Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Greg Troxel]

Paul Johnson  writes:

> Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the
> super-two debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way,
> free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the
> minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited access, at-grade intersections,
> single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me.

I don't see it as necessary to define non-divided-highway as conflicting
or not.  In theory, people stay on their side of the yellow line, and it
isn't, but in practice, they cross sometimes.  The point of divided is
of course that they can't cross.  And it leads to needing a 2nd lane for
passing.


I find the notion of super-2 as motorway to be a very minority opinion.
Until Richie supported that position, I would not have expected anyone
to argue that, and I have not seen anyone else take that position.

We do have debates about how far along the primary-motorway continuum a
road has to be in order to be tagged as trunk, and I think that's where
there's a fair bit of fuzz (how many driveways, distance between
intersections, etc. -- e.g., 1/10 miles ok, 10/mile not, and it's hard
somewhere in between).



Does anybody else think that a non-divided highway with one lane in each
direction, even if controlled access, should be tagged motorway rather
than trunk?


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

Re: [Talk-it] Nome del costruttore

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Oct 2017, at 23:37, liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dovrebbe essere manfacturer=*, anche se viene abbinato insieme a una turbina 
> eolica:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:manufacturer


per una strada sarebbe meglio “constructor”
non è usato molto, ma qualcuno c’è:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/constructor___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

[talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Warin]

Hi

Using https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-29.612/150.480 there 
are some 'places' that look like they can be 'improved'.



However that are some that identify obvious inconsistencies!

 Biniguy in OSM is mapped as a;

locality (no population) relation 6069701

hamlet (small population) node 113689225

village (lager population) node 113689249


Rather inconsistent! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales 
says the population 2011 was over 600.

I have moved the village node to the village rather than the farm or that name.
I think the hamlet might be deleted or should the village be deleted?
No school, shops so might be better as a hamlet.

The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at all?


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Importation des hauteurs de bâtiments sur Nice

[Vincent Frison]

Le 6 octobre 2017 à 18:37, marc marc  a écrit :

> Le 04. 10. 17 à 21:19, Vincent Frison a écrit :
> > malheureusement il n'y a pas beaucoup
> > de villes en France où je peux trouver en open data le MNT et le MNS
> > (avec une bonne résolution en plus).
>
> est-ce parce qu'ils n'ont pas de moyen de rendre la donnée facilement
> accessible ou simplement parce qu'elle n'est pas opendata ?
>

De ce que j'ai pu voir voici les villes qui proposent actuellement du MNT
(ou des courbes de niveaux) en open data:
- Nice
- Montpellier
- Lyon
- Lille
- Bordeaux
- Poitiers
- Clermont
- Genève

Mais apparemment aucune ville ne propose directement des MNS mis à part
Genève et Montpellier (Christian vient d'ailleurs de m'aider sur le forum
pour convertir le MNT de cette dernière: http://forum.openstreetmap.fr/
viewtopic.php?f=5=6585).

Ceci dit pour Nice je leur ai envoyé un mail pour obtenir le MNS (qui leur
a permis de construire leur MNT j'imagine), peut-être ça pourrait aussi
marcher avec les autres villes qui proposent déjà un MNT. En tout cas ça ne
coûte pas grand chose de demander...
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-it] Nome del costruttore

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Il 06/10/2017 22:09, demon.box ha scritto:

ciao, esiste secondo voi un tag per mappare il nome del costruttore di una
vecchia strada?

si tratta di un dato di carattere storico, non sto parlando di una strada
moderna.

grazie

--enrico



Dovrebbe essere manfacturer=*, anche se viene abbinato insieme a una 
turbina eolica:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:manufacturer



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping of bilingual destination signs

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,

Thanks all for your input. I get a sense that there is a preference for
separating out the names on these destination signs in separate language
tags, even though documentation for destination:street is sparse. To be
sure I contacted what I hope are the top mappers in NB. A list of mappers I
contacted and the message I sent is in the github ticket (
https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues/27). This is
based on the Pascal Neis web site http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/oooc .

It would be nice to update the NB wiki page with a French / English map but
I will leave that to the experts.

I will try and clarify the destination:street documentation on the wiki
next week.

