Re: [talk-au] Australia "changing coordinates"

[Andrew Davidson]

WGS84 is a datum fixed; as in dated 1984 and the data does not change.


I'm not sure that you've understood exactly what a semi-dynamic datum 
is. Have a read of this:


http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1142/paper6.pdf

particularly sections 3.4 and 3.5.



Or you have access to survey points/marks and their data  in the local
area.


LOL. Reminds me of this quote:


"You'll never find a survey mark on the ground with coordinates 
referenced to WGS-84. If you do, it's wrong."


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

Re: [talk-au] Australia "changing coordinates"

[Warin]

On 8/2/2016 1:57 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
It's interesting because it highlights one of the foundation myths of 
OSM; which is that it uses the "WGS84" co-ordinate system. This is a 
convenient myth and if you're talking about only mapping to the 
nearest 5m then it is in effect true. However, once you start talking 
about sub-metre accuracy it stops being true for a number of reasons:


WGS84 is a datum fixed; as in dated 1984 and the data does not change.



1. Unless you are cleared by the US DoD you don't have access to this 
level of accuracy.


Or you have access to survey points/marks and their data  in the local 
area.




2. If the accuracy of your GPS is supplemented by external data then 
this is inevitably based on one of the realisations of the ITRS; which 
is not "WGS84".


No. The survey points can be in one datum and coordinate system and 
those can be translated to any other datum and/or coordinate system.

Datums are definitions .. they do not rely on nor based on something else.


3. WGS84 is a semi-dynamic datum. Every 1st of January the USAF 
uploads new co-ordinates for each of their ground control/monitoring 
stations (where they will be at 1st July). Which means that every 
location in WGS84 co-ordinates needs an epoch to indicate when the 
measurement was taken but the database schema for OpenStreetMap 
doesn't have an entry for this.


No .. WGS84 if fixed, it does not change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System
And that in part is incorrect ... read 
http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/tr8350_2.html 
Documents EGM 96 ... as in 1996.
_"__Third Edition, 4 July 1997 has been amended to correct errata found 
in the original printing of this edition. There are no changes to the 
definition of WGS 84 and this does not constitute a "new" WGS 84."


_If WGS84 were to be 'updated' then I would expect a different number 
e.g. WGS94 for a 1994 model.  Otherwise it is not possible to 
distinguish between the two datums!




So what happens in OSM is that each country gets mapped to their local 
approximation of WGS84. In North America this is NAD83, Europe has the 
ETRS89 and the various national variations. The UK must be the most 
confusing as the OS seems to be maintaining two system OSGB36 and OS 
Net but a least they are far enough apart to be obvious.
WGS84 is not approximated to any local datum. Rather a local datum is 
modelled for the best fit of the local surface. A global model must make 
more compromises/approximations so will always be worse than a local 
model (assuming the same data, effort and level of complexity). 
Translation of data from one datum to another has approximations, but 
the datums themselves have no approximation, they may be derived 
(contrived) from approximations but they define the thing. If 'the' inch 
is defined as the length of the Quenn Of Britians thumb .. then that is 
what it is .. no approximation. (I would buy before the thumb nail is 
trimmed, and sell after it is trimmed.)


In Australia it means that we've been happily mapping to GDA94 and 
ignoring the fact that we're racing north at something like 70-90 mm a 
year. People mapping with consumer grade GPS are only within 5m anyway 
so don't care. People with access to survey grade GPS understand the 
difference and convert back to GDA94.


Depends on what you set your GPS datum too ... mine is set to WGS84.
The GPS knows what datum the map is, and adjusts for the required datum. 
With more or less accuracy depending on the model and the complexity 
implemented inside the GPS. As my GPS is obsolete by at least 2 
generations I don't see it having any capacity for the new earth centric 
datums.




What difference will it make to OSM? It depends. If you're mapping 
some where that has good quality aerial imagery and people have 
carefully traced things then it's going to be obvious 
(https://goo.gl/sWWfYm). On the other hand most of OSM in Australia 
can be described as roughly sketched and if all you have is Bing 
imagery and some crudely traced streets then I doubt you'll be able to 
tell (https://goo.gl/B7WVfz).


As the imagery is set for WGS84 it should not be a problem'. Problems 
may arise if (when) open sourced data is in some 'other' datum and 
imported without adjustment to whatever datum OSM uses.
What to do about it? Unfortunately the changeover to GDA2020 is not 
going to happen overnight, the plan is for a three year transition 
starting in 2017. If it did happen overnight then we could just shift 
all of the nodes in Australia to their new positions can keep on 
mapping. What's actually going to happen is that the various different 
organizations are going to switch at different timr84 o WGes and the 
situation for aerial imagery mosaics will be interesting if they 
aren't retrospectively re-projected (you'll have some places on 
GDA2020 and others still on GD94). So I'm guessing the approach of 
wait and see might be the one to take. Obviously 

Re: [talk-au] Australia "changing coordinates"

[Andrew Davidson]

It's interesting because it highlights one of the foundation myths of 
OSM; which is that it uses the "WGS84" co-ordinate system. This is a 
convenient myth and if you're talking about only mapping to the nearest 
5m then it is in effect true. However, once you start talking about 
sub-metre accuracy it stops being true for a number of reasons:


1. Unless you are cleared by the US DoD you don't have access to this 
level of accuracy.


2. If the accuracy of your GPS is supplemented by external data then 
this is inevitably based on one of the realisations of the ITRS; which 
is not "WGS84".


3. WGS84 is a semi-dynamic datum. Every 1st of January the USAF uploads 
new co-ordinates for each of their ground control/monitoring stations 
(where they will be at 1st July). Which means that every location in 
WGS84 co-ordinates needs an epoch to indicate when the measurement was 
taken but the database schema for OpenStreetMap doesn't have an entry 
for this.


So what happens in OSM is that each country gets mapped to their local 
approximation of WGS84. In North America this is NAD83, Europe has the 
ETRS89 and the various national variations. The UK must be the most 
confusing as the OS seems to be maintaining two system OSGB36 and OS Net 
but a least they are far enough apart to be obvious.


In Australia it means that we've been happily mapping to GDA94 and 
ignoring the fact that we're racing north at something like 70-90 mm a 
year. People mapping with consumer grade GPS are only within 5m anyway 
so don't care. People with access to survey grade GPS understand the 
difference and convert back to GDA94.


What difference will it make to OSM? It depends. If you're mapping some 
where that has good quality aerial imagery and people have carefully 
traced things then it's going to be obvious (https://goo.gl/sWWfYm). On 
the other hand most of OSM in Australia can be described as roughly 
sketched and if all you have is Bing imagery and some crudely traced 
streets then I doubt you'll be able to tell (https://goo.gl/B7WVfz).


What to do about it? Unfortunately the changeover to GDA2020 is not 
going to happen overnight, the plan is for a three year transition 
starting in 2017. If it did happen overnight then we could just shift 
all of the nodes in Australia to their new positions can keep on 
mapping. What's actually going to happen is that the various different 
organizations are going to switch at different times and the situation 
for aerial imagery mosaics will be interesting if they aren't 
retrospectively re-projected (you'll have some places on GDA2020 and 
others still on GD94). So I'm guessing the approach of wait and see 
might be the one to take. Obviously if organizations start releasing 
data in GDA2020 and people start importing it into OSM we're going to 
have to make the call: move everything to GDA2020 or convert imports 
back to GDA94? It's only going to be a real issue once we get access to 
aerial imagery that's in GDA2020 or people get general access to GPS 
with decimetre accuracy.


Whatever we do it'll be a good test to see what should happen in OSM 
when NAD83 gets replaced by 2022 and everything in the USA moves 1~1.5m 
(http://www.geodesy.noaa.gov/datums/newdatums/index.shtml).


On 29/7/16 22:40, Andy Mabbett wrote:

See you when you reach England ;-)

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36912700

But seriously: what impact might this have, on OSM?



