Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[Simone Schwarz]

Guten Morgen


> Man sollte sie wahrscheinlich auf die internationale tagging Liste bringen.
> Es bringt nicht viel, sie nur in der deutschen Liste zu fuehren..
> 

Ist sicher eine gute Idee. 

Mein Englisch reicht für eine Konversation, aber nicht für "Wissenschaftliche 
Texte" wie Wiki oder Diskussion in einer Englischen Mail-Liste :( 

Es würde mich freuen, wenn das hier nicht einfach versickert und vergessen geht.

Mir ist noch was aufgefallen:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site#Rendering

Nach meinem Bauchgefühl stellen Mapnik als auch Josm diesen Tag eben doch 
korrekt dar ;)


Also, 
nochmals vielen Dank an alle und ich hoffe dass sich da jemand diesem Problem 
annimmt, der bessere Englisch- und OSM-Kenntnisse hat, als ich.

Simone  

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

[Talk-us] OSM attribution on website store locator pages

[Peter Dobratz]

I'm seeing OSM data used more and more for generating the basemap onto
which things like store location data is displayed on store websites.
However, it's not always easy to find links to OSM attribution on such maps.

Has anyone seen this?

http://locations.pieology.com/

There's a link to http://www.mobify.com/ in the lower-left corner, but I
can't seem to find any links to http://www.openstreetmap.org/ anywhere on
the page.

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

Re: [Talk-pe] Próxima asamblea OSMpe

[Alfonso Torres]

El Domingo 24 me parece bien, yo también me apunto.Salu2. 

El Martes, 12 de abril, 2016 19:51:09, Omar Vega Ramos  
escribió:
 

 Hola

A mi me parece bien, me apunto.

Saludos

-- 
Omar Vega Ramos
GPG ID: 9825028B

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


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

Re: [Talk-pt] Classificação de estradas

[Marcos Oliveira]

Olá Rui,

Eu pessoalmente usaria highway=secondary para as estradas desclassificadas.

No dia 13 de abril de 2016 às 02:38, Rui Oliveira 
escreveu:

> Ora viva.
>
> Estava a enviar esta mensagem, aproveitando que há pouco tempo se
> uniformizou a classificação entre Cidades, vilas e Aldeias, para saber qual
> é actualmente a norma para classificar as estradas.
>
> Pelo que sei as estradas principais pelo OSM, devem ser classificadas da
> seguinte forma: nacionais devem ser classificadas como highway=primary,
> estradas regionais como highway=secondary, estradas municipais como
> highway=tertiary, e estradas residenciais como highway=residential. Estou
> correcto?
>
> Agora existe outro problema. Imaginemos que um troço que estava
> classificado com a designação EN, e foi desclassificada (foi acontecendo
>  nos últimos anos a vários troços), passando por exemplo a ser uma ER, deve
> ser classificada para estrada secundária? E se for desclassificada mas
> mantendo a mesma Referência (ENxx) como acontece em muitas, deve se manter
> classificada como primária, ou o facto de manter a referência não interessa
> e deve ser classificada como secundaria?
>
> Desculpem esta pergunta um pouco de "noviça", mas estou a trocar mensagens
> com um editor OSM que insiste que independentemente de a estrada ser
> desclassificada o que conta é continuar a ser designada EN para ficar
> Estrada primária. Eu discordo desta abordagem e acho que ele está errado,
> mas queria saber a vossa opinião.
>
> Cumprimentos.
>
> ___
> Talk-pt mailing list
> Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
>
>


-- 
Um Abraço,
Marcos Oliveira
___
Talk-pt mailing list
Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt

Re: [Talk-pe] Próxima asamblea OSMpe

[Omar Vega Ramos]

Hola

A mi me parece bien, me apunto.

Saludos

-- 
Omar Vega Ramos
GPG ID: 9825028B

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

Re: [OSM-talk] classification of airports/aerodromes

[Warin]

On 13/04/2016 8:35 AM, Alejandro S. wrote:


But the surface tag applies to runaways, not aerodromes, does it?

If the surface tag is on the runway .. then it applies to the runway, 
similarly for taxiway etc.


Personally my experience is that it much easier to map the runway, as 
that is fairly well defined.
The area of the aerodrome is harder - the boundary maybe fenced making 
it a little easier.
Most unpaved runways have no easy way to determine the extent of the 
'aerodrome' so it does not usually get mapped.
I don't usually put a surface tag on an aerodrome, but I have tagged 
surfaces on runways,
one of which was grass and has changed to paved in my term of mapping 
history, the 'taxiways' remain grass .. and unmapped.




On Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 23:25 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 13/04/2016 5:47 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
> Am 12.04.2016 um 11:40 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
>> This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these
features
>> to place labels and icons but these features are generally too
>> ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
> I agree completely. This is something that should be improved:
we need
> at least some rough categories for aerodromes. Because it does not
> make sense to me at all to render a grass strip exactly the same
as a
> big international airport.
surface=grass
OR
surface=paved

Some airports are locally categorised as 'domestic',
'international' ...
I lack expertise in this area but the public are aware of these two
categories.

> This is open since years but nobody really took care about this
Rendering ... rather than a tagging problem.
> Of cause this will not be easy as the regulations are different
in the
> different countries. But we should find some categorization. And any
> approach is better than the current situation.
The surface tag is has been assumed by some mappers. Perhaps that
needs
to addresses on the wiki?



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



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

[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2016-04-09

[Dave Hansen]

These are based off of Lambertus's work here:

http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl

If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel
free to ask.  However, please do not send me private mail.  The
odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by
asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit.

Downloads:

http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2016-04-09

Map to visualize what each file contains:


http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2016-04-09/kml/kml.html


FAQ



Why did you do this?

I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact
of doing a large join on Lambertus's server.  I've also
cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently
on removable media.  

http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2016-04-09

Can or should I seed the torrents?

Yes!!  If you use the .torrent files, please seed.  That web
server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this
side of the Atlantic.

Why is my map missing small rectangular areas?

There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the
red rectangles),  I don't see any at the moment, so you may
want to update if you had issues with the last set.

Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card?

If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from
the factory.  I had to reformat it to let me create a >2GB
file.

Does your map cover Mexico/Canada?

Yes!!  I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario
in to the USA.  Some areas of North America that are close
to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps.
This might not happen forever, and if you would like your
non-US area to get included, let me know. 

-- Dave


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

Re: [OSM-talk] classification of airports/aerodromes

[Alejandro S.]

But the surface tag applies to runaways, not aerodromes, does it?

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 23:25 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/04/2016 5:47 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
> > Am 12.04.2016 um 11:40 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> >> This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features
> >> to place labels and icons but these features are generally too
> >> ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
> > I agree completely. This is something that should be improved: we need
> > at least some rough categories for aerodromes. Because it does not
> > make sense to me at all to render a grass strip exactly the same as a
> > big international airport.
> surface=grass
> OR
> surface=paved
>
> Some airports are locally categorised as 'domestic', 'international' ...
> I lack expertise in this area but the public are aware of these two
> categories.
>
> > This is open since years but nobody really took care about this
> Rendering ... rather than a tagging problem.
> > Of cause this will not be easy as the regulations are different in the
> > different countries. But we should find some categorization. And any
> > approach is better than the current situation.
> The surface tag is has been assumed by some mappers. Perhaps that needs
> to addresses on the wiki?
>
>
>
> ___
> 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-us] Old Aerodromes

[Wolfgang Zenker]

* Andrew Wiseman  [160412 23:27]:
> [..]
> Or maybe there should be some tag difference between a proper airport with
> scheduled flights, a civil aviation airport, and just a field where a
> farmer might land?

Actually there is a tag, or rather there are two: The wiki page
for aeroway=aerodrome suggests to combine it with aerodrome:type=*
in the english version of the aerodrome page (used ~2000 times)
while the german version of that page suggests to use aerodrome=*
instead (used about 900 times).
Of course having two documented tags for the same purpose is not
exactly helpful which might be one of the reasons why more than
90% of mapped airports use neither one.

Wolfgang

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-talk-fr-bzh] rennes - chemin au lieu de relation

[Philippe Verdy]

Pour les "plaques" (qui sont en fait plus des bornes d'information
touristique que simplement posées au sol), juste à côté du chemin et pas
directement dessus, ne devrait-ce pas être de vrais objets de type
"billboard" ? (visibles sur la carte avec l'icone [i] bleue des panneaux
d'informations)?

Le 12 avril 2016 à 23:33, Thomas Petillon  a écrit :

> Bonsoir,
>
> Pour ceux qui n'ont pas eu l'occasion de voir ces lignes rouges et leurs
> plaques, voici à quoi elle ressemblent : http://imgur.com/a/NdjFz
>
> J'ai pas touché à celles que j'ai croisées jusqu'à présent, mais telles
> quelles, avec un way footway sans relation, c'est redondant effectivement
> (voire erroné).
>
> tourism=attration sur les plaques ça me semble aussi très exagéré.
> tourism=information + information=board éventuellement.
>
> Thomas.
>
> 2016-04-12 22:55 GMT+02:00 PanierAvide :
>
>> Perso je les ai retirés sur les relations que j'ai créé. Mais il y a
>> effectivement une plaque au sol assez visible.
>>
>>
>> Le 12/04/2016 22:55, JB a écrit :
>>
>> Mouaif, les nœuds de ce genre, je suis pas convaincu quand même :
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071657397
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071657288
>> Et la plupart des autres. S'il y a une plaque explicative, on taggue la
>> plaque. Si c'est autre chose, on trouve autre chose, mais le
>> tourism=attraction, ça sent le taggué soit pour le rendu, soit pour un
>> usage particulier.
>> JB.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-talk-fr-bzh] rennes - chemin au lieu de relation

[Thomas Petillon]

Bonsoir,

Pour ceux qui n'ont pas eu l'occasion de voir ces lignes rouges et leurs
plaques, voici à quoi elle ressemblent : http://imgur.com/a/NdjFz

J'ai pas touché à celles que j'ai croisées jusqu'à présent, mais telles
quelles, avec un way footway sans relation, c'est redondant effectivement
(voire erroné).

tourism=attration sur les plaques ça me semble aussi très exagéré.
tourism=information + information=board éventuellement.

Thomas.

2016-04-12 22:55 GMT+02:00 PanierAvide :

> Perso je les ai retirés sur les relations que j'ai créé. Mais il y a
> effectivement une plaque au sol assez visible.
>
>
> Le 12/04/2016 22:55, JB a écrit :
>
> Mouaif, les nœuds de ce genre, je suis pas convaincu quand même :
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071657397
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071657288
> Et la plupart des autres. S'il y a une plaque explicative, on taggue la
> plaque. Si c'est autre chose, on trouve autre chose, mais le
> tourism=attraction, ça sent le taggué soit pour le rendu, soit pour un
> usage particulier.
> JB.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-us] Old Aerodromes

[Andrew Wiseman]

I'm also glad to see this, and wish I had thought to mention it when I
first saw it! I was mapping in Knoxville, TN and there were a dozen
airports that clearly didn't exist. Most had in the past but weren't now,
so I tagged them with the appropriate life cycle prefix. I also noticed a
ton in SW Virginia, like somebody said many in forests and in the middle of
neighborhoods that clearly didn't exist anymore. I didn't realize it was
such a widespread thing!

Maproulette sounds like a good solution, maybe also add something about
looking it up online to make sure it's not just a wide space that planes
sometimes land in.

Or maybe there should be some tag difference between a proper airport with
scheduled flights, a civil aviation airport, and just a field where a
farmer might land?

Andrew

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Elliott Plack  > wrote:
>
>> I am glad this conversation has restarted. A few of you, (Me, Paul,
>> others..) will recall a similar conversation on the openstreetmap-carto
>> repo a few years ago where I noted that there are simply too many of these
>> micro airports shown on the map. We discussed at great length how the
>> relative importance of aerodromes could potentially be used for rendering.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what my original thoughts were but where I'm currently at on
> this is if you're in a situation where all you understand mapwise is OSM
> and you're in an emergency situation where the destination now is
> "anywhere", then OSM is better than nothing, having at least runway
> centerlines (and preferably the same for taxiways) and perimeters is better
> (you can at least make a ballpark estimate of what *might* be a
> survivable landing).  This of course, with the tacit understanding that we
> are not the FAA (or whatever authority of record is relevant regionally)
> and no rational pilot worth his flight credentials would use it for more
> than the absolute most preliminary steps of planning.  Or as a decently
> accurate map for Flightgear, since that flight simulator uses OSM data for
> scenery already.
>
> From the ground, this isn't quite as important other than, say, being at
> even a moderately sized airport like OSU in Norman or Riverside in Jenks
> (both Oklahoma) where you might meet a friend in their plane at a specific
> tiedown and not be sure where to drive inside the airport to the
> appropriate tiedown/hangar.  Or at moderately large to huge airports,
> finding a specific airport-related industry and residences only accessible
> from a specific access in the perimeter (common with charter operators,
> maintenance hangars, general aviation, military operators, etc; and
> probably accounts for at least a hundred miles of near-airport GPXs and a
> couple dozen miles of inside-perimeter GPX for me).
>
> Bonus round a few years ago, attendees to Oklacon discovered the hard way
> that Watonga Regional Airport is 1) a runway capable of emergency landing a
> small commercial jetliner,  and 2) not secured.  Plus on at least one
> commercial map provider, had it's taxiways, accesses and runways mapped as
> a roadway, causing one especially confused person unfamiliar with the area
> (or airports in general) to drive the length of the runway.   Fortunately,
> Watonga's a *slllw* airport, and I don't recall hearing about anybody
> or any flights in imminent danger (as was the case when Meigs unexpectedly
> closed), so the incident only caused one person to be nicknamed Launchpad
> for a couple days.  So having the airports properly tagged could be just as
> important to *avoid* unintended traversal of airports as it can be to
> intentionally navigate to a specific airport location.
>
>
>> Given that map roulette is now handling these, I think this is a great
>> time to revisit this discussion. If maprouletters can change all these
>> point aerodromes to a polygon, then we can subjectively define airport
>> importance using the shape size.
>>
>
> I'm all in favor of mapping these as polygons and mapping the
> on-the-ground features, and possibly ground-based beacons where the
> identities can be independently verified (shouldn't be hard, tune to it on
> a capable radio, listen for the morse ident; in the midwest where there's
> basically noting but tilled field, these might also serve as a potential
> landmark as much as a lone tree does).  There's not much point in trying to
> map flight restrictions or paths, though, since there's no real good way to
> identify from the ground what these are.
>
> Like lakes and parks, editors probably ought to show a visible warning
> that things are Not Right when mapped as a node.
>


-- 

600,000 DC residents don't have a vote in Congress -- http://www.dcvote.org/

___
Talk-us mailing list

Re: [OSM-talk] classification of airports/aerodromes

[Warin]

On 13/04/2016 5:47 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote:

Am 12.04.2016 um 11:40 schrieb Christoph Hormann:

This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features
to place labels and icons but these features are generally too
ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
I agree completely. This is something that should be improved: we need 
at least some rough categories for aerodromes. Because it does not 
make sense to me at all to render a grass strip exactly the same as a 
big international airport.

surface=grass
OR
surface=paved

Some airports are locally categorised as 'domestic', 'international' ... 
I lack expertise in this area but the public are aware of these two 
categories.