Martijn

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:16 PM, J.P. Kirby  wrote:

>
> On 2017-10-03, at 12:33 AM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:
>
> > Hi J.P.
> >
> > This sounds reasonable.  Do we have a map that shows which areas of the
> province are French area vs English area.  For us non-NBers.   Or I suppose
> one could guess by looking at the existing tags there.  (I would assume
> Fredericton is English area?)  If we have a list then could update the NB
> wiki page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Brunswick
>
> The general rule is that southern and western NB is English, northern and
> eastern is French; but there are exceptions, and a couple places like
> Bathurst and Campbellton are 50/50.
>
> But yes, you can almost always tell from the tags and the street names
> themselves (e.g. "St. Mary's" vs "Sainte-Marie").
>
> JPK
>
>
> ___
> 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-at] Landesstraßennamen

[grubernd]

On 2017-10-06 11:56, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

Negjana hat bisher nicht reagiert.



http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Negjana/history
http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?Negjana

eine grandiose Sammlung von Änderungen aus der Abteilung "ma ois wuascht 
was ihr sagts, i weiss es besser". da sind fast mehr Reverts als Edits drin:


http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=399091


gibts in Horn einen Stammtisch? ;-)


grüsse,
grubernd

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

semanarioOSM Nº 376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

Hola, el semanario Nº 376, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/9517/

¡Disfruta!

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-cu mailing list
Talk-cu@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cu

semanarioOSM Nº 376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

Hola, el semanario Nº 376, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/9517/

¡Disfruta!

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

semanarioOSM Nº 376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

Hola, el semanario Nº 376, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/9517/

¡Disfruta!

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-co mailing list
Talk-co@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co

semanarioOSM Nº 376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

Hola, el semanario Nº 376, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/9517/

¡Disfruta!

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-cl mailing list
Talk-cl@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cl

semanarioOSM Nº 376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

Hola, el semanario Nº 376, el sumario de todo lo que está ocurriendo en el 
mundo de openstreetmap está en línea en *español*:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/es/archives/9517/

¡Disfruta!

semanarioOSM? 
¿Dónde?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
¿Quién?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
talk-latam mailing list
talk-latam@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-latam

[Talk-it] Nome del costruttore

[demon.box]

ciao, esiste secondo voi un tag per mappare il nome del costruttore di una
vecchia strada?

si tratta di un dato di carattere storico, non sto parlando di una strada
moderna.

grazie

--enrico




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Italy-General-f5324174.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:59:40 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> Message-ID:
>g...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
> > <richiekenned...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full
> > > NE2
> > > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is
> > > properly tagged as motorway.
> >
> > Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?
> >
> 
> I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a 
> controlled
> access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway operates in both 
> directions,
> typically two lanes (though there may be additional lanes for short distances 
> to
> facilitate merging, exiting or at toll plazas).
> 
> My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic
> > is
> > grade separated.
> >
> 
> Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the 
> super-two
> debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way, free-flowing, 
> controlled access,
> and at least two carriageways as the minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited
> access, at-grade intersections, single carriageway, this all would be more
> characteristic of trunks to me.
> 
> 
> > I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
> > at-grade opposing traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and
> > Rutland, Vermont.
> > Access is fully controlled, but there is no grade separation between
> > opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on steep grades, but
> > passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and level
> > sections.)
> >
> 
> I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly 
> because
> a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of over 160 
> km of
> motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's a few similar 
> situations with
> driveways and the occasional extremely minor road going directly into 
> bona-fide
> interstates in Utah.  And of course, the traffic lights to let ships through 
> the
> drawbridge on I 5, literally the only traffic light on that road for it's 
> entire three state
> run.  So there is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made 
> to
> ensure traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point 
> couldn't be
> properly eliminated.
> 
> I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this
> > particular
> > fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
> > tagging seen in
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
> > nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
> > you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that
> > you can put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about
> > placing a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no
> > useful information to a driver.
> >
> 
> It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
> > motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow
> > shoulders (not necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed
> > limit as primary roads in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be
> > if we had designated trunk roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway
> > encourages unsafe driving, and at the threshold of an intersection is
> > not sufficient notice to drivers of a downgrade.
> >
> 
> This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in 
> Vancouver, WA;
> and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really should be trunk for 
> that
> whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade separated intersections and
> abrupt end on a surface street (and even after the last intermediate 
> intersections at
> 42nd and at Stapleton get grade separated, I'd still be wary of calling any 
> part of that
> a motorway until something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it 
> does
> significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally 
> opposite what
> you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so short).
> 
> Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, but 
> not

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Manifestation Le libre sur la Place à Nancy le 23 novembre

[Romain MEHUT]

Non, rien d'autre pour le moment.