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Osmose erreur Post box without ref

[Philippe Verdy]

Le 2 août 2016 à 01:15, Francois Gouget  a écrit :

> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Frédéric Rodrigo wrote:
> Voici la ligne correspondante dans le fichier de la poste que j'ai
> téléchargé en juin :
>
> A2C5Y4;32;;AVENUE
> CARNOT;CACHAN;94016;650602.47;6855579.44;94230;Projection centroïde;ESPG :
> 2154;48.7984016444, 2.32751127264
>
>
> Alors comme il y a eu des travaux par là, peut-être que la ref a changée
> et qu'Osmose ne la trouve pas dans son fichier qui semble dater d'il y a
> un an (dans ce cas il faudrait le mettre à jour).
>

La position ne correspond plus si la boite a été déplacée pendant les
travaux, le rapprochement ne doit alors plus se faire je pense (au delà du
seuil de distance de recherche).
Dans OSM, c'est en : 48.7982501  2.3278873
Dans le fichier on a :  48.7984016444, 2.32751127264
Pas loin du tout pourtant, avec une différence de deux ou trois unités à la
quatrième décimale en degrés (soit 32,3 mètres d'après la mesure calculée
par JOSM entre les deux points).

Le fichier mentionne aussi l'avenue Carnot, mais si on regarde les deux
points, les rues les plus proches sont en fait de part et d'autre de la Rue
du Docteur Gosselin, mais la nouvelle position est plsu proche du chemin
piéton du souterrain de la gare, qui se connecte à la Rue du Docteur
Gosselin: la nouvelle adresse ne serait donc plus réellement avenue Carnot.

Je ne sais pas trop comment se fait le rapprochement dans Osmose : sur les
coordonnées du fichier de La Poste (avec une petite marge d'erreur qui est
peut-être dépassée: si c'est de l'ordre de 50 mètres cela ne devrait pas
dépasser, mais si c'est 25 ou même 30 mètres on est un peu au dessus de ce
seuil), ou sur l'adresse (comment faire si les rues concernées n'ont pas
encore de noeud d'adresse numérotés), ou sur le numéro de référence quand
il est indiqué dans OSM ?

Il serait intéressant de voir si ça change le résultat en ajoutant les
noeuds d'adresse manquants les plus proches avec les numéros (puisque là
Osmose ne peut pas localiser précisément le 32 avenue Carnot). Il y a bien
un noeud pour la station autolib nommée "Cachan/Carnot/36" qui doit
correspondre à l'adresse, mais Osmose ne décode sans doute pas ce nom. La
nouvelle boite en revanche n'est plsu au 32 si c'est encore associé à
l'avenuir Carnot, mais plutôt au 30 (la gare côté ouest).

Pour l'ancienne boîte, elle était plutôt devant le 1 rue de la Gare
(l'adresse de la Mission locale INNOVAM) devant sa façade sud-ouest (Rue de
la Gare) ou dans l'angle à côté des grosses armoires techniques rouges des
télécoms ou du câble/la fibre) et non devant sa façade sud-est (Avenue
Carnot) où il n'y aurait alors pas de numéro 32.

Si je regarde les photos dans Google Earth, on voit bien le chantier du
nouvel accès à la gare, mais le batiment où serait la mission locale me
semble plutôt avoir son entrée avenue Carnot (du côté de la rue de la Gare
c'est une entrée de garage, on ne voit pas de boite à lettre privée devant
alors qu'on la voit très bien avenue Carnot).

A la fin de travaux la boite de La Poste a du revenir sur le parvis devant
le souterrain passant sous la gare et l'escalator pour y monter, et là ce
serait alors le 30, et non plus le 32 (devant la mission locale) : c'est
d'autant plus pratique sur ce parvis pour les usagers de la gare, et pour y
garer le véhicule de la Poste qui vient lever le courrier tous les jours
,et sans doute plus visible que dans l'angle de rue avec les armoires
télécom.

Et puis peut-être que ton fichier de La Poste est plus récent que celui
encore utilisé par Osmose (je ne sais pas si dans l'aide de l'erreur
concerné ou dans le journal d'activité d'Osmose on peut trouver les dates
des fichiers d'import utilisés pour la comparaison de ce numéro
d'avertissement)...
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Osmose erreur Post box without ref

[Francois Gouget]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Frédéric Rodrigo wrote:
[...]
> C'est un problème nouveau ou pas ?

Ca arrive régulièrement depuis au moins juin mais pas systématiquement.

> On a changé des choses il y a pas long temps dans l'intégration de 
> données open data. Il y maintenant une mise à jour automatiques des 
> données sources lors que c'est possible.
> Les ref proposées sont les mêmes que les ref déjà présente dans OSM ?
> Ça propose de modifier la ref ou de l'ajouter (un "+" ou un "~") ?

Il n'y a pas de lien 'fix-edit', ni sur le signet violet (7051), ni sur 
le vert (8025) donc aucune proposition de modification.


On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Philippe Verdy wrote:

> Sans doute un problème de rapprochement sur cette référence (ce qui
> expliquerait la présence de l'autre noeud marqué comme étant à 
> intégrer).
>
> La référence indiquée est peut-être simplement inconnue (absente dans 
> le fichier de La Poste mais pourtant il y a bien une boite à cet 
> endroit-là, ou bien le fichier connait cette boite mais sous un autre 
> numéro de référence que celui affiché sur la boîte)

Voici la ligne correspondante dans le fichier de la poste que j'ai 
téléchargé en juin :

A2C5Y4;32;;AVENUE CARNOT;CACHAN;94016;650602.47;6855579.44;94230;Projection 
centroïde;ESPG : 2154;48.7984016444, 2.32751127264


> ou de format incorrect lors de la saisie (il manque un caractère) ou a 
> des espaces ou autres caractères superflus. Mais dificile de savoir 
> quoi avec le message indiqué.

Je ne vois pas d'erreur ni de caractères superflus dans le champ ref.

Alors comme il y a eu des travaux par là, peut-être que la ref a changée 
et qu'Osmose ne la trouve pas dans son fichier qui semble dater d'il y a 
un an (dans ce cas il faudrait le mettre à jour).

Mais j'ai le même problème avec celle-ci et je ne suis pas sûr qu'elle 
ait changé :

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/7381476518


Ou alors est-ce le champ source qui pose problème ?


-- 
Francois Gouget   http://fgouget.free.fr/
   RFC 2549: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2549.txt
IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-se] Edsviken och svenska kusten

[Essin]

Jag misstänker att Tomas har rätt. Numera är natural=bay[1] (som nod, area
eller multipolygon) ett bra sätt att tagga vikar, men det var kanske inte
så etablerat när Edsviken mappades från början. MichaelCollinson[2] mappade
ursprungligen Edsviken med

note=really this is coastline, but Mapnik does not have it

men tog sedan bort det själv. Om inte han följer den här listan kanske Jan
kan kontakta honom via OSM-meddelandesystemet för att höra vad han menade?

Ett liknande fall är Ångermanälvens mynningsvik, där brackvattnet
egentligen börjar redan vid Hammarsbron[3]. Strandlinjen är dock mappad som
riverbank ända ner till Höga Kusten-bron, och det stämmer kanske bättre med
vad som uppfattas som en del av älven lokalt.

