.g. https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org). The fact that there is a road or a cycle path which might be turned into a cycle highway, doesn't mean that there is a cycle highway. So, all the rest: state=proposed. [As it is already difficult enough to keep OSM a bit up to date, adding things which might be realised in some distant future seems to me a bit of a waste of time. But that's just my opinion. Anyone is free to do so.] Regards, StijnRR Op dinsdag 10 december 2019 16:23:51 CET schreef Jo : Hi Pieter, You are right, that is an odd way of tagging them. cycle_highway seems better indeed. I don't know who started doing it that way, I simply continued the practice, without giving it enough thought. Most of these cycle highways can't be cycled from beginning to end, they continue over large distances (for bicycles). This means they are all tagged with state=proposed. Some of them are mostly done though, like F1 or F3, but the parts that are missing from them will take several years to complete. Do we want to keep them with state=proposed? What I started doing is to also map alternatives that can be cycled from start to end today. I recently learned this is not really appreciated by some official instances. They don't control what we do, so it's not extremely important, but still maybe something to keep in mind. One thing I was considering to do, is to divide them in subrelations. Such that the parts that are finished would go into both the 'official' relation and into the alternative one. If you would like, I'll do this for F3, to show what I mean. Then there is also sometimes a difference between what is shown on fietsnelwegen.be and what is actually visible in the field. I'm thinking about the situation in Veltem, where F3 has a leg on the southern side marked in the field, but it is actually meant to go through the center of Veltem, north of the railway it generally follows. Most cycle highways are not yet visible in the field. The signs aren't placed yet. For example F203 from Sterrebeek to Sint-Stevens-Woluwe. It passes through Kraainem over 2 cycleways of 50cm, with no separation to motorized traffic that is allowed to go at 70km/h there. Then it goes through the center with lots of crossings. This is a bit odd, as there is the possibility to pass through Molenstraat, wich is a lot safer and has a far better experience for the cyclist. The alternative route relations I was creating, are meant to disappear after a few years, but that point, I might be tempted to keep it, even when the official instances decide to keep the less suitable itinerary. One general problem with the cycle highways, today, is that it's next to impossible to apply 'ground truth' to them, except if we would only map the parts that are actually already finished and marked in the field. Those are my thoughts on the subject. If I find some more time, I might continue mapping the official ones, with the projected parts, like I did it here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691027464/history But for longer stretches. I have no idea if they are planning to add those dedicated cycleways in the next 2 years, or in the next 15 years though. For the ones that I audited over the past year, there are many pictures on Mapillary. Polyglot On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Pieter Vander Vennet wrote: Hello everyone, As we (Anyways BVBA) are making a route planner which takes 'Fietssnelwegen' into account, we would like to have some uniform tagging into place for this. Some of them are already tagged with `cycle_network=Fietssnelweg`, which sounds very Flemish. I'm going ahead with adding them to other existing fietssnelwegen, but would like to document them on the wiki and to have some more thought put into them. First of all, the dutch term is something very inconsistent with the rest of OSM - perhaps "cycle_highway" is a better fit. Secondly, maybe we should prefix them with "BE:". Thirdly, OSM tags are mainly written in lowercase, which this tag is not. Any more thoughts on tagging? I'm especially looking looking forward to input from polyglot who is very familiar with them. -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Pieter Vander Vennet
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Road side parking ( Was Re: Overdreven gedetailleerde mapping ?)