Et pour faire le lien avec le message de Vincent au sujet des mandataires,
dans le cas présent, même si je suis moi-même mandataire, mon expérience et
mes compétences ne sont pas à la hauteur par rapport aux besoins de la
Ville de Nancy. C'est pourquoi je vous ai sollicité pour être épaulé.

Merci encore.

Romain

Le 4 octobre 2017 à 22:50, Philippe Verdy  a écrit :

> Il n'y a pas un lien sur le site web de la ville ou de la communauté
> urbaine, ou un site inter-associatif pour rassembler ces infos de
> l'organisateur (et aussi pour mettre un lien dans le calendrier du wiki) ?
>
> Le 4 octobre 2017 à 22:26, Romain MEHUT  a écrit :
>
>> Re,
>>
>> Et voici le programme prévisionnel.
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Trunk

[Martijn van Exel]

Thanks all for your input. With this advice in mind, and my own thinking /
opinion, I wrote the a diary entry which I hope will spark further debate
:) https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/42450

Best
Martijn

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
>>  wrote:
>> > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
>> > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
>> > tagged as motorway.
>>
>> Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?
>>
>
> I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a
> controlled access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway
> operates in both directions, typically two lanes (though there may be
> additional lanes for short distances to facilitate merging, exiting or at
> toll plazas).
>
> My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic
>> is
>> grade separated.
>>
>
> Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on
> the super-two debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way,
> free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the
> minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited access, at-grade intersections,
> single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me.
>
>
>> I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
>> at-grade opposing
>> traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont.
>> Access is fully controlled, but there is
>> no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on
>> steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight
>> and
>> level sections.)
>>
>
> I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head,
> mostly because a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade
> out of over 160 km of motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's
> a few similar situations with driveways and the occasional extremely minor
> road going directly into bona-fide interstates in Utah.  And of course, the
> traffic lights to let ships through the drawbridge on I 5, literally the
> only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state run.  So there
> is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to ensure
> traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't
> be properly eliminated.
>
> I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this
>> particular
>> fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
>> tagging seen
>> in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
>> nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
>> you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you
>> can
>> put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing
>> a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful
>> information to a driver.
>>
>
> It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is
>> a
>> motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders
>> (not
>> necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads
>> in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk
>> roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving,
>> and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to
>> drivers
>> of a downgrade.
>>
>
> This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in
> Vancouver, WA; and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really
> should be trunk for that whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade
> separated intersections and abrupt end on a surface street (and even after
> the last intermediate intersections at 42nd and at Stapleton get grade
> separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that a motorway until
> something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does
> significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally
> opposite what you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so
> short).
>
> Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard,
> but not quite a freeway.
>
> ___
> 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] A thought on bot edits

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Speaking from my Wikipedia bot experience (I wrote bots and created
Wikipedia API over 10 years ago to help bots):

Bots were successful in Wikipedia because all users felt empowered. Users
could very easily see what the bot edited, fix or undo bot edits, and
easily communicate with the bot authors.  OSM does not have as good of
tools to compare and undo. Hence, some users in OSM may feel powerless -
they feel like they cannot influence this process, e.g. easily undo a
mistake, or know how bad the mistake really is - does it affect just a few
or thousands of places? As OSM gets more contributors, and moves more
towards maintenance, we should address these two:

* There is no easy way to view changes side-by-side at osm.org. We need to
be able to view both the object history and the entire changeset history,
and compare any two revisions. The diff view should show geometry changes
together with tag changes. JOSM has a good diff viewer, but it is per
object, and requires the use of the app.
* There is no easy way to undo a specific edit. In Wikipedia, undoing is a
simple two click process - "undo this change" in the history view, "save".
In OSM, one has to use a JOSM plugin!