This is open since years but nobody really took care about this

Rendering ... rather than a tagging problem.
Of cause this will not be easy as the regulations are different in the 
different countries. But we should find some categorization. And any 
approach is better than the current situation.
The surface tag is has been assumed by some mappers. Perhaps that needs 
to addresses on the wiki?




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

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Regarding the use of CC-BY datasets on data.gov.ie by OpenStreetMap Ireland

[Dave Corley]

Folks,

Please see the responses below from the Dept of Public Expenditure and
Reform which run the open data portal for the Irish government at
data.gov.ie

Can you please confirm that the response below is enough to begin using the
datasets from that site for OSM.

I believe it covers all the normal questions that arise from CC-BY licensed
data but want to be sure before I announce to the Irish OSM community.

Cheers,
Dave (DaCor)


-- Forwarded message --
From: Opendata 
Date: Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: Regarding the use of CC-BY datasets on data.gov.ie by
OpenStreetMap Ireland
To: Dave Corley , Opendata 


Hi Dave,



Regarding your email, please see the comments in red below.





1. As the Dept. responsible for data.gov.ie, do you accept that this method
of attribution meets the requirements of the CC-BY licence applied to
datasets released by any and all current and future publishers on
data.gov.ie?



CC-BY is the recommended licence for Ireland’s Open Data Initiative. It is
intended that the Open Data portal will only include appropriately licensed
datasets. However, the Technical Framework
 allows for a transitional phase
where datasets already on the portal are given time to migrate to CC-BY.



*Regarding Attribution (and the avoidance of attribution stacking):*

The Technical Framework notes that under the CC-BY Licence, users must
acknowledge the source of the Information in their product or application.
Where the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution
statement users should include, or link to, this attribution statement:
“Contains Irish Public Sector Data licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence”. If using data from
several Information Providers and listing multiple attributions is not
practical in a product or application, users may include a URI or hyperlink
to a resource that contains the required attribution statements. It seems
reasonable to use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors as such a
resource. Unless a specific attribution statement is provided, it would be
fair to use the general statement as set out in the Technical framework.



*Regarding what is covered by CC-BY:*

The licence deed for CC-BY is available at
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This deed notes that users
may:



·   Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format,
or

·   Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any
purpose, even commercially.



*Regarding modification of data:*

Section 3.a (Licence Conditions – Attribution
) of the CC-BY
licence legal code stipulates that users must indicate if they modified the
licensed material and retain an indication of any previous modifications.



The licence deed summarises the terms for attribution — “You must give
appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes
were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use”.



Once these conditions are satisfied, it is reasonable to assume compliance
with datasets licensed as CC-BY.



2. If you deem this is an acceptable method to acknowledge attribution, is
this acceptance enough to cover all current and future publishers using
data.gov.ie to disseminate their data or is individual permission required
from each and every current and future publisher?



A requirement for publication through the Open Data portal is that datasets
are associated with the recommended Open Data licence. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that any data published through the portal in the
future will be so associated. The Technical Framework is a living document
that will be expanded upon as technologies and practices evolve, so
licences may also change, if more appropriate standard ones are developed.
However, you can be sure that the Open Data Initiative will not move to a
more restrictive licence.



Please note that Technical Framework’s disclaimer that:



All data linked to the Open Data portal is published “as is”. The
Information is licensed 'as is' and the Information Provider and/or
Licensor excludes all representations, warranties, obligations and
liabilities in relation to the Information to the maximum extent permitted
by law.



The Information Provider and/or Licensor are not liable for any errors or
omissions in the Information and shall not be liable for any loss, injury
or damage of any kind caused by its use. The Information Provider does not
guarantee the continued supply of the Information.



Please let me know if you need any further comments.



Regards

Martin





*From:* Dave Corley [mailto:davecor...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 11 April 2016 18:29
*To:* Opendata
*Subject:* Regarding the use of CC-BY datasets on 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] mapathon this saturday: more help welcome

[Johan Van de Wauw]

Joost,

Any indication where help would be needed mostly? I'm trying to find a
solution so I can join (not an expert mapper, but I can definitely
help coordinating/general pc/mapping support).

Kind Regards,
Johan

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:16 PM, joost schouppe
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This weekend, at least 160 people will take their first OSM mapping steps at
> the seven mapathons organized by univerisities all across the country. This
> is a great opportunity to get new mappers, and even to try and start
> building more OSM communities. Luckily, we found a dedicated OSM volunteer
> for each of these locations - a big shoutout to Claire, Jorieke, Marc,
> Julien M, Julien F, Jo, Tais and Moritz for their dedication. And of course
> to the local universities who are organizing things.
>
> Helping thirty new mappers get started with just one volunteer is hard. So
> if you have some spare time this Saturday, even just a few hours, please
> give a hand.
>
> More information:
> English: http://www.internationalmapyear.be/mapathon.php
> French: http://www.internationalmapyear.be/fr/mapathon.php
> Dutch: http://www.internationalmapyear.be/nl/mapathon.php
>
> Contact the local OSM volunteer:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1STuP0e7QWLuZLNANEQOJpRLnoCltagtcJ9gFgJ-VaE4/edit?ts=56d55aff#gid=0
>
> Once we have a task number, we'll also contact the HOT mailing list to see
> if we can find some live validators. That helps to detect people making
> mistakes before they make a lot of them. Incredibly useful if you can lend a
> hand there, even if just remotely.
>
> All the best,
> --
> Joost @
> Openstreetmap | Twitter | LinkedIn | Meetup | Reddit | Wordpress
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-talk-fr-bzh] rennes - chemin au lieu de relation

[PanierAvide]

Perso je les ai retirés sur les relations que j'ai créé. Mais il y a 
effectivement une plaque au sol assez visible.



Le 12/04/2016 22:55, JB a écrit :

Mouaif, les nœuds de ce genre, je suis pas convaincu quand même :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071657397
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071657288
Et la plupart des autres. S'il y a une plaque explicative, on taggue 
la plaque. Si c'est autre chose, on trouve autre chose, mais le 
tourism=attraction, ça sent le taggué soit pour le rendu, soit pour un 
usage particulier.

JB.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-talk-fr-bzh] rennes - chemin au lieu de relation

[JB]

Mouaif, les nœuds de ce genre, je suis pas convaincu quand même :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071657397
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4071657288
Et la plupart des autres. S'il y a une plaque explicative, on taggue la 
plaque. Si c'est autre chose, on trouve autre chose, mais le 
tourism=attraction, ça sent le taggué soit pour le rendu, soit pour un 
usage particulier.

JB.

Le 12/04/2016 22:42, PanierAvide a écrit :

Pour le suivi :
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fCk

Il y en a 3 de transformées et une incomplète. Par ailleurs, la ligne 
7 qui est disponible en tant que relation a été recréée sous forme de 
chemin en doublon par l'utilisateur Philippe21. Quelqu'un s'était 
chargé de le contacter pour signaler le souci ?


Cordialement.


Le 11/04/2016 22:11, Romain MEHUT a écrit :

C'est parfait :)

Le 11 avril 2016 à 22:07, Nicolas VIGNERON 
> a 
écrit :


Ils sont bien visibles ; ils sont même mieux que balisés, puisque
le tracé est directement et intégralement matérialisé par une
ligne rouge au sol ;) (source

http://www.rennes.lemensuel.com/actualite/article/2016/03/15/suivez-la-ligne-rouge-pour-decouvrir-rennes-autrement-16174.html
).

Cdlt, ~nicolas





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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10

[James Mast]

Hello Tom.


I was the first person to notice yesterday your students doing the changesets.  
I'm always happy to see new users adding stuff in the general Western PA area 
(as long as it isn't fictional items of course), and I'm glad you're doing this.


However, there was one common problem with their changesets that I kept seeing. 
 If you could explain to them first the difference of the 'area=yes' [1] and 
'building=*' [2] tags, that would be greatly appreciated so other users don't 
need to come in and fix the new items at a later date.  Most of your students 
were using 'area=yes' for buildings from the start.  Some corrected it on their 
own, others didn't, which required some other users to do it instead (one 
example that hasn't been fixed yet [3]).


So, as long as you can show them the wiki pages on those tags and explain the 
differences between the two, I think everything should be good to go here. 
[]


-James (rickmastfan67) https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rickmastfan67


[1] -  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area

[2] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building

[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/409620139



From: Mueller, Thomas 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:01 PM
To: OSM Volunteer stevea; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10


I am very sorry for my lack of communication.  Yes I am Tom Mueller.  I have a 
class called Introduction to Geography.  It is a class of 100 students.  I 
offered my students an opportunity of extra credit if they completed 3 new 
buildings in their hometown (about 45 students took me up on this option.)  I 
had the students watch the MapGive video and they are submitting the screen 
shots to me.  I am asking students to make changes if there are problems.  I 
attempted this type of project about a year ago and did not have any problems.  
I am sorry I was unaware that I needed to contact anyone.


If this is a problem, I will ask my students to stop.  I apologize.  I was 
using this extra credit as a test case for a bigger project in the fall 
semester .  However if this is causing a problem I will also not proceed.


Again I am sorry

Tom


From: OSM Volunteer stevea 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:35:32 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10

At least a couple of posters have responded to the thread:

I'm equally inexperienced in the contact department, so take what I say with 
that gain of salt.

This appears to be a class at California University of Pennsylvania 
(calu.edu), and the last of the users you link appears to be 
Dr. [Tom] Mueller himself.

Perhaps someone with some degree of officialness can contact the professor 
directly (via institutional email, I'd guess) to start the conversation in a 
good-faith fashion.

I have had excellent results in working with my local University (of 
California, also my alma mater) with professors (of Computer Science, 
Environmental Studies), staff, interns, contractors, etc.  OSM is very 
higher-education friendly as there are many ways that using and improving its 
underlying data can be beneficial to both the students and back to the project. 
 My best experiences come from acting in the capacity of a local “ambassador” 
to the project, offering longer-term project perspective, consultation, 
direction, technical answers, in-person class attendance (once or twice during 
a quarter or semester is quite sufficient) and whatever else might be needed to 
support the professor and the aims of the class.  True, this is most helpful 
before-the-fact (students joining OSM and editing) rather than afterwards, but 
it can be successful either way.  I just think its easier to do a little 
discussion and planning up-front to reduce surprises and anything unexpected.

If you are in academia as a professor/instructor, new to OSM yourself and are 
contemplating using OSM in your class (especially if more than just a few 
students will be editing en masse) please endeavor to find some local OSM 
person(s) who can act as a guide.  While not necessary, this can reduce 
misunderstandings, more easily glide into the brief (yet necessary) additional 
“mapping curriculum" that must be developed so students are both good editors 
yet while still furthering the aims of the class.  Our map is a shared fabric, 
not only among us, (OSM volunteers who add and edit data) but also among the 
wider world who can and do use OSM to teach and do wonderful things that we 
might not even have imagined.

I don’t particularly think any “degree of officialness” (Ph.D. or otherwise!) 
is required to contact the professor:  simply introduce yourself as an 
interested and eager OSM volunteer who wants to help.  Then, listen.

Good luck to 

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [OSM-talk-fr-bzh] rennes - chemin au lieu de relation

[PanierAvide]

Pour le suivi :
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fCk

Il y en a 3 de transformées et une incomplète. Par ailleurs, la ligne 7 
qui est disponible en tant que relation a été recréée sous forme de 
chemin en doublon par l'utilisateur Philippe21. Quelqu'un s'était chargé 
de le contacter pour signaler le souci ?


Cordialement.


Le 11/04/2016 22:11, Romain MEHUT a écrit :

C'est parfait :)

Le 11 avril 2016 à 22:07, Nicolas VIGNERON > a écrit :


Ils sont bien visibles ; ils sont même mieux que balisés, puisque
le tracé est directement et intégralement matérialisé par une
ligne rouge au sol ;) (source

http://www.rennes.lemensuel.com/actualite/article/2016/03/15/suivez-la-ligne-rouge-pour-decouvrir-rennes-autrement-16174.html
).

Cdlt, ~nicolas



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

[Talk-cz] Stromy pod kontrolou

[Miroslav Suchý]

Kontaktoval nekdy nekdo tyto provozovatele o moznosti poskytovat
otevrena data?
  http://www.stromypodkontrolou.cz
Pokud ne, tak bych je zkusil kontaktovat.

Mirek

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

[OSM-talk-be] mapathon this saturday: more help welcome

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

This weekend, at least 160 people will take their first OSM mapping steps
at the seven mapathons organized by univerisities all across the country.
This is a great opportunity to get new mappers, and even to try and start
building more OSM communities. Luckily, we found a dedicated OSM volunteer
for each of these locations - a big shoutout to Claire, Jorieke, Marc,
Julien M, Julien F, Jo, Tais and Moritz for their dedication. And of course
to the local universities who are organizing things.

Helping thirty new mappers get started with just one volunteer is hard. So
if you have some spare time this Saturday, even just a few hours, please
give a hand.

More information:
English: http://www.internationalmapyear.be/mapathon.php
French: http://www.internationalmapyear.be/fr/mapathon.php
Dutch: http://www.internationalmapyear.be/nl/mapathon.php

Contact the local OSM volunteer:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1STuP0e7QWLuZLNANEQOJpRLnoCltagtcJ9gFgJ-VaE4/edit?ts=56d55aff#gid=0

Once we have a task number, we'll also contact the HOT mailing list to see
if we can find some live validators. That helps to detect people making
mistakes before they make a lot of them. Incredibly useful if you can lend
a hand there, even if just remotely.