//Essin

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dbay
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MichaelCollinson
[3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/75263747


Den 2 augusti 2016 00:27 skrev Tomas Marklund :

> Nu kommer jag här snett från sidan utan nån egentlig kunskap i ämnet, utan
> har bara en gissning. En orsak jag kan tänka mig är för att på ett enkelt
> sätt kunna ge en samlad vattenmassa (i det här fallet Edsviken) ett namn
> som både är sökbart och renderas på kartan. Vilka andra bättre sätt finns
> det att åstadkomma samma sak utan att låta coastline:en hoppa över ett
> stycke kustlinje?
>
> Nyfiken fråga: Vad är ett OSMOSE-larm och hur funkar sådana? Verkar
> användbart.
>
> /Tomas
>
> Den 31 juli 2016 11:05 skrev Jan Johansson :
>
>> Hej!
>>
>> Utifrån ett OSMOSE-larm tänkte jag ansluta Igelbäcken[1] till
>> havet dock så undrar jag om inte Edsviken[2] borde vara en del av
>> den svenska kusten som idag slutar i vikens mynning i höjd med
>> [3].
>>
>> Jag har tittat runt på en del andra vikar som alla verkar vara en
>> del av kusten, hur vet man ifall en vik skall vara med eller
>> inte?
>>
>> Vänligen,
>> Jan J
>>
>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5359587
>> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125625989
>> [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98330096
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-se mailing list
>> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
>
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [Talk-ca] Route verte 8 disparue Saguenay Lac St-Jean et rive sud

[Pierre Béland]

Bonjour Claude,

J'ai fait un revert de la relation Route verte 8. Je n'ai cependant pas touché 
aux autres éléments effacés (forêt, etc). 
On peut soit récupérer a partir de requête sur site OSM et ne conserver que 
dernière version avant affacé.
Exemple 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/416173/history

Plus simple, on utilise Éditer / Récupérer l'objet (il faut installer le 
greffon Undelete de JOSM).On indique alors comme objet a récupérer Rxxx pour 
relation xxxExempleR416173
  
Pierre 


  De : Alouette955 
 À : talk-ca  
 Envoyé le : lundi 1 août 2016 14h13
 Objet : [Talk-ca] Route verte 8 disparue Saguenay Lac St-Jean et rive sud
   
Bonjour, Le contributeur “silentmapping” semble avoir détruit la relation Route 
verte 8 il y a 15 jours (Groupe de modifications : 40809369). Je viens de lui 
écrire pour savoir s’il a l’intention de la recréer. Est-il possible de faire 
un revert? J’avoue ne pas être à l’aise avec cette procédure.Merci,
Claude
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


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

Re: [Talk-se] Edsviken och svenska kusten

[Tomas Marklund]

Nu kommer jag här snett från sidan utan nån egentlig kunskap i ämnet, utan
har bara en gissning. En orsak jag kan tänka mig är för att på ett enkelt
sätt kunna ge en samlad vattenmassa (i det här fallet Edsviken) ett namn
som både är sökbart och renderas på kartan. Vilka andra bättre sätt finns
det att åstadkomma samma sak utan att låta coastline:en hoppa över ett
stycke kustlinje?

Nyfiken fråga: Vad är ett OSMOSE-larm och hur funkar sådana? Verkar
användbart.

/Tomas

Den 31 juli 2016 11:05 skrev Jan Johansson :

> Hej!
>
> Utifrån ett OSMOSE-larm tänkte jag ansluta Igelbäcken[1] till
> havet dock så undrar jag om inte Edsviken[2] borde vara en del av
> den svenska kusten som idag slutar i vikens mynning i höjd med
> [3].
>
> Jag har tittat runt på en del andra vikar som alla verkar vara en
> del av kusten, hur vet man ifall en vik skall vara med eller
> inte?
>
> Vänligen,
> Jan J
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5359587
> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125625989
> [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98330096
>
>
> ___
> Talk-se mailing list
> Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se
>
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Osmose erreur Post box without ref

[Philippe Verdy]

Sans doute un problème de rapprochement sur cette référence (ce qui
expliquerait la présence de l'autre noeud marqué comme étant à intégrer).

La référence indiquée est peut-être simplement inconnue (absente dans le
fichier de La Poste mais pourtant il y a bien une boite à cet endroit-là,
ou bien le fichier connait cette boite mais sous un autre numéro de
référence que celui affiché sur la boîte) ou de format incorrect lors de la
saisie (il manque un caractère) ou a des espaces ou autres caractères
superflus. Mais dificile de savoir quoi avec le message indiqué.

Le 1 août 2016 à 23:47, Jérôme Seigneuret  a
écrit :

> Bonjour,
>
> C'est pas une proposition d'intégration. J'ai eu le même problème.
> http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/error/7381476528
>
> Si tu cliques sur node dans les info de la fenêtre edit, ça renvoi une
> erreur. (cliquer sur edit pour faire apparaître la fenêtre avant)
>
> http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/browse/node/4216561098
>
> Il y a une proposition d'intégration de l'autre coté de la rue
>
> http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/error/7381461109
>
>
> Bonne soirée,
> Jérôme
>
>
> Le 1 août 2016 à 20:07, Frédéric Rodrigo  a écrit
> :
>
>> Le 30/07/2016 à 06:18, Francois Gouget a écrit :
>>
>>> À priori cela semble plutôt simple : le champ ref ne serait pas
>>> positionné. Et pourtant je me prends régulièrement ces erreurs sur des
>>> boites aux lettres dont le champ ref est positionné, depuis longtemps.
>>>
>>> Par exemple pour une boite aux lettres modifiée il y a 2 mois environ :
>>>
>>> http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/error/7351689191
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4216561098#map=18/48.79824/2.32790
>>>
>>>  amenity = post_box
>>>  operator = La Poste
>>>  ref = A2C5Y4
>>>  source = data.gouv.fr:LaPoste - 05/2016
>>>  Issue reported on: 2016-07-28
>>>
>>> L'aide d'Osmose est plutôt limitée :
>>>
>>> Item : post box
>>> Help :
>>>
>>> (oui, j'ai recopié le champ Help dans son intégralité)
>>>
>>>
>>> Alors c'est quoi le problème ?
>>>
>>
>> C'est un problème nouveau ou pas ?
>> On a changé des choses il y a pas long temps dans l'intégration de
>> données open data. Il y maintenant une mise à jour automatiques des données
>> sources lors que c'est possible.
>> Les ref proposées sont les mêmes que les ref déjà présente dans OSM ?
>> Ça propose de modifier la ref ou de l'ajouter (un "+" ou un "~") ?
>>
>> Frédéric.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement,
> Jérôme Seigneuret
>
> ___
> 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-ca] Route verte 8 disparue Saguenay Lac St-Jean et rive sud

[James]

Translation:
Good day

The contributor "silentmapping" has seemed to have destroyed the relation
"Route verte 8" 15 days ago (Modification Changeset: 40809369).

I have written to him to know if he has the intention of recreating it.

Is it possible to revert? I'm not familiar with doing so and not
confortable in doing so.

Thank you

Claude

2016-08-01 14:13 GMT-04:00 Alouette955 :

> Bonjour,
>
> Le contributeur “silentmapping” semble avoir détruit la relation Route
> verte 8 il y a 15 jours (Groupe de modifications : 40809369).
>
> Je viens de lui écrire pour savoir s’il a l’intention de la recréer.
>
> Est-il possible de faire un revert? J’avoue ne pas être à l’aise avec
> cette procédure.
> Merci,
>
> Claude
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] botdidier2020 est mort !

[JB]

Euh, en même temps, c'est pas dans les bonnes pratiques, de faire 
tourner les bots et de faire de l'armchair mapping dans son pays (mis à 
part pour l'humanitaire) ?
Personnellement, la réponse de SomeoneElse ne me choque ni dans un cas, 
ni dans l'autre.
Vous vous souvenez de la réaction des Français quand PN (il me semble) 
était venu supprimer des multipolygones de landuse en France ?

JB.

Le 01/08/2016 à 19:37, Jérôme Amagat a écrit :
Moi aussi, j'ai déjà eu quelques commentaires de SomeoneElse mais pas 
de blocage juste un revert :( parce que soit disant c’était un 
"armchair edit".
Et il m'a dit aussi que je devais expliquer aux autres contributeurs 
pourquoi je modifiais ce qu'ils avaient créé. ça devient tout de suite 
plus chiant s'il faut aller donner des explications précises à chaque 
fois que l'on touche à un objet même quand l'objet a été créé il y a 
plusieurs années.
Maintenant j’évite l'Angleterre et les changeset trop grand (plusieurs 
pays ou plusieurs continent) pour passer sous le radar :)



2016-08-01 18:30 GMT+02:00 didier2020 >:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4643

il re-su-sitera peut etre quand il se sera calmé 


___
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: [OSRM-talk] Worldwide coverage of Osmose-QA

[Frédéric Rodrigo]

Le 31/07/2016 à 21:34, Daniel Hofmann a écrit :
> We are still open to contribution on analyser code or suggestion, on 
somewhat poor documentation on the wiki, on translation or whatever else.