Note that some of these capabilities may exist as separate tools, but most
users may not be even aware of them. They need to be part of the OSM.org.

A few more comments:

* Don't confuse maintenance bots with batch imports. Maintenance bots
cleans up obvious mistakes and simplify things that are too tedious for
humans.  Batch import add large amount of sometimes unverified data. M-bot
cleans up wikipedia page redirects. Import bots create "botopedias" like
ceb-wiki.

* Assume the good faith - bot authors care about the project as much as
everyone else, and want to make the project better as much as everyone
else. Lets find solutions that benefit everyone.

* Bots are tools, just like JOSM. They can be used for good and cause
problems. Banning JOSM just because someone could use it badly doesn't make
sense. Instead we should encourage bot operators to contribute, but make
sure they are benefit rather than nuisance.

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:40 AM Jo  wrote:

> True indeed. What this means, is that there can be a 'mismatch' between
> the Wikipedia tag and the Wikidata tag, if the Wikidata tag is more
> specific than what Wikipedia wants to create pages for.
>
> It's normal that this happens, as both projects have a different notion of
> notability. Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd will definitely not be the only cases of
> this. In fact I would expect this to happen very often.
>
> At least to me it happens quite a lot that I want to create an article on
> Wikpedia, but the powers that be don't consider the subject notable.
>
> Often this is a person with a street named after him or her. Or a bus
> line. But it could be a single statue in a park, or a part of a collection
> in a museum. So there will be many things we map that will have Wikidata
> items, but not Wikipedia articles. And some where our information is more
> specific that what WP has. Wikidata is actually an opendata project that
> stands closer to OSM than WP, or it certainly can be.
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2017-10-06 10:18 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> 2017-10-06 10:10 GMT+02:00 Jo :
>>
>>> What I don't understand is the problems people seem to have with
>>> wikidata. If an existing wikidata entry doesn't align with what we mapped,
>>> then create a new wikidata entry that does and link it to the existing
>>> entries.
>>>
>>
>>
>> it's actually not that easy. I tried to do this and gave up (in the
>> infamous ALDI case). Andy Mabbett had created 1 new "sub-entity" for each
>> of the 2 enterprises which together are described in the wikipedia article,
>> but you cannot add the wikipedia article to the new wikidata object without
>> removing it from the other wikidata object (for both). As the wikidata
>> object that covers both enterprises is the best fit for the WP article, I
>> decided to keep the Wikipedia article linked to this, but then it didn't
>> make sense to use the more precise wikidata object as reference in OSM as
>> it hadn't any wikipedia article linked to it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
>  wrote:
> > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
> > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
> > tagged as motorway.
>
> Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?
>

I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a
controlled access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway
operates in both directions, typically two lanes (though there may be
additional lanes for short distances to facilitate merging, exiting or at
toll plazas).

My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic
> is
> grade separated.
>

Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the
super-two debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way,
free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the
minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited access, at-grade intersections,
single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me.


> I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
> at-grade opposing
> traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont.
> Access is fully controlled, but there is
> no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on
> steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight
> and
> level sections.)
>

I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly
because a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of
over 160 km of motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's a few
similar situations with driveways and the occasional extremely minor road
going directly into bona-fide interstates in Utah.  And of course, the
traffic lights to let ships through the drawbridge on I 5, literally the
only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state run.  So there
is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to ensure
traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't
be properly eliminated.

I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this
> particular
> fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
> tagging seen
> in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
> nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
> you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you can
> put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing
> a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful
> information to a driver.
>

It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
> motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders
> (not
> necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads
> in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk
> roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving,
> and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to drivers
> of a downgrade.
>

This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in
Vancouver, WA; and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really
should be trunk for that whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade
separated intersections and abrupt end on a surface street (and even after
the last intermediate intersections at 42nd and at Stapleton get grade
separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that a motorway until
something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does
significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally
opposite what you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so
short).

Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard,
but not quite a freeway.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
 wrote:
> Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
> defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
> tagged as motorway.

Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?

My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic is
grade separated.