All the best,
-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup
 | Reddit
 | Wordpress

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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Elliott Plack 
wrote:

> I am glad this conversation has restarted. A few of you, (Me, Paul,
> others..) will recall a similar conversation on the openstreetmap-carto
> repo a few years ago where I noted that there are simply too many of these
> micro airports shown on the map. We discussed at great length how the
> relative importance of aerodromes could potentially be used for rendering.
>

I'm not sure what my original thoughts were but where I'm currently at on
this is if you're in a situation where all you understand mapwise is OSM
and you're in an emergency situation where the destination now is
"anywhere", then OSM is better than nothing, having at least runway
centerlines (and preferably the same for taxiways) and perimeters is better
(you can at least make a ballpark estimate of what *might* be a survivable
landing).  This of course, with the tacit understanding that we are not the
FAA (or whatever authority of record is relevant regionally) and no
rational pilot worth his flight credentials would use it for more than the
absolute most preliminary steps of planning.  Or as a decently accurate map
for Flightgear, since that flight simulator uses OSM data for scenery
already.

>From the ground, this isn't quite as important other than, say, being at
even a moderately sized airport like OSU in Norman or Riverside in Jenks
(both Oklahoma) where you might meet a friend in their plane at a specific
tiedown and not be sure where to drive inside the airport to the
appropriate tiedown/hangar.  Or at moderately large to huge airports,
finding a specific airport-related industry and residences only accessible
from a specific access in the perimeter (common with charter operators,
maintenance hangars, general aviation, military operators, etc; and
probably accounts for at least a hundred miles of near-airport GPXs and a
couple dozen miles of inside-perimeter GPX for me).

Bonus round a few years ago, attendees to Oklacon discovered the hard way
that Watonga Regional Airport is 1) a runway capable of emergency landing a
small commercial jetliner,  and 2) not secured.  Plus on at least one
commercial map provider, had it's taxiways, accesses and runways mapped as
a roadway, causing one especially confused person unfamiliar with the area
(or airports in general) to drive the length of the runway.   Fortunately,
Watonga's a *slllw* airport, and I don't recall hearing about anybody
or any flights in imminent danger (as was the case when Meigs unexpectedly
closed), so the incident only caused one person to be nicknamed Launchpad
for a couple days.  So having the airports properly tagged could be just as
important to *avoid* unintended traversal of airports as it can be to
intentionally navigate to a specific airport location.


> Given that map roulette is now handling these, I think this is a great
> time to revisit this discussion. If maprouletters can change all these
> point aerodromes to a polygon, then we can subjectively define airport
> importance using the shape size.
>

I'm all in favor of mapping these as polygons and mapping the on-the-ground
features, and possibly ground-based beacons where the identities can be
independently verified (shouldn't be hard, tune to it on a capable radio,
listen for the morse ident; in the midwest where there's basically noting
but tilled field, these might also serve as a potential landmark as much as
a lone tree does).  There's not much point in trying to map flight
restrictions or paths, though, since there's no real good way to identify
from the ground what these are.

Like lakes and parks, editors probably ought to show a visible warning that
things are Not Right when mapped as a node.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-dk] Fwd: Re: Trafikalarm

[Michael Andersen]

Jeg kunne her til aften konstatere at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TrafikAlarm har været aktiv igen i dag og 
fortsat arbejder på samme måde. Derfor har jeg bedt DWG blokere den: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/924. Eller rettere, give en slags 
advarsel. Der kan ikke redigeres på kontoen før teksten i linket læses.

Mvh Hjart

Mandag den 11. april 2016 11:43:28 skrev Michael Andersen:
> Jeg fik svar fra DWG (se nederst i mailen)
> 
> Jeg vil selv fortsætte kommunikationen med TrafikAlarm. Andre er dog
> velkomne  til at byde ind hvis der er noget specifikt.
> 
> På http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/fzl får man et overblik over hvor TrafikAlarm 
> står som "last modifier" (altså den sidste der har redigeret en vej). Hvis
> nogen af jer vil tjekke nogen af de berørte veje med henblik på en generel
> vurdering af om der skal reverteres vil det være godt.
> 
> Hvis nogen af jer igen bemærker hvad der ligner automatiske redigeringer, er
> i  velkomne til også at kontakte DWG og bede dem blokere det.
> 
> Mvh Hjart


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

[OSM-talk] classification of airports/aerodromes (was: Old Aerodromes)

[Michael Kugelmann]

Am 12.04.2016 um 11:40 schrieb Christoph Hormann:

This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features
to place labels and icons but these features are generally too
ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
I agree completely. This is something that should be improved: we need 
at least some rough categories for aerodromes. Because it does not make 
sense to me at all to render a grass strip exactly the same as a big 
international airport.

This is open since years but nobody really took care about this
Of cause this will not be easy as the regulations are different in the 
different countries. But we should find some categorization. And any 
approach is better than the current situation.



Best regards,
Michael.


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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Elliott Plack]

I am glad this conversation has restarted. A few of you, (Me, Paul,
others..) will recall a similar conversation on the openstreetmap-carto
repo a few years ago where I noted that there are simply too many of these
micro airports shown on the map. We discussed at great length how the
relative importance of aerodromes could potentially be used for rendering.

Given that map roulette is now handling these, I think this is a great time
to revisit this discussion. If maprouletters can change all these point
aerodromes to a polygon, then we can subjectively define airport importance
using the shape size.

Read up on GitHub:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:42 PM Wolfgang Zenker 
wrote:

> * Paul Norman  [160412 17:27]:
> > On 4/12/2016 2:40 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>  I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
>  first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
>  obviously no airport or airfield.
>
> >> I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature
> >> is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a
> >> place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something
> >> that can be reliably determined from imagery.
>
> > You can't reliably find small airfields from imagery, but I've found it
> > possible to verify a lack of airfields from it. I pass though
> > agricultural areas, and the airfields that are still active all appear
> > somehow on imagery, even if it's just an area where the ground cover is
> > different. On the other hand, some of the aeroway=aerodrome we have data
> > for include points in fields of corn, residential areas, and stands of
> > trees.
>
> One added problem here is that the coordinates of imported data are
> not always that good. As an example check Zortman Airport
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1042048666
> The original import was more than half a mile off.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-- 
Elliott Plack
http://elliottplack.me
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Wolfgang Zenker  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> * Martijn van Exel  [160412 16:29]:
> > Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the existence of an small
> airfield can be hard to verify from imagery - [..]
>
> one more thing to check: If the node was imported from GNIS, check the GNIS
> website searching for the feature id. In some cases that I have seen the
> GNIS entry had moved to "historical" status since the feature had been
> imported. If a feature in GNIS has "(historical)" at the end of the name
> field it means the feature does no longer exist, so we can delete it in
> OSM.
>

Inside Tulsa City and vicinity, I've ground-surveyed the airports around
here.  Harvey Young was probably the most interesting case, since everyone
I asked said it had closed years before.  Nope!  Still operational.
Another unlikely one that I found was Silverwood Ultralight Airport, which
I was very certain that if the swamp hadn't got it, the elevated portion of
the Liberty Parkway did.  It's actually a mile south of where GNIS thought
it was, but still has the Liberty Parkway as a flightpath obstruction!
It's pretty much a rancher's hairy-short dirt strip, not uncomplicated by
the fact there's numerous oak trees and an elevated motorway immediately
adjacent, but still is operational with the owner and his friends.

On the extreme opposite end of the spectrum was a third international
airport in Oklahoma.  Which...not entirely implausible, Tulsa's not
gigantic nor has scheduled overseas commercial passenger flights outside
the US borders that I'm aware of, but does have customs mostly for shipping
and flight crews, as Tulsa's the maintenance base for all of American
Airlines major repairs, as well as Lufthansa's US operations, and has
shipping flights on both UPS and FedEx, as well as direct nonstop shipping
to and from Kazakstan because NASA and eastern Oklahoma's deeply entrenched
space industry (at it's peak building over 90% of what went into the space
shuttles and it's rocket boosters, everything from mom-and-pops that went
out of business with the end of the shuttle program right up through NORDAM
and Rocketdyne).  The other's Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City.
The third?  Doesn't, and never has, existed except on some dusty TIGER
records at the location of an abandoned farmhouse in the middle of a
field.  Everything within a several mile radius is regularly plowed
agricultural field with no evidence that even an ultralight could use it,
and unpaved, graded county line section roads.  Deleted...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Converting 350 lat/lons from ITM to decimal degrees (Irish Libraries)

[Eric Theise]

Hi Brian,

If no one's emailed you off list, I'd be happy to do that transformation
for you later today.

Eric


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Brian Hollinshead 
wrote:

> I have received from the Library Development Section of the LMGA the ITM
> co-ordinates of about 350 Irish Public Libraries with permission to use the
> data for OSM. When I called to request the data they were unaware of OSM
> but are now highly impressed that such a sizable and varied resource had
> been produced both  locally and voluntarily.
>
> They arranged to have the list updated and I now have the excel file. I am
> familiar with the OSI convertor from ITM to degrees decimal on a one by one
> basis but hope one kindly soul can please email me to send the file to them
> for wholesale conversion. I can then put it on one drive and post a notice
> to that effect.
>
> I look forward to an email.
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

[Talk-pe] Próxima asamblea OSMpe

[Johnattan Rupire]

Hola!
¿qué les parece si lanzamos una asamblea de la comunidad para este mes?
si les parece bien nos autoconvocamos a reunirnos el día domingo 24 de
este mes, así tendremos tiempo de, primero confirmar la fecha, y
segundo, proponer una agenda.

Saludos!

-- 
Johnattan Rupire
@johnarupire
http://nomadas.ourproject.org

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

Re: [Talk-it] amenity con due ingressi

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Ho chiesto e la situazione si può riassumere in:

Civico 6 wheelchair=no e si può entrare ed uscire nelle opening_hours della
biblioteca

Civico 5 wheelchair=yes, si esce sempre ma si accede solo negli orari di
altri uffici del level=0; in ogni caso per l'accesso alla biblioteca con
l'ascensore é necessario contattare la segreteria.

Insomma un caso di indoor mapping "avanzato", ma dubito si possa mappare
qualcosa di utile in sè.

--
cascafico.altervista.org
twitter.com/cascafico
Il 12/apr/2016 18:31 "Cascafico Giovanni"  ha scritto:

> Stasera controllo e magari chiedo a qualcuno Probabilmente é un ingresso a
> chiamata.
>
> --
> cascafico.altervista.org
> twitter.com/cascafico
> Il 12/apr/2016 18:26 "Martin Koppenhoefer"  ha
> scritto:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> Am 12.04.2016 um 15:45 schrieb Aury88 :
>>
>> >> Sarebbe grave la cosa a parte tutto.
>> >
>> > non so se sia un uscita di emergenza...Cascafico dice solo che è
>> apribile
>> > dall'interno :-/
>>
>>
>> io non vedo il problema. Un'uscita d'emergenza non deve essere bloccata,
>> ma spetta al gestore decidere dove si può entrare. L'ingresso principale
>> può benissimo essere anche un'uscita d'emergenza
>>
>>
>> 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-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[Volker Schmidt]

Das Problem ist, dass die Bedeutung der Worte nicht einheitlich ist und oft
nicht eindeutig. Wenn du die frueher zitierten Wikipedia-Artikel liest,
wird das klar.
Sicherlich gibt es in diesem Bereich ziemliche Konfusion in OSM. Ich bin
kein Spezialist, habe diese Diskussion eigentlich mehr zufaellig gesehen.
Man sollte sie wahrscheinlich auf die internationale tagging Liste bringen.
Es bringt nicht viel, sie nur in der deutschen Liste zu fuehren..

2016-04-12 19:40 GMT+02:00 gmbo :

> Wenn ich dich richtig verstehe sind Motorhomes also keine Wohnmobile,
> sondern Kleine Häuser, die mit einem Motorfahrzeug zum nächsten Standort
> gebracgt werden und dort dann auf Zeit wieder fest installiert zu weden.
>
>
>
>
> Am 12.04.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>
>> Achtung:
>> motorhome=no ist eine Beschilderung, die man in England, und ich denke
>> auch
>> in den USA, antrifft. Diese schliesst die Langzeitbenutzung von praktisch
>> fest-installierten Wohnanhaengern als Wohnung aus.
>> Ich nehme an, dass die Bedeutung beim mappen in OSM die gleiche ist, das
>> heisst di Unterscheidung von Wohnsiedlungen die aus - im Prinzip -
>> fahrfaehigen und oft grossen Wohnanaheangern bestehen, und Plaetzen, wo
>> Touristen voruebergehend ihren Wohnwagen oder "Camper" benutzen.
>> Diese mobile-home-Siedlungen gibt es meines Wissens in grosser Zahl in
>> Europa nur in Grossbrittanien, und in den USA.
>> ___
>> Talk-de mailing list
>> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
>
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[gmbo]

Wenn ich dich richtig verstehe sind Motorhomes also keine Wohnmobile, 
sondern Kleine Häuser, die mit einem Motorfahrzeug zum nächsten Standort 
gebracgt werden und dort dann auf Zeit wieder fest installiert zu weden.




Am 12.04.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Volker Schmidt:

Achtung:
motorhome=no ist eine Beschilderung, die man in England, und ich denke auch
in den USA, antrifft. Diese schliesst die Langzeitbenutzung von praktisch
fest-installierten Wohnanhaengern als Wohnung aus.
Ich nehme an, dass die Bedeutung beim mappen in OSM die gleiche ist, das
heisst di Unterscheidung von Wohnsiedlungen die aus - im Prinzip -
fahrfaehigen und oft grossen Wohnanaheangern bestehen, und Plaetzen, wo
Touristen voruebergehend ihren Wohnwagen oder "Camper" benutzen.
Diese mobile-home-Siedlungen gibt es meines Wissens in grosser Zahl in
Europa nur in Grossbrittanien, und in den USA.
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de



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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Wolfgang Zenker]

* Paul Norman  [160412 17:27]:
> On 4/12/2016 2:40 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
 I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
 first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
 obviously no airport or airfield.

>> I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature
>> is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a
>> place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something
>> that can be reliably determined from imagery.

> You can't reliably find small airfields from imagery, but I've found it 
> possible to verify a lack of airfields from it. I pass though 
> agricultural areas, and the airfields that are still active all appear 
> somehow on imagery, even if it's just an area where the ground cover is 
> different. On the other hand, some of the aeroway=aerodrome we have data 
> for include points in fields of corn, residential areas, and stands of 
> trees.

One added problem here is that the coordinates of imported data are
not always that good. As an example check Zortman Airport
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1042048666
The original import was more than half a mile off.

Wolfgang

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Nelze nahrávat rozcestníky

[<0174]

Díky, napíšu soukromý e-mail, ať to neřešíme tady.