With the focus on guidance and lanes during the last weeks and months, 
here are some cases I can think of.

We already have some checks on lanes
https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/blob/master/plugins/Highway_Lanes.py
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#layer=Mapnik=12=38.8967=-77.0161

But it's a complicated subject.
(An issues too https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/issues/115 )



- Lanes for roundabouts are a mess (ref. 
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/pull/2693) - we looked 
into this and came to the conclusion to not support lanes inside 
roundabouts or do lane anticipation for lanes in roundabouts at this 
point in time. Maybe we can come up with some automated checks here.

As you experienced with the subject, can you propose a check ?

- Multiple lane markers on the same lane as in left;left|right (ref. 
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/pull/2697) - you probably 
have to check this in detail as in: are there situations and/or 
countries where it makes sense to have multiple times _the same_ lane 
marker on a single lane.

What means "left;left|right" ? And what can be wrong with this ?

- Advanced lane features depend on lane information right before the 
turn (e.g. Lane Anticipation ref. 
https://twitter.com/ericg/status/757887419530248192), maybe an 
automated check could test if there is lane information on/after e.g. 
motorway links but not directly before them as per the lane tagging 
scheme.

Do you talk about the transit:lanes proposed feature ?


- Lane access tag values not matching turn lane tag values.

We do not already make inter lanes tag check yet, but make sense.

- Impossible or strange lane configurations such as the left most lane 
turning to the right crossing straight/none lanes (in right-sided 
driving countries).

This one, at least, look easy.

- Roundabout mis-tagging (ref. 
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/2716): max. radius 
/ outlier nodes in roundabout way.
You suggest to detect gap between a node and the local shape of the 
roundabout ?

After micro-mapping, this is micro-fixing !

Frédéric.


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

[Talk-ca] Route verte 8 disparue Saguenay Lac St-Jean et rive sud

[Alouette955]

Bonjour,

Le contributeur “silentmapping” semble avoir détruit la relation Route verte 8 
il y a 15 jours (Groupe de modifications : 40809369).

Je viens de lui écrire pour savoir s’il a l’intention de la recréer.

Est-il possible de faire un revert? J’avoue ne pas être à l’aise avec cette 
procédure.
Merci,

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Osmose erreur Post box without ref

[Frédéric Rodrigo]

Le 30/07/2016 à 06:18, Francois Gouget a écrit :

À priori cela semble plutôt simple : le champ ref ne serait pas
positionné. Et pourtant je me prends régulièrement ces erreurs sur des
boites aux lettres dont le champ ref est positionné, depuis longtemps.

Par exemple pour une boite aux lettres modifiée il y a 2 mois environ :

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/error/7351689191
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4216561098#map=18/48.79824/2.32790

 amenity = post_box
 operator = La Poste
 ref = A2C5Y4
 source = data.gouv.fr:LaPoste - 05/2016
 Issue reported on: 2016-07-28

L'aide d'Osmose est plutôt limitée :

Item : post box
Help :

(oui, j'ai recopié le champ Help dans son intégralité)


Alors c'est quoi le problème ?


C'est un problème nouveau ou pas ?
On a changé des choses il y a pas long temps dans l'intégration de 
données open data. Il y maintenant une mise à jour automatiques des 
données sources lors que c'est possible.

Les ref proposées sont les mêmes que les ref déjà présente dans OSM ?
Ça propose de modifier la ref ou de l'ajouter (un "+" ou un "~") ?

Frédéric.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] botdidier2020 est mort !

[Jérôme Amagat]

Moi aussi, j'ai déjà eu quelques commentaires de SomeoneElse mais pas de
blocage juste un revert :( parce que soit disant c’était un "armchair edit".
Et il m'a dit aussi que je devais expliquer aux autres contributeurs
pourquoi je modifiais ce qu'ils avaient créé. ça devient tout de suite plus
chiant s'il faut aller donner des explications précises à chaque fois que
l'on touche à un objet même quand l'objet a été créé il y a plusieurs
années.
Maintenant j’évite l'Angleterre et les changeset trop grand (plusieurs pays
ou plusieurs continent) pour passer sous le radar :)


2016-08-01 18:30 GMT+02:00 didier2020 :

> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4643
>
> il re-su-sitera peut etre quand il se sera calmé 
>
>
> ___
> 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-it-trentino] Presentazione mappa escursionistica

[Dario Zontini]

Venerdì 19 agosto 2016 ad ore 20.30 a Storo in piazza Europa ci sarà la
presentazione del sentiero ALPIEDI nelle Alpi Ledrensi e durante la serata
ci sarà la presentazione della mappa escursionistica di Luca Delucchi
realizzata con dati OSM.

L'evento è organizzato da Sat e Rete delle riserve

http://www.reteriservealpiledrensi.tn.it/dettaglio.php?id=36935

Dario Zontini

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

[OSM-talk-fr] botdidier2020 est mort !

[didier2020]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4643

il re-su-sitera peut etre quand il se sera calmé 


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

Re: [Talk-it] Dubbi livelli amministrativi

[Fayor Uno]

Nella maggior parte dei casi le coastline senza tag di confine erano già parte 
delle relazioni boundary; le poche che ho trovato che non ne facevano parte le 
ho aggiunte, ma non è semplice individuarle perché si dovrebbero monitorare con 
pazienza tutti i tratti di costa!



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

Re: [Talk-it-sicilia] [Gela] Attivato il Sistema Informativo Territoriale di gela

[Aury88]

.sEdivad wrote
> Il 31/07/2016 17:41, Aury88 ha scritto:
>> Il SIT in questione è a livello municipale, dubito quindi potrei avere
>> riferimenti a livello regionale o a catania (che non è neanche del
>> consorzio/città metropolitana di cui fa parte Gela). sto provando a
>> guardare
>> sul sito del comune se trovo qualche altra news (o email da adattare al
>> SIT)
> 
> Scusami, mi sono espresso male :) Mi riferivo agli assessori di Gela 
> Eugenio Catania[1] e Simone Siciliano[2]
> 
> [1]. https://www.facebook.com/BodomTL?fref=ts
> [2]. https://www.facebook.com/simone.siciliano.169?fref=ts

in effetti hai beccato proprio gli assessori che creavano ambiguità con i
loro cognomi xD

io ho puntato direttamente al sindaco (Messinese...xD ) 
;-)




-
Ciao,
Aury
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Gela-Attivato-il-Sistema-Informativo-Territoriale-di-gela-tp5876938p5879608.html
Sent from the Talk-it-sicilia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Dubbi livelli amministrativi

[Aury88]

Fayor Uno wrote
> Ho appena controllato e trovato altri casi di isolotti e scogli taggati
> solo come coastline, tra questi alcuni erano membri delle giuste relazioni
> amministrative, altri no. Ho provveduto ad aggiungere, dove mancati, i tag
> boundary=administrative e admin_level=4, oltre a city/province/region:left
> (forse sono diventati inutili come is_in, in tal caso si possono
> rimuovere)
> 
> 
> Non so se è un errore o una ripetizione indicare admin_level nel confine
> quando c'è già nella relazione che lo contiene: è anche vero però che allo
> stesso confine possono riferirsi più relazioni con diversi admin_level.
> 
> 
> Attualmente i confini sono taggati con boundary=administrative e
> admin_level uguale a quello dell'ente più importante.

Ok, grazie mille.
Non ho capito però se hai anche aggiunto alle way coastline anche
l'appartenenza alle relazioni boundary o hai solo aggiunto i tag dl livello
amministrativo più importante alla way  ?




-
Ciao,
Aury
--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Dubbi-livelli-amministrativi-tp5879522p5879607.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-GB] Summer Quarterly Project

[Harry Wood]

I'll link your earlier mailing list post from here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Project  but we could make a 
wiki page of it, and/or a kick off blog post. Something to link to in relation 
to this.
Harry


  From: Brian Prangle 
 To: Talk GB  
 Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016, 14:41
 Subject: [Talk-GB] Summer Quarterly Project
   
Hi everyone

We've been making steady progress at about 20 farms a day but seemed to have 
slowed down over the last week.  We've only the daily taginfoscript to capture 
progress of the data, so we're a somwhat constrained as to previous quarters in 
seeing what's going on. So far we've increased the number of farms mapped by 
405. Currently we've no idea how much of an increase in activity that is, if 
any. As ever comments and encouragement welcome. Does anyone have any bright 
ideas to stimulate activity on this project?