I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
at-grade opposing
traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont.
Access is fully controlled, but there is
no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on
steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and
level sections.)

And I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has at-grade
crossing traffic. (Example: Taconic Parkway east of the Hudson in
eastern New York.
Dual-carriageway for the entire length, and all crossings with major roads are
elevated, but there are occasional minor roads and driveways that
cross at grade.)

I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this particular
fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
tagging seen
in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you can
put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing
a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful
information to a driver.

It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders (not
necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads
in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk
roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving,
and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to drivers
of a downgrade.

It would bother me a little to have either of these roads labeled
'primary'. It would bother me a lot more to have either one labeled
'motorway'. And the current tagging of Taconic Parkway offers the
worst of both worlds.

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Vypadek kontrol rozcestniku

[Zdeněk Pražák]

no asi to opraveno není -  po aktualizaci v 18,02 je generováno pouze 57
rozcestníků

Dne 6. října 2017 11:33 Tom Ka  napsal(a):

> Ahoj,
>
> po vcerejsi aktualizaci DB enfungovalo korektne pocitani
> rozcestnikupro kontroly na osm.fit.vutbr.cz (a vrstvy na osmap.cz),
> nyni jiz snad vse opraveno a je to v poradku.
>
> Bye
>
> ___
> 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-transit] [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v2 Vehicle Type "coach"

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-10-05 0:09 GMT+02:00 Mikolai-Alexander Gütschow <
mikolai.guetsc...@t-online.de>:

> Now, I've looked again at the Oxomoa scheme proposal which already
> suggested an idea to differentiate between different bus route types by
> using the key "bus". Are there any arguments against this approach? We
> should only discuss possible values such as long_distance or intercity,
> suburban, urban, school, shuttle, express, train_replacement etc.
>


the key "bus" is already used nearly a million times:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bus#values
it is used as an access tag and also to say which kind of vehicle stops at
a public_transport platform / stop.
Common values are:
"yes" 98%
"no" 0,5%
"designated" 0,5%
"urban" 0,1%
"unofficial" 0,1%

I agree the values you propose can be interesting, especially
long_distance, train_replacement (although this is generally a temporary
thing for hyperactive high density mapping areas), school, urban, "shuttle"
I wouldn't suburban, but would see them included in urban
intercity is also somehow unclear, as cities might be very close together
(i.e. it's kind of "urban") or very far away. "long_distance" seems less
ambiguous (althoug it is also relative, maybe your list lacks some kind of
"regional" which can be used both, in metropolitan and in rural areas for
"medium" distance routes).
On the other hand, while the distinction by function (school,
train_replacement, shuttle, express) is not (clearly) inferrable from other
properties, the distance travelled and the admin entities served can easily
be gotten from looking at the actually route.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Importation des hauteurs de bâtiments sur Nice

[marc marc]

Le 04. 10. 17 à 21:19, Vincent Frison a écrit :
> malheureusement il n'y a pas beaucoup 
> de villes en France où je peux trouver en open data le MNT et le MNS 
> (avec une bonne résolution en plus).

est-ce parce qu'ils n'ont pas de moyen de rendre la donnée facilement 
accessible ou simplement parce qu'elle n'est pas opendata ?

il pourrait être utile, en attendant une semaine ou 2 pour être sur 
qu'il n'y a pas d'autre anomalie, de solliciter une ville ou l'autre
ayant déj de l'opendata pour essayer de faire boule de neige.
A moins que cette info finisse directement dans les info cadastrales
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Richie Kennedy]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> So far, it does appear that you are in the minority opinion on this, as was
> NE2.

In this group, I find your opinion to be strongly expressed; however,
I do not find consensus to be clear and convincing. OTOH, in the
AARoads forum, I would argue the consensus opinion would be clear and
convincing in favor of my position.

> That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.

OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the
classification. I would consider that to be bad faith.

Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral
changes to the map.

I will make an effort to explain my opinion this weekend. I do need
time to collect my thoughts and put them to a keyboard.

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

[OSRM-talk] OSRM trip service (TSP) limitation

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

Hi Guys,

I've tried to use OSRM recently. Great stuff!