<0174

Dne 12. 4. 2016 v 13:04 Michal Grézl napsal(a):

potrebuju poslat tu fotku, ve jmene sice < byt nesmi, ale to se
korektne oreze na 0174.
Mozna byl prilis velka, z logu sem nic nevycetl.

2016-04-06 20:13 GMT+02:00 <0174 :

Ahoj,
zkouším zase po nějaké době nahrávat rozcestníky přes webové rozhraní a
nejde mi to - ve formuláři se zobrazí "OK", ale ukáže se mi tabulka s
errorem:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5683247/problem.png
Zkoušel jsem i nick bez speciálního symbolu, používám Firefox 45.
Neví někdo, co s tím, případně může správce zkontrolovat, jestli se soubor i
přes chybu nahrál (nejspíš několikrát) a mám pokračovat? V historii talku
jsem nic nenašel :(

Díky,

<0174

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






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

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[Volker Schmidt]

Achtung:
motorhome=no ist eine Beschilderung, die man in England, und ich denke auch
in den USA, antrifft. Diese schliesst die Langzeitbenutzung von praktisch
fest-installierten Wohnanhaengern als Wohnung aus.
Ich nehme an, dass die Bedeutung beim mappen in OSM die gleiche ist, das
heisst di Unterscheidung von Wohnsiedlungen die aus - im Prinzip -
fahrfaehigen und oft grossen Wohnanaheangern bestehen, und Plaetzen, wo
Touristen voruebergehend ihren Wohnwagen oder "Camper" benutzen.
Diese mobile-home-Siedlungen gibt es meines Wissens in grosser Zahl in
Europa nur in Grossbrittanien, und in den USA.
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-br] Projeto TrackYourCity

[Thiago Bueno]

Concordo!

A gente consegue fazer isso, inclusive o projeto mencionado na Tanzania
funcionou. Mapear as linhas é apenas o primeiro passo. Conseguir mapear
horários (o que o OSM não suporta) é muito mais complicado. E infelizmente
essa informação é fundamental para roteamento entre diferentes veículos.  O
que tentamos fazer é complementar dados públicos com uma camada de
inteligência para que o resultado sejam o mais realista possível.

Acredito que uma app de trânsito 100% baseada no OSM é possível, mas o
grande desafio é definir a expectativa certa aos usuários (como não esperar
horários realistas, etc..).


Thiago Bueno Silva

2016-04-12 11:44 GMT-03:00 santamariense :

> Acho que falta algum aplicativo focado em transporte público baseado
> em OSM. O que se observa são aplicativos que geram rotas apenas dentro
> de cidades, geralmente baseados em Google Maps. É preciso aplicações
> clientes para entusiasmar os OpenStreetMappers a mapear transporte
> público. Debater sobre taggeamento e formas de mapear. Interligações
> entre transportes (multimodais).
>
> ___
> Talk-br mailing list
> Talk-br@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
>
___
Talk-br mailing list
Talk-br@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br

Re: [Talk-it] amenity con due ingressi

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Stasera controllo e magari chiedo a qualcuno Probabilmente é un ingresso a
chiamata.

--
cascafico.altervista.org
twitter.com/cascafico
Il 12/apr/2016 18:26 "Martin Koppenhoefer"  ha
scritto:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> Am 12.04.2016 um 15:45 schrieb Aury88 :
>
> >> Sarebbe grave la cosa a parte tutto.
> >
> > non so se sia un uscita di emergenza...Cascafico dice solo che è apribile
> > dall'interno :-/
>
>
> io non vedo il problema. Un'uscita d'emergenza non deve essere bloccata,
> ma spetta al gestore decidere dove si può entrare. L'ingresso principale
> può benissimo essere anche un'uscita d'emergenza
>
>
> 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-it] amenity con due ingressi

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 12.04.2016 um 15:45 schrieb Aury88 :

>> Sarebbe grave la cosa a parte tutto.
> 
> non so se sia un uscita di emergenza...Cascafico dice solo che è apribile
> dall'interno :-/


io non vedo il problema. Un'uscita d'emergenza non deve essere bloccata, ma 
spetta al gestore decidere dove si può entrare. L'ingresso principale può 
benissimo essere anche un'uscita d'emergenza


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Old Aerodromes

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-04-12 16:29, Martijn van Exel wrote:

> I am not so concerned with rendering - that's not what we map for.

I think it would sound better if you said that rendering is one of the
many things we map for. OSM is not WOM (write-only memory). 

//colin 
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Paul Norman wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome
> > feature is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that
> > this is a place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not
> > generally something that can be reliably determined from imagery.
>
> You can't reliably find small airfields from imagery, but I've found
> it possible to verify a lack of airfields from it.

I agree this can be possible based on the considerations that it would 
be impossible to properly land an aircraft there (i.e. identification 
of the lack of possibility for an airfield to exist).  But it should be 
made clear to the mappers that with something as abstract as an 
airfield the lack of positive indications for the presence of a feature 
is not generally sufficient basis for removing data without local 
knowledge or identifying the original source of the data, for example a 
certain import, as unreliable.

For example i'd consider a stretch of road in a remote area that is 
frequently used for landing small aircraft a valid case of 
aeroway=aerodrome - likewise for a dry riverbed or lakebed, all of 
which will usually lack any visual signs for being used for this 
purpose unless an aircraft happens to be there the moment you look.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

[OSM-talk-ie] Converting 350 lat/lons from ITM to decimal degrees (Irish Libraries)

[Brian Hollinshead]

I have received from the Library Development Section of the LMGA the ITM
co-ordinates of about 350 Irish Public Libraries with permission to use the
data for OSM. When I called to request the data they were unaware of OSM
but are now highly impressed that such a sizable and varied resource had
been produced both  locally and voluntarily.

They arranged to have the list updated and I now have the excel file. I am
familiar with the OSI convertor from ITM to degrees decimal on a one by one
basis but hope one kindly soul can please email me to send the file to them
for wholesale conversion. I can then put it on one drive and post a notice
to that effect.

I look forward to an email.
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Paul Norman]

On 4/12/2016 2:40 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
>first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
>obviously no airport or airfield.

I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature
is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a
place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something
that can be reliably determined from imagery.


You can't reliably find small airfields from imagery, but I've found it 
possible to verify a lack of airfields from it. I pass though 
agricultural areas, and the airfields that are still active all appear 
somehow on imagery, even if it's just an area where the ground cover is 
different. On the other hand, some of the aeroway=aerodrome we have data 
for include points in fields of corn, residential areas, and stands of 
trees.


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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Wolfgang Zenker]

Hi,

* Martijn van Exel  [160412 16:29]:
> Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the existence of an small airfield 
> can be hard to verify from imagery - [..]

one more thing to check: If the node was imported from GNIS, check the GNIS
website searching for the feature id. In some cases that I have seen the
GNIS entry had moved to "historical" status since the feature had been
imported. If a feature in GNIS has "(historical)" at the end of the name
field it means the feature does no longer exist, so we can delete it in OSM.

Wolfgang

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Old Aerodromes

[Neil Pilgrim]

Well, while the use of the data on the 'airport related web sites' may or
may not be valid to use, going around deleting private ones seems somewhat
counter-intuitive - why not simply mark them as private, if that
knowledge/data is open? If they do get rendered, I'm sure there are
precedents for marking public/private ones, and rendering accordingly
(parking comes to mind, but maybe also caves?).

Don't get me wrong - I know that a lot of old/stale data can be present
(particularly in US imports?), and have come across 'schools' which haven't
been so for years, for example. This seems a bit too enthusiastic deletion
though.

--
Neil


On 12 April 2016 at 15:29, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the existence of an small
> airfield can be hard to verify from imagery - but I am also wondering what
> the value of this unverified and stale data is to OSM. If they were mapper
> surveyed nodes to begin with I would perhaps feel the need to be more
> cautious in removing them. I looked at perhaps 30 of them, looking them up
> on various airport related web sites, and ~70% of them were private air
> strips with no public access from air or ground. So those being
> fundamentally unverifiable (unless there is a sign or some structures on
> the ground that would make it so) I would see no problem deleting them.
>
> I like the suggestion for encouraging additional mapping (runways) if
> visible and this is already part of the instruction, let me know if that
> could be clearer.
>
> I am not so concerned with rendering - that’s not what we map for.
>
> Martijn
>
> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Christoph Hormann 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
> >> first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
> >> obviously no airport or airfield.
> >
> > I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature
> > is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a
> > place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something
> > that can be reliably determined from imagery.
> >
> > This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features
> > to place labels and icons but these features are generally too
> > ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
> >
> > The real observable feature of an airfield is the perimeter fence or
> > other form of delineation which then makes it a landuse mapping but
> > this only works for actively maintained airfields with a clearly
> > visible outline.  Otherwise the observable feature of an airfield is
> > the runway - mapping this is much better defined and more useful
> > information-wise than the airfield itself.
> >
> > So the challenge would IMO make more sense if it would encourage mapping
> > runways if they are visible rather than removing an aerodrome based on
> > the fact that it is not visible on imagery.
> >
> > See also here for a different angle on the problems of aeroway=aerodrome
> > as it is currently mapped:
> >
> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143
> >
> > --
> > Christoph Hormann
> > http://www.imagico.de/
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > talk...@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> ___
> 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-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all, 

Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the existence of an small airfield 
can be hard to verify from imagery - but I am also wondering what the value of 
this unverified and stale data is to OSM. If they were mapper surveyed nodes to 
begin with I would perhaps feel the need to be more cautious in removing them. 
I looked at perhaps 30 of them, looking them up on various airport related web 
sites, and ~70% of them were private air strips with no public access from air 
or ground. So those being fundamentally unverifiable (unless there is a sign or 
some structures on the ground that would make it so) I would see no problem 
deleting them. 

I like the suggestion for encouraging additional mapping (runways) if visible 
and this is already part of the instruction, let me know if that could be 
clearer.

I am not so concerned with rendering - that’s not what we map for.

Martijn

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
>> first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
>> obviously no airport or airfield.
> 
> I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature 
> is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a 
> place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something 
> that can be reliably determined from imagery.
> 
> This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features 
> to place labels and icons but these features are generally too 
> ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
> 
> The real observable feature of an airfield is the perimeter fence or 
> other form of delineation which then makes it a landuse mapping but 
> this only works for actively maintained airfields with a clearly 
> visible outline.  Otherwise the observable feature of an airfield is 
> the runway - mapping this is much better defined and more useful 
> information-wise than the airfield itself.
> 
> So the challenge would IMO make more sense if it would encourage mapping 
> runways if they are visible rather than removing an aerodrome based on 
> the fact that it is not visible on imagery.
> 
> See also here for a different angle on the problems of aeroway=aerodrome 
> as it is currently mapped:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143
> 
> -- 
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> 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: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Old Aerodromes

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all, 

Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the existence of an small airfield 
can be hard to verify from imagery - but I am also wondering what the value of 
this unverified and stale data is to OSM. If they were mapper surveyed nodes to 
begin with I would perhaps feel the need to be more cautious in removing them. 
I looked at perhaps 30 of them, looking them up on various airport related web 
sites, and ~70% of them were private air strips with no public access from air 
or ground. So those being fundamentally unverifiable (unless there is a sign or 
some structures on the ground that would make it so) I would see no problem 
deleting them. 

I like the suggestion for encouraging additional mapping (runways) if visible 
and this is already part of the instruction, let me know if that could be 
clearer.

I am not so concerned with rendering - that’s not what we map for.

Martijn

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
>> first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
>> obviously no airport or airfield.
> 
> I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature 
> is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a 
> place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something 
> that can be reliably determined from imagery.
> 
> This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features 
> to place labels and icons but these features are generally too 
> ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.
> 
> The real observable feature of an airfield is the perimeter fence or 
> other form of delineation which then makes it a landuse mapping but 
> this only works for actively maintained airfields with a clearly 
> visible outline.  Otherwise the observable feature of an airfield is 
> the runway - mapping this is much better defined and more useful 
> information-wise than the airfield itself.
> 
> So the challenge would IMO make more sense if it would encourage mapping 
> runways if they are visible rather than removing an aerodrome based on 
> the fact that it is not visible on imagery.
> 
> See also here for a different angle on the problems of aeroway=aerodrome 
> as it is currently mapped:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143
> 
> -- 
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


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

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[Simone Schwarz]

> Wikipedia fragen!

Habe ich. Die sind aber ein bisschen bockig wenn sie auf Deutsch antworten 
sollen ;)


Es gibt auch ein schönes Wiki, das OSM-Acces-Wiki

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access#Zu_Lande

Und dort ist caravan ein Wohnwagen und motorhome ein Wohnmobil.

Für Parkplätze wird auch caravan=no benutzt, um Wohnwagen auszuschliessen.  
Dort dürfen aber Wohnmobile parkieren.
In OSM wird also durchaus unterschieden. Wie zum Kuckuck kommt es dann für 
Wohnmobil Stellplätze zu caravan_site ?
Es müsste dann wohl eher motorhome_site heissen.

Mir ist es eigentlich egal, wie man die Plätze taggen soll. Ich will es nur 
korrekt machen. 

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

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[gmbo]

Es müsste nicht noch ein neuer Schlüssel sein.
Die Amerikaner Australier, Neuseeländer taggen das als 
tourism=caravan_site .
Einzig die Engländer kennen nur so wenige Wohnmobilstellplätze, dass sie 
die Kampingplätze teilweise als caravan_site taggen, da kommt es vor 
dass das sogar Plätze sind auf denen Motorhomes = no getagt ist. Auch 
ist da leider die englische Übersetzung für Wohnmobil nicht einheitlich. 
(Camper, Motorhome, RVhome selbst caravan)


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:How_to_map_a#Reisemobil-Stellplatz

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site sagt 
auch in der englischen Version Wohnmobilstellplatz wie wir es hier 
kennen. Leider ist dort der missverständliche Begriff caravan enthalten 
und daher haben alle Renderer auch Josm einen Wohnwagenanhänger als Symbol.


Für die Entsorgung gibt es
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dsanitary_dump_station


Gruß Gisbert


Am 12.04.2016 um 13:50 schrieb Simone Schwarz:

Keine Ahnung

Wenn es so ist, müsste dann bei tourism=caravan_site nicht noch ein Schlüssel 
für Mobil-Home oder Trailer sein ?

Auf Stellplätzen sind eigentlich nur Wohnmobile zugelassen (mit wenigen 
Ausnahmen).

Wie gesagt, bin da ein bisschen verwirrt.