Regards

Brian

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


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

Re: [Talk-es] Fuentes de Madrid

[Matías h]

Hola. Me gustaría participar pero hasta el 22 estoy offline, si para esa
fecha queda alguna :).

Enhorabuena por el trabajo realizado

El 1/8/2016 12:34, "Rafael Avila Coya"  escribió:

> Por cierto:
>
> Con esta consulta de Overpass podéis ver el progreso de la importación de
> fuentes de Ayuntamiento de Madrid: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/hCp
>
> Ya van 266, alrededor del 25% del total.
>
> Saludos,
>
> Rafael.
>
> On 04/07/16 11:27, Alejandro Moreno Calvo wrote:
>
>> El ayuntamiento acaba de publicar la ubicación de todas las fuentes de
>> Madrid en
>>
>> http://datos.madrid.es/sites/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b8b2e44003b95510VgnVCM101d4a900aRCRD=20d612b9ace9f310VgnVCM10171f5a0aRCRD
>>
>> Un buen candidato para una importación a OSM.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-es mailing list
>> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-es mailing list
> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhové objezdy Mělník

[Milan Cerny]

Kruháče v Mělníku zmapovány podle místního šetření, GPS + foto. Zatím ve 
stávajícím stavu, tj jednosměrný nový úsek a nájezdy ve výstavbě. 
Je tam jedna zajímavost, vnitřek kruháče je rozdělen na půl, polovina je zeleň 
a polovina vydlážděná. Jak otagovat tu dlážděnou část? Na jednu stranu je to 
součást silnice (hwy) ale vnitřek kruhu není určen k ježdění, takže hwy ne.

Milan
 

__
> Od: Michal Poupa 
> Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
> Datum: 30.07.2016 09:16
> Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhové objezdy Mělník
>
>já také a proto konstatuji že vše je již postaveno jen malá část není
>otevřena (nový kus je zatím jednosměrný) ale vše již fyzicky stojí. zkoušel
>jsem malovat kruháče bohužel to není tak jednoduché jako ve Waze tak se mi
>to nepodařilo. Alespoň jsem odpojil ulici Cukrovarskou.
>
>Dne 29. července 2016 23:09 Lukáš Gebauer  napsal(a):
>
>> A to je v rozporu s mym tvrzenim? Hele, fakt nemam zapotrebi se tu o tom
>> takhle dohadovat, prdim na to, chtel jsem jen pomoci.
>>
>> 29. července 2016 22:49:05 SELČ, Michal Poupa 
>> napsal:
>>
>>> Neni to pravda - Dva funguji plne ten na pražské a ted druhý na pumpě
>>> Shell.
>>>
>>> Ten treti je komplet postaveny ale použilvá se jako křižovatka:
>>>
>>>
>>> 29. 7. 2016 v 22:14, Lukáš Gebauer :
>>>
>>> Tak ja tam treba minuly vikend jel, ale jeste nebyl cas cokoliv kreslit.
>>>
>>> Ale hlavne, on cely ten kus obchvatu je jeste porad jeste nedodelany,
>>> rozkopany, provozovany provizorne jen jednosmerne, a napriklad ten prvni
>>> zmineny kruhac jeste vubec nefunguje v rezimu kruhace, ale v rezimu
>>> rozkopane trochu krive normalni krizovatky, a jeste jen jednosmerne.
>>>
>>> Cele to zprovoznili jen proto, aby mohli zavrit starou trasu pres
>>> Italskou ulici, ktera je ted v rekonstrukci, kde z toho udelaji normalni
>>> rezidencni ulici. Opacny smer tahnou provizorne kolem nemocnice. Ve finale
>>> pujde silnice cislo 9 tim obchvatem a kruhaky obousmerne. Tak to ale jeste
>>> nefunguje.
>>>
>>> 29. července 2016 12:56:56 SELČ, "Marián Kyral"  napsal:

 Asi v Mělníku momentálně není žádný aktivní mapper a nikdo přes Mělník
 nejel.

 Marián

 -- Původní zpráva --
 Od: Michal Poupa 
 Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
 Datum: 29. 7. 2016 12:49:45
 Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhové objezdy Mělník

 Stojí tam už delší dobu oba... mme je. překvapilo že se tu silnice I.
 třídy aktualizují tak dlouho...


 29. 7. 2016 v 12:33, Milan Cerny :

 > Cesta do Mělníku se mi celkem hodí, odpoledne tam zajedu a zaměřím oba
 kruháče plus další co s tím souvisí.
 >
 > Milan
 > __
 >> Od: jzvc 
 >> Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
 >> Datum: 29.07.2016 11:06
 >> Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] Kruhové objezdy Mělník
 >>
 >> Dne 28.7.2016 v 22:54 Michal Poupa napsal(a):
 >>> Dobrý den,
 >>> jelikož ještě neumím malovat kruhové objezdy mohl by je někdo
 namalovat
 >>> nové kruháky na Mělnílu v OSM?
 >>>
 >>> Jeden
 >>>
 >>>
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/642144#map=18/50.34510/14.49696=N
 >>>
 >>> a druhý
 >>>
 >>>
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/642143#map=19/50.34750/14.49237=N
 >>
 >> Cus, chtelo by to nejaky zdroj - odkaz na web s fotkou, nejakym
 clankem,
 >> dokumentaci vystavby ...
 >>
 >> Jak se dela kruhac se muzes inspirovat na libovolnym jinym. Ale pokud
 >> nepouzivas JOSM, dost pravdepodobne rozbijes relace, pokud tam nejake
 jsou.
 >>
 >>>
 >>> Ono to v žádné mapě (kromě Waze zatím není správně). Když tak
 koukněte
 >>> do projektu nebo do Waze tam je to již OK.
 >>>
 >>> TeX232
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> ___
 >>> 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
 >
 > ___
 > 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

 =

 --

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


>>> --
>>> 

Re: [Talk-cz] budova pod zemí

[Milan Cerny]

Díky za radu, hledal jsem spíše v typech budov.

Milan

__
> Od: Petr Kadlec 
> Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
> Datum: 29.07.2016 09:43
> Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] budova pod zemí
>
>Ahoj,
>
>2016-07-28 22:59 GMT+02:00 Milan Cerny :
>
>> Při mapování nového nájezdu na Brumlovce jsem si všiml nedaleké vodárny.
>> Je to částečně podzemní stavba, zasypaná hlínou a porostlá travou.
>> Na místě je viditelný pouze zvýšený terén pravidelného tvaru. V OSM je
>> tagováno podle ruian jako průmyslová budova. Jak takovéto částečně podzemní
>> nebo podzemní stavby správně otagovat?
>>
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:man_made=reservoir_covered ?
>(Anebo https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:landuse=reservoir s
>upřesňujícími tagy.)
>
>-- Petr Kadlec / Mormegil
>
>
>--
>
>___
>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

[Talk-us] Changeset 35565180

[James Mast]

(Cross posted because of the contents of the changeset deals with both Canada 
and the USA.)





https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35565180

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Changeset: 
35565180
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.



I just happened to discover this changeset that did some major damage to the 
history for several relations for major highways.  For example, Relation 165600 
[1] use to be relation for I-271 (OH), however, this user deleted all that 
data, and replaced it with an entirely completely different route in Ontario.  
Sure, the user did create a 'new' relation for I-271 (Relation 5692605 [2]), 
however it no longer has it's history of the previous 97 changes to the route, 
the rouge 'Ontario' route now does.  This was also done to 3 other Interstates, 
some NY/FL/TX State routes, and several County Routes in various states.

So, I'm curious, what do you guys think we should do here?  I'm kinda thinking 
of maybe somehow swapping the relation IDs between the routes so that the 
original ones can have their IDs & history back?  I've already left a message 
on the changeset of this user, so that base has been covered.