I didn't check all those tags, but that's probably how it should be done indeed technically, as Lionel said. Drawing 4 parking spaces is much easier. And easier to understand for less experienced mappers. Which is also a good argument, IMHO. We don't want to create a database which is too difficult to understand for new mappers.On the other hand: if we just say that the wiki is not that good and everything can be interpreted loosely, where will we end up then? Regards, StijnRR Op dinsdag 5 november 2019 11:13:57 CET schreef Marc Gemis : so for https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tyzRIji1MXSDUcxAxoxFoQ (the spot from the previous mail) parking:lane:both=marked parking:lane:left:type=on_kerb (*) parking:lane:right:type=half_on_kerb (*) parking:lane:right:capacity=2 parking:lane:left:capacity=2 parking:condition:both=free (*) perhaps left and right has to be switched here. Should I somehow tag the fact that only cars can park there (and no long vans as in the picture, nor trucks) ? On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:00 AM Lionel Giard wrote: > > Yes technically this is how to map it (at least how it is documented), and > using the mandatory tag "parking:condition" in combination give indication > for people looking at roadside parking (one viewer show these : > https://zlant.github.io/parking-lanes/#15/50.9452/3.1233 with Roeselare as a > somewhat good example as it is well mapped). It is primarily for showing > parking conditon (is it allowed to park ? How much time ?...). But indeed, > the tagging scheme can be improved ! ^_^ > > Maybe use a combination of the two : parking_space to show the individual > space (and so the capacity) and parking:lane=* + parking:condtion=* to show > the roadside parking and condition of parking. :-) > > Kind Regards, > > Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 10:06, Marc Gemis a écrit : >> >> So for those 4 roadside parking spaces: https://osm.org/go/0EpBwBaxP?m= >> I have to split the road a couple of times, add some 3 or 4 parking >> lane tags to indicate it is somehow on both sides, parallel parking in >> marked spots? And I wouldn't be able to add the capacity in the end. >> >> While adding 4 rectangles with tag amenity=parking_space express the same? >> >> For me, there is definitely improvement possible in the tagging schema >> for such situations. >> >> m. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:26 AM Lionel Giard wrote: >> > >> > @Marc These parking along street are indeed often not "amenity=parking" >> > but probably more related to parking:lane tag (tagged on the highway >> > itself). Technically it is suggested to only map these kind of roadside >> > parking with the parking:lane tag on the street. >> > But yes, it could be mapped with amenity=parking_space (without >> > amenity=parking around it). and we could maybe use the >> > "type=site"+"site=parking" relation to group them (as it is suggested for >> > complex parking lot already) and allow people to understand that it is >> > linked to the road (including the street line in the relation) and that it >> > is roadside parking. But it is undocumented to use it that way. ^^ >> > >> > Le mar. 5 nov. 2019 à 08:42, Marc Gemis a écrit : >> >> >> >> Ik map soms ook parkeerplaatsen in een straat met enkel >> >> amenity=parking_space, omdat er geen parking (in de betekenis van >> >> parkeerterrein) is. >> >> Ik vind niet dat elke groep van een paar parkeerplaatsen in een straat >> >> parkings zijn. En het wordt gerenderd, dus kan je je afvragen of de >> >> wiki niet moet aangepast worden voor zulke gevallen ? >> >> >> >> m. ___ 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] Overdreven gedetailleerde mapping ?