Dann kann ich das so verstehen, dass mit caravan (tourism=caravan_site) 
Wohnmobile gemeint sind, obwohl der Name nicht ganz glücklich gewählt wurde ;)





Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. April 2016 um 13:36 Uhr
Von: "Hartmut Holzgraefe" 
An: talk-de@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

On 12.04.2016 13:06, Simone Schwarz wrote:


Mich hat "caravan" ein bisschen verwirrt.
Caravan = Wohnwagen = Anhänger und Wohnmobil/Camper sind etwas ganz anderes ;)

ist im (US-)Englisch nicht Caravan der Oberberiff mit
Unterkategorien "Mobile home" für Selbstfahrer und
"Trailer" für reine Anhänger?

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


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



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

Re: [Talk-it] [WIKI] Traduzione pagina Simple_Indoor_Tagging

[Aury88]

Silvano wrote
> Un consiglio da neofita, ma provo a darlo: hai provato l'editor sul
> browser
> iD ? C'è una sezione dedicata alle relazioni nell'interfaccia di modifica,
> magari agendo in quel modo riesci a ottenere o sbloccare qualcosa:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/45.62132/9.47393

su iD, così come su potlatch, ho visto solo la gestione delle appartenenze
dei membri, nulla sull'eliminazione delle relazioni... meglio di
nulla...riprovo questa sera con calma.
grazie per il suggerimento 



-
Ciao,
Aury
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/WIKI-Traduzione-pagina-Simple-Indoor-Tagging-tp5871545p5871670.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-it] amenity con due ingressi

[Aury88]

girarsi_liste wrote
> Stai dicendo che usano una uscita di sicurezza come entrata per i disabili
> motori?
> 
> Sarebbe grave la cosa a parte tutto.

 non so se sia un uscita di emergenza...Cascafico dice solo che è apribile
dall'interno :-/




-
Ciao,
Aury
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/amenity-con-due-ingressi-tp5871603p5871669.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Nelze nahrávat rozcestníky

[Michal Grézl]

pridal sem zjistovani aktualni polohy, po kliku na mapu se vyplni do
textboxu. prave to du publikovat na play.

2016-04-06 22:55 GMT+02:00 Jan Dudík :
> Já androidí aplikaci stále nepřesvědčil k nahrávání - vždy skončím u hlášky,
> že uprostřed oceánu rozcestník být nemůže.
> Přitom fotka v EXIF souřadnice má [1], aspoň to vidím v FastStonu
> Nemohla by aplikace v takovém případě nabídnou alespoň aktuální polohu?
>
> [1]
> https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B530BF7FEBE7B5DA!2399=!AJdBTONGaO_y5UU=3=photo%2cjpg
>
> JAnD
>
> ---
> Ing. Jan Dudík
> projekce dopravních staveb
> tel. 777082195
>
> Dne 6. dubna 2016 20:27 Petr Holub  napsal(a):
>
>> > zkouším zase po nějaké době nahrávat rozcestníky přes webové rozhraní a
>> > nejde mi to - ve formuláři se zobrazí "OK", ale ukáže se mi tabulka s
>> > errorem:
>> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5683247/problem.png
>> > Zkoušel jsem i nick bez speciálního symbolu, používám Firefox 45.
>> > Neví někdo, co s tím, případně může správce zkontrolovat, jestli se
>> > soubor i přes chybu nahrál (nejspíš několikrát) a mám pokračovat? V
>> > historii talku jsem nic nenašel :(
>>
>> No a ja mam porad problemy s tou Androidi aplikaci - po uspesnem
>> uploadu prvnich 2 rozcestniku sice vsechno konci "uspechem", ale
>> na webu se to uz neobjevi. (Nick "hopet").
>>
>> Petr
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-cz mailing list
>> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>



-- 
Michal Grézl
http://openstreetmap.cz

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

Re: [Talk-it] OSMIT 2016 + inaugurazione sede

[Lorenzo Milesi]

> il 21 maggio OpenStreetMap Italia inaugura la sua sede.

Ciao. Mi chiamo Lorenzo (Maxxer) e lurko la lista da parecchio.

Mi dispiace non esserci quel fine settimana per partecipare all'inaugurazione, 
mi sarebbe proprio piaciuto. 
In particolare essendo volontario in una Protezione Civile ed andando sempre in 
montagna (pur non facendo parte attivamente di nessun CAI), avrei avuto piacere 
a partecipare agli interventi dedicati alla PA.

La mail è solo per incrementare l'interesse verso registrazioni post-evento, in 
modo che siano gli interventi siano visionabili anche da chi non ci sarà. :)

Buon festeggiamento. Alla prossima
-- 
Lorenzo Milesi - lorenzo.mil...@yetopen.it

YetOpen S.r.l. - http://www.yetopen.it/

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

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[Volker Schmidt]

> Keine Ahnung?


Wikipedia fragen!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_trailer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campervan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorhome
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-cz] Nelze nahrávat rozcestníky

[Michal Grézl]

tady uz me jen napada smazat data aplikace odinstalovat a zase nainstalovat.
nebo pak uz jen vyzkouset jiny telefon.

2016-04-06 20:27 GMT+02:00 Petr Holub :
>> zkouším zase po nějaké době nahrávat rozcestníky přes webové rozhraní a
>> nejde mi to - ve formuláři se zobrazí "OK", ale ukáže se mi tabulka s
>> errorem:
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5683247/problem.png
>> Zkoušel jsem i nick bez speciálního symbolu, používám Firefox 45.
>> Neví někdo, co s tím, případně může správce zkontrolovat, jestli se
>> soubor i přes chybu nahrál (nejspíš několikrát) a mám pokračovat? V
>> historii talku jsem nic nenašel :(
>
> No a ja mam porad problemy s tou Androidi aplikaci - po uspesnem
> uploadu prvnich 2 rozcestniku sice vsechno konci "uspechem", ale
> na webu se to uz neobjevi. (Nick "hopet").
>
> Petr
>
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz



-- 
Michal Grézl
http://openstreetmap.cz

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Nelze nahrávat rozcestníky

[Michal Grézl]

nesmi byt zaskrtle exif, pak nejde psat do poli lat lon, jinak to jde.

2016-04-07 10:35 GMT+02:00 Zdeněk Pražák :
> Já mám zase problém, že u fotky, u které nemám souřadnice v exifu, nelze v
> nahrávacím okně zadat souřadnice. Fotografie se pravděpodobně nahrála bez
> souřadnic.
> Jedná se o fotografii _MG_7260
> Pražák
>
> Dne 6. dubna 2016 20:13 <0174  napsal(a):
>
>> Ahoj,
>> zkouším zase po nějaké době nahrávat rozcestníky přes webové rozhraní a
>> nejde mi to - ve formuláři se zobrazí "OK", ale ukáže se mi tabulka s
>> errorem:
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5683247/problem.png
>> Zkoušel jsem i nick bez speciálního symbolu, používám Firefox 45.
>> Neví někdo, co s tím, případně může správce zkontrolovat, jestli se soubor
>> i přes chybu nahrál (nejspíš několikrát) a mám pokračovat? V historii talku
>> jsem nic nenašel :(
>>
>> Díky,
>>
>> <0174
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-cz mailing list
>> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>



-- 
Michal Grézl
http://openstreetmap.cz

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

Re: [Talk-cz] osm -> pg (updates)

[Tom Ka]

ahoj, na osm.fit.vutbr.cz jsou i odkazy na texty BP, tam to je. Nebo github
OsmHiCheck.

Bye
On Apr 11, 2016 8:14 PM, "Martin Landa"  wrote:

> Panove,
>
> provozuji na fakulte databaze (PostGIS) s daty OSM. Upgrade dat
> provadim zpravidla z cele davky, napr. [1]. Pocitam, ze by slo
> nastavit elegantnejsi zpusob, ktery by aplikoval pouze zmeny v datech
> od urciteho data. Neresil to nekdo tady?
>
> Diky, Martin
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/ctu-osgeorel-proj/bp-jakl-2016/blob/master/src/pg/upgrade_pgis_osm_bp.sh
>
> --
> Martin Landa
> http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
> http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [Talk-cz] Nelze nahrávat rozcestníky

[Michal Grézl]

pokud ma fotka exif polohu, tak se zobrazi v polich lat a lon, 0 tam
byt nemuzou. pokud tam sou tak aplikace nedokaze exif precist:( stahl
sem si tu fotku a vyzkousim to.
aktualni polohu tam vlozit muzu, to neni problem, akorat to nebude hned:)

2016-04-06 22:55 GMT+02:00 Jan Dudík :
> Já androidí aplikaci stále nepřesvědčil k nahrávání - vždy skončím u hlášky,
> že uprostřed oceánu rozcestník být nemůže.
> Přitom fotka v EXIF souřadnice má [1], aspoň to vidím v FastStonu
> Nemohla by aplikace v takovém případě nabídnou alespoň aktuální polohu?
>
> [1]
> https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=B530BF7FEBE7B5DA!2399=!AJdBTONGaO_y5UU=3=photo%2cjpg
>
> JAnD
>
> ---
> Ing. Jan Dudík
> projekce dopravních staveb
> tel. 777082195
>
> Dne 6. dubna 2016 20:27 Petr Holub  napsal(a):
>
>> > zkouším zase po nějaké době nahrávat rozcestníky přes webové rozhraní a
>> > nejde mi to - ve formuláři se zobrazí "OK", ale ukáže se mi tabulka s
>> > errorem:
>> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5683247/problem.png
>> > Zkoušel jsem i nick bez speciálního symbolu, používám Firefox 45.
>> > Neví někdo, co s tím, případně může správce zkontrolovat, jestli se
>> > soubor i přes chybu nahrál (nejspíš několikrát) a mám pokračovat? V
>> > historii talku jsem nic nenašel :(
>>
>> No a ja mam porad problemy s tou Androidi aplikaci - po uspesnem
>> uploadu prvnich 2 rozcestniku sice vsechno konci "uspechem", ale
>> na webu se to uz neobjevi. (Nick "hopet").
>>
>> Petr
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-cz mailing list
>> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>



-- 
Michal Grézl
http://openstreetmap.cz

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

Re: [Talk-it] [WIKI] Traduzione pagina Simple_Indoor_Tagging

[Silvano]

Un consiglio da neofita, ma provo a darlo: hai provato l'editor sul browser
iD ? C'è una sezione dedicata alle relazioni nell'interfaccia di modifica,
magari agendo in quel modo riesci a ottenere o sbloccare qualcosa:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/45.62132/9.47393

Il giorno 12 aprile 2016 10:40, Luca Delucchi  ha
scritto:

> 2016-04-12 10:03 GMT+02:00 Aury88 :
> > richiesta  aiuto:
> > Allora  ho cominciato a lavorare sul centro commerciale Il Globo[1], ma
> sto
> > avendo dei problemi a rimuovere le relazioni che erano utilizzate nel
> > vecchio stile per la mappatura indoor.
> >
>
> cut
>
> >
> > alla fine ho solo aggiunto i tag necessari per il nuovo indoor ma
> l'ideale
> > sarebbe ripulire totalmente la mappa dal casino introdotto con il vecchio
> > metodo.
> >
>
>
> non seguo la discussione indoor-mapping, però perchè rimuovere il
> vecchio metodo?
> non possono convivere i due metodi?
>
> > qualcuno ha idee?
> > Grazie a chiunque volesse aiutarmi
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ciao
> Luca
>
> http://gis.cri.fmach.it/delucchi/
> www.lucadelu.org
>
> ___
> 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-cz] Nelze nahrávat rozcestníky

[Michal Grézl]

potrebuju poslat tu fotku, ve jmene sice < byt nesmi, ale to se
korektne oreze na 0174.
Mozna byl prilis velka, z logu sem nic nevycetl.

2016-04-06 20:13 GMT+02:00 <0174 :
> Ahoj,
> zkouším zase po nějaké době nahrávat rozcestníky přes webové rozhraní a
> nejde mi to - ve formuláři se zobrazí "OK", ale ukáže se mi tabulka s
> errorem:
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5683247/problem.png
> Zkoušel jsem i nick bez speciálního symbolu, používám Firefox 45.
> Neví někdo, co s tím, případně může správce zkontrolovat, jestli se soubor i
> přes chybu nahrál (nejspíš několikrát) a mám pokračovat? V historii talku
> jsem nic nenašel :(
>
> Díky,
>
> <0174
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz



-- 
Michal Grézl
http://openstreetmap.cz

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

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[Simone Schwarz]

Keine Ahnung

Wenn es so ist, müsste dann bei tourism=caravan_site nicht noch ein Schlüssel 
für Mobil-Home oder Trailer sein ?

Auf Stellplätzen sind eigentlich nur Wohnmobile zugelassen (mit wenigen 
Ausnahmen).

Wie gesagt, bin da ein bisschen verwirrt.

Dann kann ich das so verstehen, dass mit caravan (tourism=caravan_site) 
Wohnmobile gemeint sind, obwohl der Name nicht ganz glücklich gewählt wurde ;)




> Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. April 2016 um 13:36 Uhr
> Von: "Hartmut Holzgraefe" 
> An: talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile
>
> On 12.04.2016 13:06, Simone Schwarz wrote:
> 
> > Mich hat "caravan" ein bisschen verwirrt.
> > Caravan = Wohnwagen = Anhänger und Wohnmobil/Camper sind etwas ganz anderes 
> > ;)
> 
> ist im (US-)Englisch nicht Caravan der Oberberiff mit
> Unterkategorien "Mobile home" für Selbstfahrer und
> "Trailer" für reine Anhänger?
> 
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
>

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

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[Hartmut Holzgraefe]

On 12.04.2016 13:06, Simone Schwarz wrote:


Mich hat "caravan" ein bisschen verwirrt.
Caravan = Wohnwagen = Anhänger und Wohnmobil/Camper sind etwas ganz anderes ;)


ist im (US-)Englisch nicht Caravan der Oberberiff mit
Unterkategorien "Mobile home" für Selbstfahrer und
"Trailer" für reine Anhänger?

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

Re: [Talk-hr] DORS/CLUC 2016 OSM radionica

[Matija Nalis]

ok je onda ta od 90 minuta...

Naslov: OpenStreetMap - slobodna karta svijeta

Opis:
 OpenStreetMap je slobodna karta svijeta, u čijoj izradi i korištenju
 može svatko sudjelovati na sličnom principu kao što Wikipedia radi u
 svijetu enciklopedija.  Karte svijeta koje nisu otvorene kao
 OpenStreetMap, čak i kada su uglavnom besplatne (kao npr. 
 GoogleMaps), postavljaju razna ograničenja kojih korisnici na
 početku najčešće nisu niti svjesni.  
 Nakon kraćeg osvrta na probleme zatvorenijih karata, te prednosti i
 mogućnosti koje nam slobodne karte donese, prikazati ćemo ukratko
 razne primjere korištenja OSM-a (besplatne mobilne offline karte,
 prilagodbe karata za razne specifične situacije kao biciklizam,
 planinarenje, navigacija na moru,...) 
 Glavni dio radionice koncentrirati će se na praktično sudjelovanje u
 izradi karte.