-James


[1] =  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/165600/

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Relation: ?13W? 
(?165600?)
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.



[2] = https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5692605/





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

[Talk-ca] Changeset 35565180

[James Mast]

(Cross posted because of the contents of the changeset deals with both Canada 
and the USA.)





https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35565180

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Changeset: 
35565180
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.



I just happened to discover this changeset that did some major damage to the 
history for several relations for major highways.  For example, Relation 165600 
[1] use to be relation for I-271 (OH), however, this user deleted all that 
data, and replaced it with an entirely completely different route in Ontario.  
Sure, the user did create a 'new' relation for I-271 (Relation 5692605 [2]), 
however it no longer has it's history of the previous 97 changes to the route, 
the rouge 'Ontario' route now does.  This was also done to 3 other Interstates, 
some NY/FL/TX State routes, and several County Routes in various states.

So, I'm curious, what do you guys think we should do here?  I'm kinda thinking 
of maybe somehow swapping the relation IDs between the routes so that the 
original ones can have their IDs & history back?  I've already left a message 
on the changeset of this user, so that base has been covered.


-James


[1] =  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/165600/

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Relation: ?13W? 
(?165600?)
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.



[2] = https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5692605/





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

[Talk-GB] Summer Quarterly Project

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

We've been making steady progress at about 20 farms a day but seemed to
have slowed down over the last week.  We've only the daily taginfoscript

to capture progress of the data, so we're a somwhat constrained as to
previous quarters in seeing what's going on. So far we've increased the
number of farms mapped by 405. Currently we've no idea how much of an
increase in activity that is, if any. As ever comments and encouragement
welcome. Does anyone have any bright ideas to stimulate activity on this
project?

Regards

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

[Talk-br] Folha utiliza OSM como plataforma de mapas

[Ivaldo Nunes de Magalhães]

​Apenas para registrar, verifiquei numa matéria hoje que o Jornal Folha de
São Paulo  está usando o OSM como padrão nos seus
artigos.

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2016/08/1797427-crise-quebra-aliancas-e-pt-fica-isolado-nas-eleicoes-das-capitais.shtml

Ivaldo​
___
Talk-br mailing list
Talk-br@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br

Re: [OSM-ja] State of the Map Japan 2016まであと一週間です！

[tomoya muramoto]

muramotoです。

お手伝いさせていただきます。
(多分、もう少し早めに行って、マピラリってると思いますw)
よろしくお願いします。
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

[Talk-is] Yfirferð á „fixme“ töggum

[Svavar Kjarrval]

Hæ.

Bráðlega ætla ég að taka herferð á Íslandi við að fara yfir „fixme“ tögg
(og álíka umritanir á því).

Fyrir þau sem hafa ekki kynnt sér þau tögg voru þau aðallega notuð þegar
ekki var í boði að setja inn athugasemdir á kortið með OSM notes (og
heldur ekki OSM Bugs á þeim tíma). Tilgangurinn var að notandinn gat
bætt við taggi með nafninu ‚fixme‘ og sett inn athugasemd um eitthvað
sem þyrfti að laga við þann hlut, hvort sem það var fyrir notandann
sjálfan eða einhvern annan. Þau tögg eru samt ekki (lengur) ákjósanleg
til þess að miðla slíkum upplýsingum.

Eitt vandamálið er að í nokkuð mörgum tilvikum hafa breytingarnar sem
athugasemdirnar kveða á um átt sér stað en viðkomandi, hvort sem það er
sami notandi eða annar, hefur ekki fjarlægt taggið í kjölfar
lagfæringarinnar. Athugasemdir með „resurvey“ eru oft enn þá inni í
grunninum þrátt fyrir að legu hlutarins hafi verið breytt síðar í
kjölfar aðgengis að loftmyndum og/eða annarra mælinga. Ástæðan gæti
verið að viðkomandi skilur ekki tungumálið í athugasemdinni eða notaði
tól/app sem gerði notandanum ekki kleift að sjá, breyta eða taka þær út.
Þetta er heldur ekki, almennt séð, tagg sem notendur fylgjast
sérstaklega með.

Herferðin snýst um það að fara skipulega yfir athugasemdirnar og meta
hvort enn sé ástæða til þess að halda þeim. Ef, svo dæmi sé tekið,
athugasemd á slíku taggi er „resurvey“ (yfir 200 tilfelli á Íslandi) og
hluturinn lítur út fyrir að passa nægilega vel við loftmyndir, þá mun ég
fjarlægja taggið. Ef það er engin loftmynd af tilteknu svæði geri ég ráð
fyrir, allavega að jafnaði, að láta þau tögg í friði ef þau hafa
eitthvað að gera með legu hlutarins. Síðan eru einhver ‚fixme‘ með
beiðnum um tiltekin tögg sem ég geri ráð fyrir að fjarlægja enda eru
mörg greiningartól í boði til að koma auga á svona. Hef ekki í hyggju að
taka út merkilegar athugasemdir sem gætu enn átt við og mun því, eftir
því sem við á, búa til OSM note í staðinn.

Ef það er eitthvað sem ég ætti sérstaklega að hafa í huga við
yfirferðina eða andmæli við framkvæmd þessarar yfirferðar yfir höfuð,
endilega látið vita af því fyrir næsta laugardag (6. ágúst). Ef þið
hafið sjálf áhuga á að framkvæma verkið með mér mun ég ekki standa í veg
fyrir því, enda er þetta samvinnuverkefni. :)

Með kveðju,
Svavar Kjarrval


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

Re: [OSM-ja] 点字ブロックの区分についての質問です。

[tomoya muramoto]

新家様

OSMを使った歩行支援に取り組まれているとのことですので、いくつかお伺いさせていただけませんでしょうか。

点字ブロックをマッピングする位置についてなのですが、
(a)相対座標と絶対座標(GPS計測値)はどちらを重視すべきでしょうか。
(b)点字ブロックが、歩道の道路側と建物側のどちらに寄っているのかの情報は必要でしょうか。

(a)についてですが、もし歩行支援システムがGPS情報を使ってナビゲーションするのであれば、GPS計測値と点字ブロックの位置は可能な限り一致させる必要があるかと思います。ですが、現状では、既存のデータを基準とした相対的な位置にオブジェクトをマッピングするケースがまだ多いのではないかと感じています(改善されつつありますが)。視覚障害者にとって、相対位置情報は使えるものなのでしょうか。

(b)についてですが、時々点字ブロックが極端に建物側に寄って設置されているケースを見かけます。一般の歩行者向けには、歩道の真ん中あたりにfootwayを引きたいと思うのですが、それにtactile_pavingをつけるとズレが大きいような気がします。視覚障害者にとって、点字ブロックが歩道のどの位置にあるのかは重要な情報でしょうか。

もしご知見をお持ちでしたら、ご教授いただければと思います。

muramoto

2016年8月1日 18:54 Shu Higashi :

> 新家さん、こんにちは。東と申します。
>
> 結論を先に申し上げますと
> 警告ブロックの意味をつけた表現（タグ付け）は
> 知るかぎりではまだ行われていないと思います。
> また、前例がない場合に新たな表現ルールを
> 新たなタグ付けルールとして提案することは可能です。
>
> ちょっと今提案の手順をとりまとめてお伝えする余裕がないのですが
> 進めたいとお考えの場合は別途手順等
> ご紹介させて頂きますので、もしよろしければ
> どういう目的で警告ブロックの意味をつけた表現をしたいのか
> もう少しお教え頂いてもよろしいでしょうか？
>
> ＜参考＞現状の点字ブロックに関わるタグ付け
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:tactile_paving
>
>
> 2016/08/01 Masataka Shinke :
> > 初めまして広島県の新家です。
> >
> > OSMを使った歩行支援を取り組んでいます。
> > そこで質問なのですが、
> > JIS規格（T9251）の点字ブロックには、大きく2種類があります、
> > 一つは誘導ブロック（線状パターン）、二つは警告ブロック（点状パターン）です。
> >
> この二種類のうち、警告ブロックは、危険個所や誘導対象施設の位置を示すもので、階段の手前、交差点の手前、誘導ブロックの交差点などに敷設されるものです。
> > この警告ブロックの位置についてOSM上で表現する方法について事例などあれば教えていただきたく。
> > もし前例がなければ、新たに表現ルールを付け加えることは可能でしょうか？
> >
> > 以上、宜しくお願いいたします。
> > ___
> > Talk-ja mailing list
> > Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
> >
> ___
> Talk-ja mailing list
> Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja
>
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Bogue: points non trouvés dans Osmose

[Francois Gouget]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016, Philippe Verdy wrote:

> Ce tracker est inaccessible...
[...]
> > Le bug tracker d'Osmose est là : http://trac.openstreetmap.fr/

Il semble marcher pour moi.