Beste s8evq En heb je ondertussen al leren lezen?"This page shows issues on elements that were last modified by 'StijnRR'. This doesn't means that this user is responsible for all these issues." Als wat ik gedaan heb, 'not done' is. Wat is jouw valselijke beschuldiging dan? Je hebt al snel meer dan 500 issues op je naam als je al wat editeerjaren achter de rug hebt. Er zitten inderdaad nog massa's fouten in OSM (als je alles waar osmose over klaagt al fouten kan noemen). Ik heb er al veel opgelost. Soms ben ik zelfs verplicht om ze op te lossen omdat JOSM anders weigert te uploaden. Maar ik kan onmogelijk alles overal rechttrekken. Daarvoor is mijn leven te kort. Ik maak zelf ongetwijfeld ook fouten, maar de verhouding edits/fouten ligt bij een aantal mappers redelijk scheef. Terwijl er genoeg andere mappers zijn die bewijzen dat het anders kan.En het aankaarten van (andermans) fouten op deze mailinglist kan nuttig zijn voor iedereen. We kunnen allemaal nog wel iets van elkaar en van elkaars fouten leren. En ik zou hier alles kunnen anonimiseren, maar iedereen kan toch in osm terugvinden wie wat gedaan heeft. Een aansluitend vraagje: heeft het nog zin om iemand te wijzen op fouten die 2, 3, 4, ... jaren geleden zijn gemaakt? Wat doen jullie? StijnRR Op maandag 4 november 2019 19:27:10 CET schreef s8evq : Dag Stijn, Wie zonder zonde is werpe de eerste steen: http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/byuser/StijnRR Number of found issues: more than 500 Ik vind het not done om iemand zijn edits te dissecteren op een publieke mailinglist. On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:31:34 +0000 (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote: > Even terug naar de aanpassingen van Jakka en ook wat aansluitend op >onderstaande opmerking van Marc. En ook omdat ik in alle stilte al wel wat >werk van Jakka heb verbeterd (en dan bedoel ik effectief: fouten corrigeren):- >parkeerplaatsen: Jakka heeft daar de individuele parkeerplaatsen gemapt; op >zich OK. Maar waarom een aantal wel en de andere niet? En vergeet dan niet de >amenity=parking (toegevoegd door Anakil): m.a.w. zorg er op z'n minst voor dan >eerst de grote lijnen in orde zijn, voeg pas daarna de details toe (wiki: >Mapping parking spaces is an addition, not a replacement, to mapping a whole >parking lot with amenity=parking.) Jakka had trouwens een paar parkeerplaatsen >foutief gemapt met amenity= parking. Daarna heeft ene philippec binnen de >amenity=parking van Anakil nog eens 2 keer een amenity =parking toegevoegd >(zoals deze https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/741861188)...? Waarom?- nog >parkeerplaatsen: daar (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/731154048) 3 brede >parkeerplaatsen getekend terwijl het er 5 smalle zijn... > - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118797990: lanes=2 --> lanes=1, maar > turn:lanes=none|merge_to_left vergeten te verwijderen en ook > cycleway:right=lane vergeten te verwijderen > - het gebruik van traffic_calming=island (volgens wiki: A structure > separating at least two lanes of a highway from each other for a short > distance.). Dan lijkt dat daar (aan het stukje Zemstbaan dat aansluit op de > Brusselsesteenweg) heel veel verkeerd gebruikt. Alleen al omdat die 'dingen' > daar niks met traffic calming te maken hebben, volgens mij. > - een aantal fietspaden zijn apart bijgetekend (OK), maar waarom niet het > stukje langs de Zemstbaan van Zemstsesteenweg naar Brusselsesteenweg? De > oneway-tag lijkt mij ook een aantal keer te ontbreken. En ook de > bicycle=use_sidepath op de highways is niet toegevoegd... > > Dat dingen in osm van jaren oud verbeterd, verfijnd of geüpdatet moeten > worden, is logisch. Maar dat recente veranderingen nog hopen extra werk > vragen omdat ze zeer onvolledig of ronduit fout zijn, vind ik behoorlijk > frustrerend. En met zo'n aanpassingen wordt de databank er ook echt niet > bruikbaarder op. Soit, 't is ook mijn eigen schuld omdat ik er anderen zelden > op aanspreek. En Jakka, jij bent zeker de ergste nog niet, verre van. > StijnRR > > Op maandag 4 november 2019 13:08:24 CET schreef Marc Gemis >: > > > Wel pleit ik er voor een zeker 'gebiedje' dan wel op een gelijke maatstaf >te behandelen. Als je het doet, zorg dan dat je consequent bent, voor de wijk >of als het even kan je kleine gemeente. > > er is ook zoiets als "guerilla mapping" > (http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/01/ive-been-guerilla-mapped.html) > > m. > > ___ > 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
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Overdreven gedetailleerde mapping ?