Tip: za srednje skole (iako slobodno moze i za za osnovne)

Tehnika: 
 potrebna su (osim naravno projektora i laptopa za prikaza
 predavacevih slideova) racunala sa za polaznike sa radecom internet
 vezom, web browserom i Javom.

Autor: 
 Matija Nalis zagovornik je slobodnog softvera otvorenog koda te
 slobodne kulture.  Iako po struci energetski elektroničar bavi se
 računalima praktički cijelu svoju karijeru - veći dio programiranjem
 i održavanjem GNU/Linux sustava.  Sudjeluje u raznim projektima
 otvorenog koda - od jednostavnijih popravaka grešaka, do višegodišnjeg 
 službenog održavanja datotečnog podsustava Linux jezgre.  
 U slobodno vrijeme uživa vozeći se biciklom, te održavajuci 
 stranice www.biciklijade.com




On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01:51PM +0200, Kresimir Kroflin wrote:
> Pozdrav,
> 
> 
> Ove godine za nastavnike informatike osnovnih i srednjih škola pripremamo
> posebne radionice u popodnevnim satima paralelno s nekim predavanjima.
> Radionice za njih su po 2 školska sata, odnosno 90 minuta.
> 
> 
> Treći dan konferencije su radionice kao i inače te ako ima zainteresiranih
> i takvu radionicu održati (3-4 sata), mislim ju možemo uvrstiti u program.
> 
> 
> Do sutra (utorak, 12. 4.) nam za radionicu za nastavnike trebaju dodatni
> podaci kako bi im omogućili prijave preko AZOO-a. Trebaju nam naslov,
> kratki opis, oznaka da li je za osnovne ili srednje škole te kratko o
> predavaču – gdje i što radi, iskustvo, interesi, … Slično kao na
> http://2016.dorscluc.org/speakers/
> 
> Info možete poslati meni, na i...@dorscluc.org ili putem aplikacije
> http://2016.dorscluc.org/talk-workshop-applications/
> 
> 
> Krešimir
> 
> 
> 
> Dana 10. travnja 2016. u 02:29 Matija Nalis <
> mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr> je napisao/la:
> 
> > Meni je onomad na CUCu sasvim dobro prolazio JOSM (newbie polaznici
> > isto).  Doduse bilo je nesto vise vremena IIRC.
> >
> > Sto me podsjeti; ovo 1.5h je nesto splitano za CLUC, obicno su 4h
> > radionice tamo bile?
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:44:09AM +0200, hbogner wrote:
> > > Radionica bi bila namjenjena za apsolutne početnike koji se možda i prvi
> > put
> > > susreću sa OSM, znači moramo biti user friendly što više možemo.
> > > Po mogućnosti čak i koristeći iD editor...
> > >
> > > On 07.04.2016 19:33, Matija Nalis wrote:
> > > >ako nitko drugi nije zesce zainteresiran, mogu ja
> > > >
> > > >On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 12:12:31PM +0200, hbogner wrote:
> > > >>Postoji mogućnost održavanja OSM radionice na DORS/CLUC konferenciji.
> > > >>Radionica bi trajala otprilike 90 minuta.
> > > >>
> > > >>Ima li dobrovoljaca koji bi htjeli održati radionicu za početnike o
> > osnovama
> > > >>unosa podataka?
> > > >>
> > > >>http://2016.dorscluc.org/
> > > >>
> > > >>Hrvoje
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>___
> > > >>Talk-hr mailing list
> > > >>Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org
> > > >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Talk-hr mailing list
> > > Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
> >
> > --
> > Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-hr mailing list
> > Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
> >

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] nenahrává se lomítko v ref

[Michal Grézl]

diky, podivam se na to

2016-04-11 14:47 GMT+02:00 Zdeněk Pražák :
> Při nahrávání fotek rozcestníků na openstreetmap.cz jsem si všiml, že v
> případě, že rozcestník má starý formát ref, tak se nenahraje lomítko - viz
> rozcestníky s ID 5873 a 5874 kde se místo správného 4867/342 a 4867/343
> nahrálo 4867342 a 4867343
>
> Pražák
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>



-- 
Michal Grézl
http://openstreetmap.cz

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

Re: [Talk-de] GPS Logger Android 6, oruxmaps powersave mode tracking off...

[Martin Czarkowski]

Hallo Lars,

dann muss das tatsächlich ein Android 6 Problem sein. Wende Dich bitte an die 
User im deutschsprachigen bzw. im englischen Locus-Forum, vielleicht kann Dir 
dort geholfen werden. 
http://forum.locusmap.eu/index.php
http://forum.locusmap.eu/index.php?board=27.0 

Gruß
Martin

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Lars Schimmer [mailto:l.schim...@cgv.tugraz.at] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. April 2016 12:25
An: talk-de@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Talk-de] GPS Logger Android 6, oruxmaps powersave mode tracking 
off...

On 2016-04-07 11:07, Martin Czarkowski wrote:
> Hallo Lars,
> 
> loggen mit Bildschirm aus geht natürlich auch, funktioniert bei Locus 
> einwandfrei.

Ähm, nee, eben gerade nicht.
Eben getestet, war ne Stunde draussen unterwegs. Er hat genau 3 Punkte in dem 
Track drinnen: Start, Mittendrinnen und Ende, jeweils da, wo ich die Handyhülle 
auf hatte.
Dazwischen hat er wohl aus Stromspargründen das GPS aus und keine Punkte in den 
Track geschrieben.
Somit wieder da, wo ich am Anfang stand: tut ned mit Android 6 :-(

> Gruß
> Martin
> 


MfG,
Lars Schimmer
--
-
TU Graz, Institut für ComputerGraphik & WissensVisualisierung
Tel: +43 316 873-5405   E-Mail: l.schim...@cgv.tugraz.at
Fax: +43 316 873-5402   PGP-Key-ID: 0x4A9B1723





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

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[Simone Schwarz]

Hallo und Danke
 
Mich hat "caravan" ein bisschen verwirrt. 
Caravan = Wohnwagen = Anhänger und Wohnmobil/Camper sind etwas ganz anderes ;)

Gruss
Simone 


> Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. April 2016 um 08:35 Uhr
> Von: "Hartmut Holzgraefe" 
> An: talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile
>
> On 12.04.2016 07:54, Simone Schwarz wrote:
> > Hallo Liste
> >
> > Da Deutschland als Land der Wohnmobile gilt, frage ich gleich hier nach ;)
> >
> > Frage 1: Wie tagge ich am besten eine Camper-Werkstat ?
> >- Werkstat für Reparaturen
> >- Vermietung von Wohnmobile und Wohnwagen
> >- Verkauf von Wohnmobile, Wohnwagen, Zelte und Camping bedarf
> >
> >
> > Frage 2: Gibt es ein spezielles Taggingschema für Wohnmobil-Stellplätze ?
> >- eventuell mit zusätzlichen Angabe der maximal erlaubten Länge, 
> > Höchstgewicht etc.
> >
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site
> 
> Zu Länge und Höchstgewicht steht da nichts, aber Kombination mit den für 
> Straßen üblichen maxheight, maxweight Tags erscheint sinnvoll ...
> 
> -- 
> hartmut
> 
> ___
> Talk-de mailing list
> Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
>

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

Re: [Talk-it] amenity con due ingressi

[Simone]

Il 12 aprile 2016 12:09:30 CEST, Aury88  ha scritto:
>ma quindi quel tag si può usare anche quando non è un vero e proprio
>ingresso ma un uscita in cui qualcuno dall'interno apre se deve entrare
>qualcuno?

Stai dicendo che usano una uscita di sicurezza come entrata per i disabili 
motori?

Sarebbe grave la cosa a parte tutto.


-- Simone Girardelli--

Inviato con K-9 Mail
Scusate la brevità dello scritto.

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

Re: [Talk-dk] Fwd: Re: Trafikalarm

[Michael Andersen]

Hej Fiona

Først; Jeg har personligt brugt et sted mellem 5000 og 1 timer på 
manuel 
redigering i OSM og jeg kan slet ikke forestille mig at en opgave som den 
du 
beskriver kan implementeres uden at det ender galt.

Dernæst vil jeg opfordre jer til grundigt at læse 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct. 
Bemærk at der er meget strikse regler for hvad der er acceptabelt i forhold 
til automatiske "løsninger" og at de som minimum skal godkendes af det 
lokale fællesskab (i praksis den danske OSM postliste 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-dk[1] ), før de "går live". 

Jeg har været omkring både den nævnte postliste og 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group med sagen og der 
synes at være bred enighed om at alle tanker om "automatisk at tilordne 
information" i OSM fra jeres side bør skrinlægges. I er selvfølgelig velkomne 
til som alle andre at redigere OpenStreetMap manuelt, men hvis vi ser jer 
lave "automatiske opdateringer" igen vil vi se os nødsaget til at blokere 
jeres konto. Vi sidder en masse hobbyfolk og andre frivillige og redigerer 
manuelt rundt omkring og det er vigtigt at have en høj grad af respekt i 
forhold til det. Det duer ikke at "overrule" dette arbejde med rent 
mekaniske løsninger.

Med hensyn til jeres "indmeldinger" har jeg set flere forslag om at i i stedet 
for kunne skabe en art database eller kort indeholdende disse,  som så 
deles med os andre, så vi i fælleskab kunne udnytte dem. Flere andre 
firmaer/entiteter har gjort/gør noget lignende (se f.eks. 
http://www.mapdust.com/).

I er velkomne til at tílmelde jer vores postliste og der diskutere hvordan et 
eventuelt fremtidigt samarbejde kan gribes an.

Mvh Michael aka Hjart

Søndag den 10. april 2016 16:42:35 skrev du:
> ##- Indtast dit svar oven for denne linje -##
> 
> Din henvendelse (ID#21690) er blevet opdateret. BESVAR venligst denne 
e-mail
> hvis du har noget at tilføje, eller yderligere spørgsmål der vedrører 
denne
> henvendelse.
> 
> --
> 
> Fiona, 10. apr. 18.42
> 
> Hej igen Michael,
> 
> De indmeldinger du oplever fra Trafik Alarm er generet via appen, og 
nogen
> (hvis ikke alle) af problemerne med de hyppige rettelser i Open Street 
Map,
> skyldes at vi ikke kan få appen til at automatisk at tilordne informationen
> fra indmeldingspunktet til den korrekte bid af vejstrækningen, så vi 
søger
> derfor noget input til hvordan man (automatisk) kan løse dette.
> 
> Er det noget du kan hjælpe med ideer til?
> 
> 
> Mvh
> Fiona



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

Re: [Talk-de] GPS Logger Android 6, oruxmaps powersave mode tracking off...

[Lars Schimmer]

On 2016-04-07 11:07, Martin Czarkowski wrote:
> Hallo Lars,
> 
> loggen mit Bildschirm aus geht natürlich auch, funktioniert bei Locus 
> einwandfrei.

Ähm, nee, eben gerade nicht.
Eben getestet, war ne Stunde draussen unterwegs. Er hat genau 3 Punkte
in dem Track drinnen: Start, Mittendrinnen und Ende, jeweils da, wo ich
die Handyhülle auf hatte.
Dazwischen hat er wohl aus Stromspargründen das GPS aus und keine Punkte
in den Track geschrieben.
Somit wieder da, wo ich am Anfang stand: tut ned mit Android 6 :-(

> Gruß
> Martin
> 


MfG,
Lars Schimmer
-- 
-
TU Graz, Institut für ComputerGraphik & WissensVisualisierung
Tel: +43 316 873-5405   E-Mail: l.schim...@cgv.tugraz.at
Fax: +43 316 873-5402   PGP-Key-ID: 0x4A9B1723





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-it] amenity con due ingressi

[Aury88]

dieterdreist wrote
> no, metterei piuttosto un entrance=yes (o altro valore documentato) e in
> più un tag wheelchair=...

ma quindi quel tag si può usare anche quando non è un vero e proprio
ingresso ma un uscita in cui qualcuno dall'interno apre se deve entrare
qualcuno?



-
Ciao,
Aury
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/amenity-con-due-ingressi-tp5871603p5871654.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] [FreeGeoCZ] FOSS4G-CZ/SK

[Jachym Cepicky]

za mě dobrý,

ještě bychom potřebovali cca 2 hodiny  na valnou hromadu - vyblokovat v
programu

ale to asi až to budeme skládat

já se do programového výboru samo hlásím

J

út 12. 4. 2016 v 11:58 odesílatel Rostislav Nétek  napsal:

> Ahojte, nabidka z Olomouce stale plati, krasne to zapadne do programu. Co
> se tyce organizacniho vyboru - zajisteni na miste, to si klidne vezmu na
> starosti ja s kolegou Tomasem Pohankou (nas doktorand), zajisttim 1-2
> ucebny po 20 PC + prednaskova mistnost pro oficialne 50,prakticky cca 80
> lidi + pripadne treba eyetrakcing laborator, mozna drona, 3D tiskarny atd
> dle dohody. Takze bych dal otazku kdo se hlasi do programoveho vyboru:-)
>
> Ohledne financnich naroku katedry zjistim od sefa (ktery je momentalne v
> USA), a dam vedet, ale pokud tak ocekavam spise symbolicky pokryti energii
> apod. Z nasi strany mame jediny pozadavek, a to blokace cca 20-30 mist pro
> nase studenty, tzn. pro verejnost je realnych 50mist, muze byt?
>
>
> *---*
>
> 
>
> *Mgr. Rostislav Nétek, Ph.D.*
> odborný asistent
>
> *Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci*
> *Katedra geoinformatiky*
> *+420 585 63 4584 **| +420 721 319 100*
> *rostislav.ne...@upol.cz  **| 
> http://geoinformatics.upol.cz
> *
>
> Dne 12. dubna 2016 11:23 Jachym Cepicky 
> napsal(a):
>
> Ahoj všem,
>>
>> rád bych to téma dokous, máme tady návrh z Olomouce, uspořádat FOSS4G.cz  
>> 21.10.2016
>> (pokud termín platí) u příležitosti akce "Podzimní Olomouc" pořádané
>> UPOL.
>>
>> Pokud nemá nikdo nic proti, rád bych založil registrační formulář a začal
>> se bavit o organizaci. Rosťo: bude potřeba nějaké příspěvky, aby se "něco"
>> za táhlo?
>>
>> Rád bych to viděl formou spíše "unconference" - tedy bez větší
>> organizace. Rosťo: bude možné dostat se do učebny a udělat nějaký workshop?
>> Hlásí se někdo do "organizačního výboru"?
>>
>> Dík
>>
>> Jachym
>>
>> čt 3. 3. 2016 v 8:34 odesílatel Jiri Kozel 
>> napsal:
>>
>>> Ahoj,
>>>
>>> mně se to taky zamlouvá. Pokud by nebylo dost vhodnějších kandidátů,
>>> můžu se zapojit do procesu výběru příspěvků (odborných a třeba i finančních
>>> ;-)).
>>>
>>> Jirka
>>>
>>> Jiří Kozel
>>> Masarykova univerzita
>>> Ústav výpočetní techniky
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dne 16. února 2016 7:58 Jachym Cepicky 
>>> napsal(a):
>>>
 Ahoj,

>>>
 mě se to líbí. Má někdo alternativní návrh? Někomu se to principiálně
 nelíbí?