Par contre il y a un spam qui traine :
https://trac.openstreetmap.fr/ticket/777


-- 
Francois Gouget   http://fgouget.free.fr/
War doesn't determine who's right.  War determines who's left.___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[Talk-it] Ponti radio radioamatori

[Fabrizio Carrai]

Fresco di licenza ho voluto vedere qual'era lo stato dei ripetitori per
radioamatori su OSM e, con sopresa, ho visto che in effetti sono molto
pochi (la posizione dei ripetitori invece è basilare per capire quali sono
quelli vicini e che potrebbero essere usati, ostacoli permettendo).

Anche lo schema di tagging non è completamente chiaro: Il tag giusto
dovrebbe essere "communication:amateur_radio:repeater=*" [1]. Ho provveduto
ad aggiornare la pagina wiki che non riportava altri chiavi essenziali
(frequenze di lavoro, tono di accesso, etc...) prendendo spunti da quelli
già usati e riportati da taginfo [2].

Non mi è chiaro però quale dovrebbe essere il valore della
chiave communication:amateur_radio:repeater=*. Quasi tutti i nodi usano il
callsign della stazione (ZU9DCM, ZU8MEE, ...).
Io però avrei messo un semplice "yes" ed avrei sfruttato il tag "name=*"
per il suo nome. Ci sono altri schemi simili da usare come riferimento e
per supportare la scelta ?

Dato che c'è molto da fare e magari relativamente poco da correggere,
volevo confrontarmi con voi per il miglior schema.

A presto

---
Fabrizio


[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:communication:amateur_radio:repeater
[2]
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/communication%3Aamateur_radio%3Arepeater#combinations
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[Talk-us] (Cleanup of LABuilding import (was Re: [Imports] Updates:LA County building import (Los Angeles, California, USA))

[maning sambale]

Hi,

After validation via TM [0], we will implement a series of cleanup[1]
for several issues during the import.  Details on each cleanup will be
documented in the respective ticket and also updated in the wiki later
on. I'm reading the Automated Edits CoC [2] right now and I have a few
questions.

Some cleanup require manual review by the community like the split
buildings, we are proposing they use their previous import account
(username_labuildings) using a micro tasking interface like
maproulette or to-fix.

Others can be scripted like mistagged condos this requires some
scripting knowledge and we want specific users to do this.

Do we need a separate mechanical edit account or their own import
account is enough to do this?

Ideas welcome.



[0] http://labuildingsimport.com
[1] 
https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Acleanup
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:56 PM, maning sambale
 wrote:
> Christoph,
>
> Thank you for the observation.
>
> Specific to "roads now intersect buildings indicating that mapping is
> inaccurate - like here:"
> They are mostly unreviewed TIGER import, I also saw one instance where
> we have building but no roads.
> This was already discussed by the import team and will be fixed during
> the cleanup/validation stage.
>
> Keep your  comments and suggestions coming! Will ticket each one and
> fix whatever we can.
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Christoph Hormann  
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 19 July 2016, maning sambale wrote:
>>>
>>> Another round of updates on LABuildings import.
>>> Last week we've imported ~1.1M buildings in LA City. Over 100
>>> usernames participated.
>>> We are close to finishing Phase 1 (LA City) and will continue data QA
>>> and cleanup if needed.
>>
>> A few observations from looking over the map there:
>>
>> * There are quite a few cases where gaps between buildings are either
>> very small (significantly less than a meter) or buildings touch at a
>> single node.  Both are usually artefacts (probably primarily due to
>> roof based rather than footprint based outlines).
>> * There seem to be a lot of cases where garages and sheds are tagged as
>> building=house or building=residential - like here:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/409191451
>>
>> * In some cases boundaries of pre-existing landuse polygons (like
>> landuse=residential/landuse=industrial) and roads now intersect
>> buildings indicating that mapping is inaccurate - like here:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.07461/-118.48376
>>
>> All of these problems could probably be turned into maproulette tasks or
>> be otherwise worked into QA tools - although at least the first two
>> will require on-the-ground assessment for proper correction.
>>
>> --
>> Christoph Hormann
>> http://www.imagico.de/
>>
>> ___
>> Imports mailing list
>> impo...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
> --



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

Re: [OSM-ja] 点字ブロックの区分についての質問です。

[tomoya muramoto]

こんにちは。muramotoです。
横浜近辺で点字ブロックマッピングをやっています。

現状では、誘導ブロックと警告ブロックの区別はありません。
横断歩道の両端部や、階段の上下につけられている警告ブロックは、ノードで表現するのがよいのではないかと思います。
例えば添付画像のような感じでしょうか。
(ただ私の場合、警告ブロック単体でのマッピングは手間がかかりすぎると感じるので、やっていません。誘導ブロックのありなしだけを主にマッピングしています。)

なお、時折かなりの長さで警告ブロックが設置されているケースもありますが、その場合はウェイで表現するほうが良いのかもしれません。

誘導ブロックと警告ブロックを区別したい(tactile_paving:type=*の提案？)とのことであれば、海外事例の調査とwikiページでの提案・議論が必要になるかと思います。

ご参考まで
[image: 埋め込み画像 1]
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-es] Fuentes de Madrid

[Rafael Avila Coya]

Por cierto:

Con esta consulta de Overpass podéis ver el progreso de la importación 
de fuentes de Ayuntamiento de Madrid: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/hCp


Ya van 266, alrededor del 25% del total.

Saludos,

Rafael.

On 04/07/16 11:27, Alejandro Moreno Calvo wrote:

El ayuntamiento acaba de publicar la ubicación de todas las fuentes de
Madrid en
http://datos.madrid.es/sites/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b8b2e44003b95510VgnVCM101d4a900aRCRD=20d612b9ace9f310VgnVCM10171f5a0aRCRD

Un buen candidato para una importación a OSM.


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



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

Re: [Talk-es] Fuentes de Madrid

[Rafael Avila Coya]

Hola:

He estado haciendo algunas tareas. Las fuentes parecen estar muy bien 
geolocalizadas, aunque en la mayoría de los casos no se puede comprobar 
con las imágenes del PNOA, por ser objetos demasiado pequeños, además de 
estar bajo árboles muchas veces.


En una de las tareas [1], dentro del parque Azorín [2], una de las 
fuentes estaba dentro de un estanque grande [3] etiquetado como 
amenity="fountain". En este caso no importé la fuente, aunque sí las 
otras 20 de la tarea. Creo que esa fuente [4] debería revisarse sobre el 
terreno antes de importarla.


Saludos, y enhorabuena por haber montado con éxito un Gestor de Tareas 
para la comunidad OSM-es!


Rafael Ávila Coya.