Even terug naar de aanpassingen van Jakka en ook wat aansluitend op onderstaande opmerking van Marc. En ook omdat ik in alle stilte al wel wat werk van Jakka heb verbeterd (en dan bedoel ik effectief: fouten corrigeren):- parkeerplaatsen: Jakka heeft daar de individuele parkeerplaatsen gemapt; op zich OK. Maar waarom een aantal wel en de andere niet? En vergeet dan niet de amenity=parking (toegevoegd door Anakil): m.a.w. zorg er op z'n minst voor dan eerst de grote lijnen in orde zijn, voeg pas daarna de details toe (wiki: Mapping parking spaces is an addition, not a replacement, to mapping a whole parking lot with amenity=parking.) Jakka had trouwens een paar parkeerplaatsen foutief gemapt met amenity= parking. Daarna heeft ene philippec binnen de amenity=parking van Anakil nog eens 2 keer een amenity =parking toegevoegd (zoals deze https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/741861188)...? Waarom?- nog parkeerplaatsen: daar (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/731154048) 3 brede parkeerplaatsen getekend terwijl het er 5 smalle zijn... - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118797990: lanes=2 --> lanes=1, maar turn:lanes=none|merge_to_left vergeten te verwijderen en ook cycleway:right=lane vergeten te verwijderen - het gebruik van traffic_calming=island (volgens wiki: A structure separating at least two lanes of a highway from each other for a short distance.). Dan lijkt dat daar (aan het stukje Zemstbaan dat aansluit op de Brusselsesteenweg) heel veel verkeerd gebruikt. Alleen al omdat die 'dingen' daar niks met traffic calming te maken hebben, volgens mij. - een aantal fietspaden zijn apart bijgetekend (OK), maar waarom niet het stukje langs de Zemstbaan van Zemstsesteenweg naar Brusselsesteenweg? De oneway-tag lijkt mij ook een aantal keer te ontbreken. En ook de bicycle=use_sidepath op de highways is niet toegevoegd... Dat dingen in osm van jaren oud verbeterd, verfijnd of geüpdatet moeten worden, is logisch. Maar dat recente veranderingen nog hopen extra werk vragen omdat ze zeer onvolledig of ronduit fout zijn, vind ik behoorlijk frustrerend. En met zo'n aanpassingen wordt de databank er ook echt niet bruikbaarder op. Soit, 't is ook mijn eigen schuld omdat ik er anderen zelden op aanspreek. En Jakka, jij bent zeker de ergste nog niet, verre van. StijnRR Op maandag 4 november 2019 13:08:24 CET schreef Marc Gemis : > Wel pleit ik er voor een zeker 'gebiedje' dan wel op een gelijke maatstaf te > behandelen. Als je het doet, zorg dan dat je consequent bent, voor de wijk > of als het even kan je kleine gemeente. er is ook zoiets als "guerilla mapping" (http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/01/ive-been-guerilla-mapped.html) m. ___ 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] tags for prohibitory road signs in Belgium
Op zaterdag 12 oktober 2019 21:01:06 CEST schreef s8evq : >On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:24:35 + (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be > wrote: > >Thanks Stijn for taking the time to comment. > >> - An interesting change is the one from access=no/destination to >> vehicle=no/destination for the >> C5-sign, which I support, because it's more correct. But a disadvantage is >> that e.g. access=no/destination >> shows on the map, but vehicle=no/destination not. Would the proposal to >> treat access=no/destination and >> vehicle=no/destination equally on the map make any chance? > >On what map does it not display? I'm personally not in favor of using both >tags. That makes it very confusing. A road with access=destination has grey dots: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29350445A road with vehicle=destination has no grey dots: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26496960A road with access=no has grey stripes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/71578088 A road with vehicle=no has no grey stripes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28967486But perhaps I'd rather like to see all roads with limited access (access/vehicle=destination or vehicle=no) the same way and roads with no (public) access the same (access=no/private).I'm also not in favor of using both tags. StijnRR ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] tags for prohibitory road signs in Belgium