 J

>>>
 po 15. 2. 2016 v 9:57 odesílatel Rostislav Nétek 
 napsal:

> Kolegové, Jáchyme, rovnou dávám k dispozici termín pátek 21.10.2016 v
> Olomouci, místo Katedra geoinformatiky UP (cca 10min od hl.nádraží pěšky,
> http://www.geoinformatics.upol.cz/). Celý ten týden máme na katedře
> akci nazvanou "Podzimní Olomouc", týden přednášek, workshopů atd. která
> vyvrcholí v sobotu 22.10. výročím 15ti let založení katedry. Pátek máme
> volnější, takže by FOSS4G konference krásně zapadla do programu. Co se 
> týče
> organizace a zabezpečení, můžu si to vzít na starosti, k dispozici učebny 
> s
> PC, posluchárna pro 50-60 lidí, mapovna atd. Není to sice žádný 
> konferenční
> hotel, na druhou stranu náklady by byly symbolické.
>
> PS: termín celého týdne je jistý na 90%, výše zmíněnou informací dávám
> nezávazně k diskuzi
>
> *---*
>
> 
>
> *Mgr. Rostislav Nétek, Ph.D.*
> odborný asistent
>
> *Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci*
> *Katedra geoinformatiky*
> *+420 585 63 4584 **| +420 721 319 100 <%2B420%20721%20319%20100>*
> *rostislav.ne...@upol.cz  **| 
> http://geoinformatics.upol.cz
> *
>
> Dne 13. února 2016 22:35 Jachym Cepicky 
> napsal(a):
>
>> Přátelé,
>>
>> rád bych nakousnul téma oficiální konference s hlavičkou FOSS4G na
>> našich územích.
>>
>> Moje představa je taková, že by se jednalo o konferenci putovní -
>> tak, aby se dostala i do vzdálenějších regionů. Klidně bychom to mohli
>> navázat na existující akce, kterých je po republice dost a dost. Zároveň 
>> by
>> na konferenci mohla proběhnout valná hromada Spolku.
>>
>> Konfence by mohla být spíše  na bázi "un-conference" - tedy méně
>> organizačně náročná.
>>
>> Pokud by se přidali naši kamarádi z OSM komunity, tím lépe.
>>
>> Hlásil by se někdo do organizačního výboru? Ten by měl nosit "know
>> how" a uvážlivě vybírat místo pro další ročník a nastavit proces 
>> případného
>> výběru příspěvků.
>>
>> Hlásil by se někdo už pro letošní rok?
>>
>> Byl jsem na Pycon.cz v Brně minulý rok (0-tý ročník) a ukázalo se, že
>> angličtina opravdu nemusí být bariéra, naopak to přitáhlo 

Re: [Talk-it] amenity con due ingressi

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-04-12 10:47 GMT+02:00 Aury88 :

> i forse si potrebbe usare entrance=wheelchair (ha solo 6 occorrenze
> su taginfo)
>


no, metterei piuttosto un entrance=yes (o altro valore documentato) e in
più un tag wheelchair=...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-04-12 11:25 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :

> But now we're getting into something for which there's NOTAMs and
> established official data on, in a highly variable space, and one that is 
> generally
> regarded as out of scope of this project
> .
>


mapping the airspace is out of scope, mapping airfields isn't...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
> first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
> obviously no airport or airfield.

I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature 
is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a 
place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something 
that can be reliably determined from imagery.

This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features 
to place labels and icons but these features are generally too 
ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.

The real observable feature of an airfield is the perimeter fence or 
other form of delineation which then makes it a landuse mapping but 
this only works for actively maintained airfields with a clearly 
visible outline.  Otherwise the observable feature of an airfield is 
the runway - mapping this is much better defined and more useful 
information-wise than the airfield itself.

So the challenge would IMO make more sense if it would encourage mapping 
runways if they are visible rather than removing an aerodrome based on 
the fact that it is not visible on imagery.

See also here for a different angle on the problems of aeroway=aerodrome 
as it is currently mapped:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 12 April 2016, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the
> first time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is
> obviously no airport or airfield.

I am not sure here.  For small airfields the aeroway=aerodrome feature 
is a fairly abstract thing essentially indicating only that this is a 
place where aircrafts start or land.  This is not generally something 
that can be reliably determined from imagery.

This is also a problem for map rendering - map styles use these features 
to place labels and icons but these features are generally too 
ill-defined and undifferentiated to do this properly.

The real observable feature of an airfield is the perimeter fence or 
other form of delineation which then makes it a landuse mapping but 
this only works for actively maintained airfields with a clearly 
visible outline.  Otherwise the observable feature of an airfield is 
the runway - mapping this is much better defined and more useful 
information-wise than the airfield itself.

So the challenge would IMO make more sense if it would encourage mapping 
runways if they are visible rather than removing an aerodrome based on 
the fact that it is not visible on imagery.

See also here for a different angle on the problems of aeroway=aerodrome 
as it is currently mapped:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1143

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Pomocny rozcestnik - neznačená trasa

[Pavel Machek]

Ahoj!

> +1
> 
> Když to bude značeno jako kct_none, tak by se to mohlo brát jako doporučená 
> cesta. Vždy jsem radši, když vidím, kudy asi tak jít, než když musím 
> spoléhat na navigaci, která mně může vést například přes uzamčenou soukromou
> branku, která není v databázi.

Ja bych byl pro to znacit, ale kct_none bych si nechal pro pripad "je
tam rozcestik KCT kteri rika jdete 300m k nadrazi". Tohle by mozna
chtelo nejaky jiny znaceni.

...i kdyz, ono se to asi pozna podle operator=...

Mejte se,
Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) 
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2016-04-12 11:00 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
>
>> Can we really be sure there is no airfield, just because we don't see
>>> anything in the aerial imagery? Isn't this maybe also a legal question
>>> besides physical characteristics?
>>>
>>
>> Well, if it's not on the ground, what are we to map?
>>
>
>
> E.g. a right of way (not sure if this is the correct term here)? Typically
> aircraft for example have to avoid the surroundings of airfields if they
> are not starting or landing there, you might not fly with your kite or
> drone nearby, etc.
>

But now we're getting into something for which there's NOTAMs and
established official data on, in a highly variable space, and one that
is generally
regarded as out of scope of this project
.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2016-04-12 11:00 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
>
>> Can we really be sure there is no airfield, just because we don't see
>>> anything in the aerial imagery? Isn't this maybe also a legal question
>>> besides physical characteristics?
>>>
>>
>> Well, if it's not on the ground, what are we to map?
>>
>
>
> E.g. a right of way (not sure if this is the correct term here)? Typically
> aircraft for example have to avoid the surroundings of airfields if they
> are not starting or landing there, you might not fly with your kite or
> drone nearby, etc.
>

But now we're getting into something for which there's NOTAMs and
established official data on, in a highly variable space, and one that
is generally
regarded as out of scope of this project
.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-cz] [FreeGeoCZ] FOSS4G-CZ/SK

[Jachym Cepicky]

Ahoj všem,

rád bych to téma dokous, máme tady návrh z Olomouce, uspořádat
FOSS4G.cz  21.10.2016
(pokud termín platí) u příležitosti akce "Podzimní Olomouc" pořádané UPOL.

Pokud nemá nikdo nic proti, rád bych založil registrační formulář a začal
se bavit o organizaci. Rosťo: bude potřeba nějaké příspěvky, aby se "něco"
za táhlo?

Rád bych to viděl formou spíše "unconference" - tedy bez větší organizace.
Rosťo: bude možné dostat se do učebny a udělat nějaký workshop? Hlásí se
někdo do "organizačního výboru"?

Dík

Jachym

čt 3. 3. 2016 v 8:34 odesílatel Jiri Kozel  napsal:

> Ahoj,
>
> mně se to taky zamlouvá. Pokud by nebylo dost vhodnějších kandidátů, můžu
> se zapojit do procesu výběru příspěvků (odborných a třeba i finančních ;-)).
>
> Jirka
>
> Jiří Kozel
> Masarykova univerzita
> Ústav výpočetní techniky
>
>
>
>
> Dne 16. února 2016 7:58 Jachym Cepicky 
> napsal(a):
>
>> Ahoj,
>>
>
>> mě se to líbí. Má někdo alternativní návrh? Někomu se to principiálně
>> nelíbí?
>>
>> J
>>
>
>> po 15. 2. 2016 v 9:57 odesílatel Rostislav Nétek  napsal:
>>
>>> Kolegové, Jáchyme, rovnou dávám k dispozici termín pátek 21.10.2016 v
>>> Olomouci, místo Katedra geoinformatiky UP (cca 10min od hl.nádraží pěšky,
>>> http://www.geoinformatics.upol.cz/). Celý ten týden máme na katedře
>>> akci nazvanou "Podzimní Olomouc", týden přednášek, workshopů atd. která
>>> vyvrcholí v sobotu 22.10. výročím 15ti let založení katedry. Pátek máme
>>> volnější, takže by FOSS4G konference krásně zapadla do programu. Co se týče
>>> organizace a zabezpečení, můžu si to vzít na starosti, k dispozici učebny s
>>> PC, posluchárna pro 50-60 lidí, mapovna atd. Není to sice žádný konferenční
>>> hotel, na druhou stranu náklady by byly symbolické.
>>>
>>> PS: termín celého týdne je jistý na 90%, výše zmíněnou informací dávám
>>> nezávazně k diskuzi
>>>
>>> *---*
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> *Mgr. Rostislav Nétek, Ph.D.*
>>> odborný asistent
>>>
>>> *Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci*
>>> *Katedra geoinformatiky*
>>> *+420 585 63 4584 **| +420 721 319 100 <%2B420%20721%20319%20100>*
>>> *rostislav.ne...@upol.cz  **| 
>>> http://geoinformatics.upol.cz
>>> *
>>>
>>> Dne 13. února 2016 22:35 Jachym Cepicky 
>>> napsal(a):
>>>
 Přátelé,

 rád bych nakousnul téma oficiální konference s hlavičkou FOSS4G na
 našich územích.

 Moje představa je taková, že by se jednalo o konferenci putovní - tak,
 aby se dostala i do vzdálenějších regionů. Klidně bychom to mohli navázat
 na existující akce, kterých je po republice dost a dost. Zároveň by na
 konferenci mohla proběhnout valná hromada Spolku.

 Konfence by mohla být spíše  na bázi "un-conference" - tedy méně
 organizačně náročná.

 Pokud by se přidali naši kamarádi z OSM komunity, tím lépe.

 Hlásil by se někdo do organizačního výboru? Ten by měl nosit "know how"
 a uvážlivě vybírat místo pro další ročník a nastavit proces případného
 výběru příspěvků.

 Hlásil by se někdo už pro letošní rok?

 Byl jsem na Pycon.cz v Brně minulý rok (0-tý ročník) a ukázalo se, že
 angličtina opravdu nemusí být bariéra, naopak to přitáhlo hodně lidí ze
 zahraničí (austrálie, polsko, rakousko ...)

 tolik moje dojmy

 J

 ___
 FreeGeoCZ mailing list
 freege...@fsv.cvut.cz
 http://mailman.fsv.cvut.cz/mailman/listinfo/freegeocz


>>> ___
>>> FreeGeoCZ mailing list
>>> freege...@fsv.cvut.cz
>>> http://mailman.fsv.cvut.cz/mailman/listinfo/freegeocz
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> FreeGeoCZ mailing list
>> freege...@fsv.cvut.cz
>> http://mailman.fsv.cvut.cz/mailman/listinfo/freegeocz
>>
>> ___
> FreeGeoCZ mailing list
> freege...@fsv.cvut.cz
> http://mailman.fsv.cvut.cz/mailman/listinfo/freegeocz
>
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz

Re: [Talk-it] [WIKI] Traduzione pagina Simple_Indoor_Tagging

[Aury88]

Luca Delucchi wrote
> non seguo la discussione indoor-mapping, però perchè rimuovere il
> vecchio metodo?
> non possono convivere i due metodi?

teoricamente no, ma quello vecchio è un metodo definito obsoleto/inattivo
ormai da tempo a favore del nuovo e di fatto tutti i servizi che lo
sfruttavano sembrano essere stati eliminati o essere non funzionati.
A parte una questione di pulizia, il vantaggio del nuovo metodo è la
semplicità e mi sembrava un po' assurdo lasciare entrambi i metodi sullo
stesso oggetto rendendo la situazione addirittura più complicata di prima
:-/





-
Ciao,
Aury
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/WIKI-Traduzione-pagina-Simple-Indoor-Tagging-tp5871545p5871645.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-04-12 11:00 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :

> Can we really be sure there is no airfield, just because we don't see
>> anything in the aerial imagery? Isn't this maybe also a legal question
>> besides physical characteristics?
>>
>
> Well, if it's not on the ground, what are we to map?
>


E.g. a right of way (not sure if this is the correct term here)? Typically
aircraft for example have to avoid the surroundings of airfields if they
are not starting or landing there, you might not fly with your kite or
drone nearby, etc.