[1] http://osm.unizar.es:6543/project/18#task/58
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27889562
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28890154
[4] https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5turc9dufdher3/fuenteDentroDeFuente.png?dl=0

On 01/08/16 07:56, Santiago Crespo wrote:

Hola,

Hace 4 días escribí a imports y no ha habido comentarios. Así que ya
podemos empezar:

http://osm.unizar.es:6543/project/18

No hace falta ser de Madrid para participar, estáis todos invitados :)

Saludos,
Santiago Crespo


On 07/27/2016 04:57 PM, Santiago Crespo wrote:

Se me olvidaba comentar que he subido las 4 fuentes del cuadrado que
está en la presa del El Pardo, podéis verlo aquí:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%2F*%0AThis%20is%20an%20example%20Overpass%20query.%0ATry%20it%20out%20by%20pressing%20the%20Run%20button%20above!%0AYou%20can%20find%20more%20examples%20with%20the%20Load%20tool.%0A*%2F%0Anode%0A%20%20%5Bamenity%3Ddrinking_water%5D%0A%20%20(40.529050248267794%2C-3.786592483520508%2C40.53627495581665%2C-3.7752842903137207)%3B%0Aout%3B

Saludos,
Santiago Crespo

On 07/27/2016 04:43 PM, Santiago Crespo wrote:

Hola,

He modificado la propuesta en la wiki[1] y creado un proyecto de
importación de prueba en el gestor de tareas[2].

¿Cómo lo veis?

Si queréis podéis "trabajar" en un cuadrado y seguir las instrucciones
para probar, pero por favor no subáis nada a OSM.

Saludos,
Santiago Crespo

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Madrid_Drinking_Water_Import
[2] http://osm.unizar.es:6543/project/11

On 07/05/2016 02:28 PM, Rafael Avila Coya wrote:

La idea que propongo sería la de crear una instancia del Gestor de
Tareas para el proyecto OSM-es, como la que tienen ya muchas otras
comunidades OSM, como por ejemplo la comunidad OSM de Colombia [5].


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



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



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



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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] August meetup Pershore

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

Unfortunately I have an urgent family commitment in Ireland and can't make
this now.  have fun!

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-es] Asociación OSM España

[Pepe Casado]

Hola a todos, lo primero disculpas por no haber entrado antes pero llevo
una temporada con temas familiares y ando un poco desconectado.

Por lo que a mí respecta contad conmigo en lo que pueda ayudar y participar
en la reunión.

Lo de Zaragoza me parece bien pero si es más de un día se puede complicar

En lo de participar en algún grupo de trabajo siempre que esté en mi mano
contad conmigo

Saludos

Pepe Casado

El 1 ago. 2016 11:17, "Santiago Crespo" 
escribió:

> Hola,
>
> Hasta ahora hemos participado en el doodle [1] 9 personas y no
> coincidimos en ninguno de las fechas propuestas: nos podríamos juntar 5
> en el mejor de los casos.
>
> Por lo que si os parece bien, propongo empezar la reunión de forma
> asíncrona, en un foro. Que cada punto del orden del día propuesto [2]
> vaya en un hilo separado.
>
> Imagino que para septiembre tendremos una reunión más formal, esto del
> foro es por ir avanzando.
>
> Esperaré al miércoles antes de crear los hilos, por si queréis modificar
> la propuesta del orden del día o comentar sobre la idea del foro.
>
> Saludos,
> Santiago
>
> [1] http://doodle.com/poll/cu5ht4sgz5ityki7
> [2] https://public.pad.fsfe.org/p/osm-es
>
> On 07/26/2016 05:09 PM, Santiago Crespo wrote:
> > Hola,
> >
> > Contad conmigo.
> >
> > Podemos acordar una fecha usando este doodle:
> >
> > http://doodle.com/poll/cu5ht4sgz5ityki7
> >
> > Nos podemos reunir en el canal #osm-es del servidor IRC de
> > openstreetmap.org[1] o en un hangout si preferís vernos las caras.
> >
> > Hasta que nos reunamos y tengamos un canal propio, propongo usar esta
> > lista si nadie tiene inconveniente. Más adelante podemos solicitar la
> > creación de una lista para la asociación o crear una nosotros.
> >
> > He recopilado los puntos que habéis hablado hasta ahora y alguno más.
> > Los he puesto en un pad a modo de borrador del orden del día. Por favor,
> > revisadlo y añadid o cambiad lo que veáis oportuno:
> >
> > https://public.pad.fsfe.org/p/osm-es
> >
> > Saludos,
> > Santiago Crespo
> >
> > [1] http://irc.openstreetmap.org/
> >
> > On 07/25/2016 11:18 PM, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo wrote:
> >> Vuelvo a escribir sobre el tema retomando el mensaje de Santiago Higuera
> >> en el otro hilo de la lista [1] en el que proponía:
> >>
> >> 1. entregar los papeles a una gestoría especializada en ONGs --> A mi me
> >> parece genial que haya alguien que nos pueda echar una mano y entre
> >> todos podríamos asumir un pequeño coste. Santiago, ¿sigues dispuesto a
> >> llevar los papeles allí? Tendría que devolvértelos Pedro-Juan, ¿no?
> >>
> >> 2. quedar vía hangout --> alguien se atreve a hacerlo esta misma semana,
> >> ¿o ya para septiembre? (doy por descontado que en agosto estamos muchos
> >> lejos del ordenador)
> >>
> >> Quizá podemos ir pronunciándonos por esta vía o por Telegram e ir
> >> atacando las ideas que se nos vayan ocurriendo ya con los estatutos de
> >> la asociación sobre la mesa.
> >>
> >> Un saludo
> >>
> >> Miguel
> >>
> >> [1]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-es/2016-April/013979.html
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Miguel Sevilla-Callejo*
> >> *
> >> Doctor in Geography*
> >> a. Associate Lecturer at Dpto. of Geography & Territorial Planning at
> >> University of Zaragoza
> >> b. Fellow at the Pyrenean Institute of Ecology - Spanish National
> >> Research Council
> >> c. Freelance consultant & researcher - Member #698, Spanish Professional
> >> Association of Geographers
> >>
> >> *Doctor en Geografía*
> >> a. Profesor asociado en el Dpto. de Geografía y Ordenación del
> >> Territorio de la Univ. de Zaragoza
> >> b. Colaborador del Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología - Consejo Superior de
> >> Investigaciones Científicas
> >> c. Consultor e investigador freelance - Colegiado 698 del Colegio
> >> Oficial de Geógrafos
> >>
> >> 2016-07-25 18:19 GMT+02:00 Miguel Sevilla-Callejo  >> >:
> >>
> >> Hola,
> >>
> >> Han pasado ya casi cuatro meses desde que nos dimos un ultimátum
> >> para ver si nos poníamos manos a la obra para reactivar la
> >> asociación OpenStreetMap España que os recuerdo surgió de la última
> >> reunión con el IGN y que prosiguió en el siguiente hilo de esta
> lista:
> >>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-es/2016-April/013972.html
> >>
> >> Como se comentó en el mismo hilo, estábamos dispuestos a arrimar el
> >> hombro un buen puñado de personas (cerca de una veintena tengo ahora
> >> contabilizados) y alguna más que me lo han confirmado por otras
> vías.
> >>
> >> El primer escollo que encontramos era tener a mano todo el papeleo
> >> que se movió para la asociación, y para empezar, tener presentes los
> >> estatutos para que nos los pudiéramos leer todos. Y como nunca es
> >> tarde si la dicha es buena ya podemos decir que hemos traspasado
> >> este umbral gracias a que los papeles terminaron llegando a manos de
> >> Santiago Higuera y 

Re: [Talk-it-sicilia] [Gela] Attivato il Sistema Informativo Territoriale di gela

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-30 21:55 GMT+02:00 Aury88 :

> quello naturalmente l'avevo capito, il mio dubbio è sul perchè venisse
> fornito un indirizzo errato/inesistente
>


direi perché non funziona il QM ;-)

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

Re: [Talk-it] Cammino del beato Enrico, tag network.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-31 19:39 GMT+02:00 girarsi_liste :

> Comunque sì, sono d'accordo, in mancanza di certezze, tipo wikipedia,
> segnaletiche o siti inerenti tal cammino, che ne descriva in maniera
> precisa il percorso, direi di eliminarla da OSM, chi ne vuole far
> propria fonte, lo può personalizzare su un proprio sito.
>


in realtà "wikipedia" oppure "sito inerente tal cammino" non sono fonti
sufficienti per l'inserimento in OSM. Vorremmo proprio "segnaletica" oppure
al meno qualcosa di simile, osservabile su quel percorso, e non solo in
libri / internet.

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