Hi, Some comments: - An interesting change is the one from access=no/destination to vehicle=no/destination for the C5-sign, which I support, because it's more correct. But a disadvantage is that e.g. access=no/destination shows on the map, but vehicle=no/destination not. Would the proposal to treat access=no/destination and vehicle=no/destination equally on the map make any chance?- Add C3 + 'uitgezonderd landbouwvoertuigen/landbouwgebruik/usage agricole/convois agricoles... : vehicle=no + agricultural=yes- The same for bus=yes, taxi=yes, ... Or refer to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access- 'uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer / excepté circulation locale' implies also bus=yes - A general remark that could be added: never follow the traffic signs blindly when adding (access) tags: in some local authorities the one who has to decide about traffic signs doesn't seem to know which sign to use where. In the draft there is also a mistake: M4 and M5 cannot be added to a C1.- Another general remark: do not add access-tags which are already implied by the highway-tag that is used. In my opinion also the tags for the mandatory (D) signs should be reviewed. E.g. for D11 suffices highway=footway; all the rest is redundant. (And there are contradictions with this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Belgium)- Add examples for 'complicated' cases: e.g. 'C3+uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer' in one direction / no access limitations in the other direction.- Is it a good idea to encourage mappers to add overtaking=yes wherever overtaking is not forbidden? I'd treat that as a default: no need to add that tag explicitly. Regards, StijnRR Op maandag 16 september 2019 09:21:29 CEST schreef joost schouppe : Hi, s8evq has been consulting some heavy mappers about the "road signs in Belgium" wiki page, because it didn't seem to reflect how we actually map. There's a draft new page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Road_signs_in_Belgium#Suggestion_for_an_update_of_the_prohibitory_signs Feel free to comment here or on Riot if you think it can be further improved! -- Joost SchouppeOpenStreetMap | Twitter | LinkedIn | Meetup___ 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] bridge or tunnel?
Hi, First: the interpretations given here to 'tunnel' are much more strict than the wiki, which leaves much more room for interpretation. A strict interpretation of tunnel makes the use of tunnel=yes of tunnel=culvert for passages of rivers underneath a road senseless, just as tunnel=building_passage. Second, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of your interpretations. Let's use the definition of Marc, which is the most elaborated: "I apply the rule: stand on the road, look up, which layers of material do you "see" before you reach the sky? Is there earth (grond/aarde) that was not placed there artificially, then you are in a tunnel.": Then the 'railroad tunnel' between Brussels North and Brussels South is NOT a tunnel. It is just a mole pipe (in the words of Gerard). The whole thing is dug out, built and then covered with streets, buildings and here there a bit of gorund. Even a lot of the metrotunnels are made with the 'cut and cover' technique and are thus NO tunnels? Ecoduct Kikbeekbron over the E314 is NOT a tunnel? Also the examples given by Marc and Tim with such a thin cover are most likely made 'cut and cover' and have only 'artificial' things overneath: NO tunnels...And what do you do with the GEN-constructions at railway 161 in Genval? The railway has been covered with roads and parking lots. Also no tunnels? On the other hand: ecoduct Groenendaal really looks like a bridge but has been mapped as a tunnel... Lionel said : "A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway tunnel if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel and put back the earth on top !": Yet, that ís a very common practice... So to me these seem to be useless definitions... Or does the word 'artificial' means that ground level matters? The ringway around Antwerp (R1) is almost everywhere at level -1, below ground level. The cutting is here the artificial structure (using Yves' words this time). So where there is a road going overneath, the ringway goes through a tunnel...? The same for Joost's example: if you look at the aerial imagery, you can see clearly they had to dig out the N28 to get underneath the railway and the other roads: thus a tunnel...? And what about the complex traffic changers where it is often very hard to see what the original ground level was. @ Yves: 'Layer' gives a relative position. Something at ground level can perfectly have layer=-1 or layer=1. Check the wiki. And further: a bridge with layer = 1 doesn't mean it is above ground level; a tunnel with layer = -1 doesn't mean it is below ground level. @ Tim: What came first is a useless criterion. The E313 was constructed before the E314, but it is definitely a bridge of the E313 above the E314. And the definitions of bridge or a tunnel should be so that anyone knows whether to map things as bridge or tunnel without having to know in which order roads, railways, etc. were constructed. So can someone can come up with a useful definition? Can I come up with a definition? I like the length/width ratio, the open bridge(like) structure against a confined tunnel(like) structure. And the fuzziness of the wiki. But one thing is very clear for me: ground level doesn't matter. Regards, StijnRR Op dinsdag 28 mei 2019 18:52:50 CEST schreef Marc Gemis : This is the place: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2216551,4.0345363,3a,75y,49.39h,77.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjggCIzrpgLhVFtrn6gYCnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (sorry no Mapillary images yet). Burchtakker (the parallel road) is lowered near the (bicycle) tunnel under the E34/A11. On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 6:36 PM Marc Gemis wrote: > > I think there is a tunnel under the e34 between Antwerpen en Zelzate. There > used to be a level crossing which was removed and instead they created an > underground passage for it. > > M > > Op di 28 mei 2019 14:46 schreef Lionel Giard : >> >> @joost schouppe To me that's indeed a bridge, as you see the same structure >> as on the motorway bridges : a platform supported by pillars >> >> A tunnel is generally something that was dig (removing earth/material) and >> consolidated from the inside (most often with concrete) like a subway tunnel >> if you want. It seems pretty rare to dig a big hole, make a tunnel and put >> back the earth on top ! ;-) >> >> I can't find example of tunnels that's really like "under a railway or >> motorway", so i would say that probably 99% of the tunnel are below ground >> or mountains/hills (if we exclude the obvious building passage that we >> classify as tunnel in OSM). They are generally longer than wide as someone >> quoted from wikipedia. >> >> ___ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be
[OSM-talk-be] bridge or tunnel?
Hi, 1. This is a bridge: no doubt.https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 2. This is a tunnel: sure enough.https://www.google.be/maps/@50.6138142,5.5973887,3a,75y,97.64h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRvKwojNbhvMdSBWG3zViLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 3. This looks like a tunnel, no? Or is the fact that the railway is on an embankment enough reason to make it a bridge? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5508531,4.7216376,3a,89.9y,51.8h,87.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4GoklQWnN5bW6ugdo1grmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 4. This one looks more like a bridge:https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5923923,4.6668939,3a,75y,57.67h,80.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4y-C9gvI9ZsUk9jcNQX4eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 5. And this? Brunnel or tidge? https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5214486,4.8868137,3a,75y,27.85h,81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx0n9EuFTEx27S4sCQ--GPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 6. And if it gets shorter?https://www.google.be/maps/@50.5317414,4.9485687,3a,75y,39.18h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdTd6puiPIvGKsLBzeCzB6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 7. And this?https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8660892,4.3648486,3a,75y,333.02h,85.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvUHgLYhl8R5IXGVJ2QWiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 8. A bit more complicated: not only a railway, but also the platforms on a bridge? Or above a tunnel?https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,63.96h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl 9. And if you turn around:https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8101922,4.3991964,3a,75y,258.54h,101.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2ioHz72P7Ju0aTcMLalGKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl I am curious about your opinion...But of course, what those things are, is not really the question. How should they be mapped? That's the question. Regards, StijnRR ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] save-the-internet - manifestaties nu zaterdag 23 maart