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-cz] Pomocny rozcestnik - neznačená trasa

[Petr Holub]

>Dne 12.4.2016 v 07:43 Petr Holub napsal(a):
>> Cestu mezi nimi už si pak
>> musí najít sám, nebo pomocí routingu přes existující cesty.
>
>Tak přesně tohle - jako uživatel - nechci dělat. Na mnoha místech jsem
>narazil na to, že na výběr by bylo více možností. Přičemž ta cesta
>vyznačená (byť jen na papíře) bývá používaná a tudíž komfortně
>průchozí.
>Ostatní možnosti bývají hůře průchozí. A není to jenom o tom, zda je
>dobře značena viditelnost a šírka pěšiny. Ono je rozdíl jestli takovou
>pěšinu mapper značí v předjaří (projít se dá všude), nebo zda tam jde
>na
>konci léta (neprůchozí skrz kopřivy a houští).

pokud je ta cesta někde vyznačená na papíře a máme svolení ji z tohoto
zdroje nabrat, tak bych to klidně udělal - protože pak máš i nějakého garanta,
který se o to stará (nebo měl starat). Já měl na mysli případy, a není jich
málo, kdy ta naučná stezka je opravdu jen sbírka informačních cedulí
a je na uživateli, jak se mezi nimi routuje. Někdy je to vedené paralelně
s KČT značkou, takže se dá předpokládat logika routování "po značce".

Co se týče mappera vytvářejícího trasu - to, co popisuješ, je část problému. Ono
teda i KČT má v dlouhodobějším horizontu s tímto problém, že se terén mění a
co bylo průchozí a dobře viditelné tak už viditelné třeba po pár letech není. 
Nicméně
v případě tras KČT se k tomu aspoň ti značkaři hlásí a spravují to, byť někdy 
velmi
velmi pomalu. V případě, kdy si OSM mapper tu trasu "vymyslí", tak by aspoň
bylo dobré v datech vidět, že si ji vymyslel - už kvůli odpovědnosti za údržbu.
Buď použit status "proposed" nebo nějakou vhodnou hodnotu operátora. Navíc
pak by bylo vhodné ještě rozlišit oficiální sadu informačních cedulí, k nimž se
operátor hlásí, a to mapperem navržené routování - protože se například v čase 
může 
změnit vedení KČT tras a jak pak má člověk rozhodnout, jestli takovou trasu
také zaktualizovat nebo ne - když by neměla žádného zřejmého operátora
nebo garanta.

Zdraví,
Petr


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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2016-04-12 4:50 GMT+02:00 Martijn van Exel :
>
>> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the first
>> time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is obviously
>> no airport or airfield.
>
>
> Can we really be sure there is no airfield, just because we don't see
> anything in the aerial imagery? Isn't this maybe also a legal question
> besides physical characteristics?
>

Well, if it's not on the ground, what are we to map?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2016-04-12 4:50 GMT+02:00 Martijn van Exel :
>
>> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the first
>> time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is obviously
>> no airport or airfield.
>
>
> Can we really be sure there is no airfield, just because we don't see
> anything in the aerial imagery? Isn't this maybe also a legal question
> besides physical characteristics?
>

Well, if it's not on the ground, what are we to map?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-it] amenity con due ingressi

[Aury88]

quella usata comunemente mi sembra in realtà quella ufficiale quindi
entrance:main
l'altra penso serva solo per permettere ai disabili di entrare visto che la
principale non lo consente. se ho capito bene la descrizione non è un vero e
proprio ingresso visto che è apribile solo dall'interno quindi in realtà
dovrebbe essere una entrance=exit ma visto che è usata per l'ingresso dei
disabili forse si potrebbe usare entrance=wheelchair (ha solo 6 occorrenze
su taginfo)



-
Ciao,
Aury
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/amenity-con-due-ingressi-tp5871603p5871639.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-it] [WIKI] Traduzione pagina Simple_Indoor_Tagging

[Luca Delucchi]

2016-04-12 10:03 GMT+02:00 Aury88 :
> richiesta  aiuto:
> Allora  ho cominciato a lavorare sul centro commerciale Il Globo[1], ma sto
> avendo dei problemi a rimuovere le relazioni che erano utilizzate nel
> vecchio stile per la mappatura indoor.
>

cut

>
> alla fine ho solo aggiunto i tag necessari per il nuovo indoor ma l'ideale
> sarebbe ripulire totalmente la mappa dal casino introdotto con il vecchio
> metodo.
>


non seguo la discussione indoor-mapping, però perchè rimuovere il
vecchio metodo?
non possono convivere i due metodi?

> qualcuno ha idee?
> Grazie a chiunque volesse aiutarmi
>



-- 
ciao
Luca

http://gis.cri.fmach.it/delucchi/
www.lucadelu.org

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Old Aerodromes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-04-12 4:50 GMT+02:00 Martijn van Exel :

> I was mapping some rural area in the U.S. and noticed, not for the first
> time, an aerodrome node in the middle of a field where there is obviously
> no airport or airfield.




Can we really be sure there is no airfield, just because we don't see
anything in the aerial imagery? Isn't this maybe also a legal question
besides physical characteristics?

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-it] [WIKI] Traduzione pagina Simple_Indoor_Tagging

[Aury88]

richiesta  aiuto:
Allora  ho cominciato a lavorare sul centro commerciale Il Globo[1], ma sto
avendo dei problemi a rimuovere le relazioni che erano utilizzate nel
vecchio stile per la mappatura indoor.

A quanto pare, a causa di relazioni con reciproche interdipendenze, non
riesco a rimuovere nessuna delle vecchie relazioni in JOSM...qualcuno mi può
aiutare?
è da ieri sera che ci combatto ma purtroppo non riesco a venirne a capo. ho
provato di tutto: ho cambiato l'ordine con cui rimuovo le relazioni...ho
provato anche a cancellare prima i membri e poi le relazioni, ma nulla :-(
JOSM non mi è di alcun aiuto...ogni tanto la cancellazione di un relazione
mi fa comparire una segnalazione di bug (ho l'ultima versione di josm)
mentre all'atto del caricamento dei cambiamenti (quando tra i cambiamenti
c'è appunto la rimozione delle varie relazioni) mi dice di schiacciare su
"Prepara la risoluzione dei conflitti" cosa che non mi fa comparire nè
riparare alcun conflitto.


alla fine ho solo aggiunto i tag necessari per il nuovo indoor ma l'ideale
sarebbe ripulire totalmente la mappa dal casino introdotto con il vecchio
metodo.

qualcuno ha idee?
Grazie a chiunque volesse aiutarmi

[1]http://openlevelup.net/?lat=45.621622=9.473812=18=0=0=1=0=0=0=0=0



-
Ciao,
Aury
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/WIKI-Traduzione-pagina-Simple-Indoor-Tagging-tp5871545p5871637.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Pomocny rozcestnik - neznačená trasa

[Marián Kyral]

-- Původní zpráva --
Od: Miroslav Suchý 
Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 12. 4. 2016 8:32:19
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Pomocny rozcestnik - neznačená trasa

"Dne 12.4.2016 v 07:43 Petr Holub napsal(a):
> Cestu mezi nimi už si pak
> musí najít sám, nebo pomocí routingu přes existující cesty.

Tak přesně tohle - jako uživatel - nechci dělat. Na mnoha místech jsem
narazil na to, že na výběr by bylo více možností. Přičemž ta cesta
vyznačená (byť jen na papíře) bývá používaná a tudíž komfortně průchozí.
Ostatní možnosti bývají hůře průchozí. A není to jenom o tom, zda je
dobře značena viditelnost a šírka pěšiny. Ono je rozdíl jestli takovou
pěšinu mapper značí v předjaří (projít se dá všude), nebo zda tam jde na
konci léta (neprůchozí skrz kopřivy a houští).
"






+1

Když to bude značeno jako kct_none, tak by se to mohlo brát jako doporučená 
cesta. Vždy jsem radši, když vidím, kudy asi tak jít, než když musím 
spoléhat na navigaci, která mně může vést například přes uzamčenou soukromou
branku, která není v databázi.




Nebo, pokud se budu navigovat jen dle vizuální mapy, můžu narazit na 
nezaznačený plot, neprostupný les atd.




Jsem pro kct_none, pro kterou se dohodne nějaké vhodné zobrazení na mapě. 
Btw, na mapách KČT to je nějak značeno?




Marián







"
Mirek

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

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[rza31]

shop=caravan 92x in der Datenbank vorhanden.

Am 12.04.2016 um 07:54 schrieb Simone Schwarz:
> Hallo Liste
> 
> Da Deutschland als Land der Wohnmobile gilt, frage ich gleich hier nach ;)
> 
> Frage 1: Wie tagge ich am besten eine Camper-Werkstat ? 
>   - Werkstat für Reparaturen
>   - Vermietung von Wohnmobile und Wohnwagen
>   - Verkauf von Wohnmobile, Wohnwagen, Zelte und Camping bedarf


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

Re: [Talk-de] Camper / Wohnmobile

[Hartmut Holzgraefe]

On 12.04.2016 07:54, Simone Schwarz wrote:

Hallo Liste

Da Deutschland als Land der Wohnmobile gilt, frage ich gleich hier nach ;)

Frage 1: Wie tagge ich am besten eine Camper-Werkstat ?
   - Werkstat für Reparaturen
   - Vermietung von Wohnmobile und Wohnwagen
   - Verkauf von Wohnmobile, Wohnwagen, Zelte und Camping bedarf


Frage 2: Gibt es ein spezielles Taggingschema für Wohnmobil-Stellplätze ?
   - eventuell mit zusätzlichen Angabe der maximal erlaubten Länge, 
Höchstgewicht etc.



http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site

Zu Länge und Höchstgewicht steht da nichts, aber Kombination mit den für 
Straßen üblichen maxheight, maxweight Tags erscheint sinnvoll ...


--
hartmut

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Pomocny rozcestnik - neznačená trasa

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 12.4.2016 v 07:43 Petr Holub napsal(a):
> Cestu mezi nimi už si pak
> musí najít sám, nebo pomocí routingu přes existující cesty.

Tak přesně tohle - jako uživatel - nechci dělat. Na mnoha místech jsem
narazil na to, že na výběr by bylo více možností. Přičemž ta cesta
vyznačená (byť jen na papíře) bývá používaná a tudíž komfortně průchozí.
Ostatní možnosti bývají hůře průchozí. A není to jenom o tom, zda je
dobře značena viditelnost a šírka pěšiny. Ono je rozdíl jestli takovou
pěšinu mapper značí v předjaří (projít se dá všude), nebo zda tam jde na
konci léta (neprůchozí skrz kopřivy a houští).

Mirek

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] problème sur serveur(s) osm-fr ?

[Muselaar]

Bonjour,

Juste un petit message pour faire remonter le sujet… Quelles nouvelles ?

Le 07/02/2016 00:53, Muselaar a écrit :


Qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire pour te procurer ce créneau ? Quelqu'un 
d'autre pourrait-il le faire ?


J'avais récupéré les photos début octobre 2014, elles dataient de 
l'été 2013, ce qui d'année en année est de moins en moins frais avec 
le temps qui passe.


Le 01/02/2016 11:43, Christian Quest a écrit :

Il faut que je trouve un créneau pour installer le NAS à La Fonderie...

On 01/02/2016 01:29, Muselaar wrote:

Coucou !

Quelles nouvelles, maintenant ? On attend toujours impatiemment la 
mise en ligne des photos aériennes de l'agglomération de Belfort à 1 
px/10 cm pour faire les mises à jour qui s'imposent…
Cela concerne une surface de territoire habitée par 100 000 h, 
environ, et même un peu plus, vu que l'avion n'a pas été radin.
Si ce sont les photos obliques qui posent trop problème, on pourrait 
se contenter des ortho, ce serait déjà génial !

Ça vaut la peine !

Le 20/12/2015 14:58, Christian Quest a écrit :

NAS à nouveau opérationnel(un disque remplacé dans la grappe RAID).
Je dois aller le mettre en place à La Fonderie...

Le 20 décembre 2015 à 13:50, Muselaar > a écrit :


C'est sûr que ce n'est pas facile à manipuler. À moins
d'utiliser un logiciel comme QGIS, qui demande un long temps
d'apprentissage, je n'ai même pas pu exploiter la moindre image
: interminable à ouvrir… Mais bon, il y a la qualité de l'image
au rendez-vous.

On progresse toujours ?


Le 24/11/2015 00:23, Christian Quest a écrit :

On progresse !

Le serveur est opérationnel, mais le NAS sur lequel les images
avaient été stockées est en standby à cause d'un disque HS sur
le RAID. J'ai renvoyé le disque en question pour remplacement
et je vais en acheter un en spare demain pour remettre le NAS
en route.

Ces images qui font des centaines de Go ou quelques To c'est
pas bien pratique à manipuler !


Le 23 novembre 2015 22:37, Muselaar  a
écrit :

Bonsoir !

Je remonte le sujet… On en est où, maintenant ?

Muselaar

Le 18/10/2015 09:54, Pierre-Yves Berrard a écrit :

Super nouvelle.
Tiens-nous au courant de l'adresse à utiliser pour le
flux tms !

PY

Le 8 octobre 2015 11:51, Christian Quest
 a écrit :

JGC est en train de terminer la remise en route du
serveur WMS... j'ai copié les images de Belfort
dessus, on va donc pouvoir les intégrer (enfin !).


On 08/10/2015 00:21, Muselaar wrote:

Bonjour,

Je ressors ce vieux message, après une absence
prolongée d'OSM ces derniers temps. Mais j'avais le
mal du pays, et je reviens, même si je n'aurai pas
autant de temps à l'avenir que dans le passé. Mais
il y a de toute façon régulièrement des trucs à
corriger dans son environnement.

Où en est-on, avec Belfort ? Comment peut-on
utiliser les photos de la CAB dans JOSM ?
Finalement, les photos obliques seront accessibles
aussi, ou bien c'est trop lourd ?
Elle sont utiles, car permettant de détromper par
rapport à la photo verticale, et de mieux se
repérer, par rapport à des souvenirs de promenade,
par exemple.

Muselaar

Le 29/04/2015 11:59, Christian Quest a écrit :

Pour Belfort, je pensais mettre en place le serveur
ces derniers mois à La Fonderie, mais ça a été sans
arrêt repoussé. Il devrait être installé début mai
et en attendant je vais installer ça chez moi, si
possible ce week-end.


Le 29/04/2015 11:15, Pierre-Yves Berrard a écrit :

Bonjour Christian,

Pas de réponse de l'Université de Grenoble pour le
serveur d'images aériennes ? Si je ne m'abuse, ils
doivent être revenus de vacances.

Pierre-Yves

PS : sur le même thème, sais-tu si ça avance pour
la photographie aérienne de Belfort ? Je n'ai pas
de nouvelles depuis sacrément longtemps.

___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr


-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France



___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr




___