And if you look at this object and its source tag, OSM is in trouble...https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/567560764 StijnRR Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 15:12:07 CET schreef Marc Gemis : Mogelijks zou ook OpenStreetMap een filter moeten installeren om te kijken dat de data die we uploaden niet onder een of andere copyright valt. Het gaat niet enkel om foto's, fillms of muziek. Er is ook nog een ander artikel dat bepaalde beperkingen gaat opleggen aan links. Je zou niet meer zo maar een link naar een krantenartikel of zo op je website mogen plaatsen geloof ik. Ik denk dat het vooral de bedoeling is om mensen bewust te maken dat men probeert de vrijheid van meningsuiting aan banden te leggen. Ook zouden vooral kleinere, innovatieve bedrijfjes getroffen worden, omdat zo'n uploadfilters heel lastig zijn om te ontwikkelen (of duur om aan te kopen) En dan nog, het zal heel moeilijk zijn voor zo'n filters om het onderscheid te maken tussen een filmpje van iemand die thuis op een piano heel goed een klassiek stuk opvoert en een gelijkaardige, onder copyright vallende uitvoering van een professioneel artist. Ook is er de vrees dat satire e.d. aan de hand van foto's van bekende personen (denk politiekers) nog mogelijk zal zijn. Een van de grootste voorstanders van de nieuwe wetgeving, is deze pipo (excusez-le-mot): https://twitter.com/AxelVossMdEP m On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:52 PM Karel Adams wrote: > > ** texte Français ci-dessous ** > > Dankje, Marc. Misschien had ik er moeten bij vertellen dat ik op de link > kwam door (op mijn kantoor-pc) de basiskaart te bezoeken op > openstreetmap.org/#map - er blijkt dus een zeker engagement te zijn > vanwege "de top van OSM" al weet ik dat dat een zeer relatief begrip is. > > Op de webstek die ik linkte vindt men inderdaad vooral manifestaties in > Duitsland, maar toch ook verschillende in Roemenië en in Polen, en nog > elders. Ik zou echt verwachten dat er ook in Brussel actie komt, het is > tenslotte hier dat het beslist wordt. > > Alleen is het verband met OSM me niet zo duidelijk, we kunnen toch niet > veel copyrighted spul uploaden behalve misschien foto's? > > Karel > > = > > Marc, merci. J'aurais du ajouter que je suis tombé sur cette histoire en > visitant notre propre carte "générique" sur www.openstreetmap.org/#map. > Il y aurait donc un certain support de la part des "hautes instances" de > OSM. > > Le site que j'indiquais mentionne surtout des manifestations en > Allemagne, de fait; mais il y en a aussi en Pologne, en Roumanie, et > ailleurs. Pourquoi alors pas à Bruxelles, où la décision sera prise? > > Seulement, je ne vois pas très bien le rapport de ces propos de loi avec > OSM - quel contenu "copyrighted" pourrions-nous publier, sauf quelques > photographies? > > = > > > On 22/03/2019 13:14, Marc Gemis wrote: > > In Duitsland zijn er al verschillende manifestaties tegen article 13 > > geweest. > > Mocht je Duits verstaan, deze dame [1] voert al enkele maanden > > opositie tegen het wetsvoorstel dat alle websites zal verplichten een > > filter te installeren om te kijken of er geen inhoud met licentie > > wordt geupload. Blijkbaar bestaat de lobby voor het artikel o.a. uit > > mediagroepen die nu politiekers al onder druk zetten mochten ze tegen > > het voorstel. > > > > > > [1] https://twitter.com/Senficon af en toe ook in het Engels. > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 7:36 PM Karel Adams wrote: > >> Met enige verbazing zag ik de aankondiging van manifestaties overmorgen > >> zaterdag, tegen een wetgevend initiatief op Europees niveau. Nog > >> verbazender dat ik er nog niet van hoorde langs enige andere weg, bv. > >> alhier. > >> > >> https://savetheinternet.info/demos > >> > >> Drie mogelijkheden: > >> > >> * dit is niet ernstig > >> > >> * dit is ernstig, en er wordt ook bij ons gemanifesteerd. Zoja: waar? > >> wanneer? > >> > >> * dit is ernstig, en er is nog niks georganiseerd. Zoja, zullen we > >> afspreken in Brussel, nu zaterdag? Ik ben alvast graag beschikbaar. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> 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
[OSM-talk-be] landuse & highways
Hi, What are the opinions these days about landuse mapping: connect landuses to highways or let space between landuse polygons and adjacent highways? Is there a consensus or can everyone do whatever he/she likes?My opinion: I *hate* landuse connected to highways. Regards, StijnRR ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