When using OSRM trip service, I've figured out that this call is
limited by option combintions:

rountrip=true&* or roundtrip=false=first=last

And rest combinations (such as
roundtrip=false=first=any , which I'm looking for)
marked as not implemented.

Do you have any idea about when such implementation is planned?

I'm very new with osrm-backend code (yet), but after commenting out
this limitation and using roundtrip=false=first=any
options OSRM provides the similar and valid paths (at least in couple
of tests, didn't check it in deep yet).

Any ideas, suggestions?

Many Thanks,
Sasha

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Richie Kennedy 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> >
> > I'm with Paul here.  To be motorway, there are three critical
> > characteristics:
> >
> >   divided
> >   >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible)
> >   limited access
> >
> > If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway.  (I gather
> > there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all
> > those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception.  But if
> > it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.)
> >
>
> Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
> defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
> tagged as motorway.


So far, it does appear that you are in the minority opinion on this, as was
NE2.


> I will also share publically what I have already
> shared with Paul privately: changing the tag on segments of controlled
> access Super 2 in my area of knowledge in my local area is an
> invitation to an edit war.
>

That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Richie Kennedy]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
> I'm with Paul here.  To be motorway, there are three critical
> characteristics:
>
>   divided
>   >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible)
>   limited access
>
> If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway.  (I gather
> there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all
> those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception.  But if
> it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.)
>

Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
tagged as motorway. I will also share publically what I have already
shared with Paul privately: changing the tag on segments of controlled
access Super 2 in my area of knowledge in my local area is an
invitation to an edit war.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Greg Troxel]

Richie Kennedy  writes:

> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, a single
>> carriageway that is limited access, ie, no intersections, no driveways, only
>> ramps (eg, Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma).  Essentially, almost a motorway
>> but not quite there.
>
> I *strongly* dispute Paul's assertion that a highway that has fully
> controlled  access but is single carriageway should be "trunk" instead
> of "motorway." Access control, not number of lanes, should be the
> primary guidance behind a motorway or trunk classification.

I'm with Paul here.  To be motorway, there are three critical
characteristics:

  divided
  >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible)
  limited access

If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway.  (I gather
there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all
those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception.  But if
it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.)



To answer Martijn's question, I also agree with Paul that "trunk" is
something that has a substantial part of the feel of a motorway.  It
might be only one lane in each direction (in NE we do not use the term
super two), it might not be really divided, and it might have occasional
driveways (at most one every quarter mile on average?)  or at-grade
intersections with lights every few miles.

We should realize that the current tags are the result of a long
historical process, including a few mappers that had a minority few that
there should be more higher-classification roads, and did massive
amounts of armchair retagging.


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

[OSM-talk-fr] Devenir mandataire d'OpenStreetMap France

[Vincent de Château-Thierry]

Bonjour,
On parle peu de l'association OpenStreetMap France sur ce canal. Je prends 
l'occasion aujourd'hui pour aborder le sujet des mandataires.

L'association est une toute petite structure, autour d'un CA d'une quinzaine de 
personnes. Elle est sollicitée, quasi quotidiennement, pour des demandes liées 
au projet OSM : demandes d'organes de presse, d'institutionnels, d'acteurs 
privés, de collectivités, de particuliers.
Les demandes sont de tous ordres : dépannage technique, devis, participation à 
une réunion ou à un événement, annonce. Les retours vont d'une simple réponse 
par mail à, potentiellement, une présence physique sur un événement, en passant 
par des contacts téléphoniques ou la fourniture de contenus (données, 
illustrations).

Il n'y a pas de miracle : le temps, bénévole, de chacun n'est pas extensible. 
Aujourd'hui, on peut décrire la répartition de charge entre les personnes qui 
s'impliquent comme un vaste (mais heureux) bricolo. On compose, on répond à 
certaines sollicitations, d'autres passent à la trappe. Avoir un collectif plus 
étoffé est bien sûr un moyen pour éviter autant que possible ces loupés.
Le principe des mandataires de l'association, imaginé dès l'origine en 2011, va 
dans ce sens. Des personnes susceptibles de relayer l'association sont 
identifiées, et sollicitées, pour leur proximité géographique avec un événement 
ou un interlocuteur (les mandataires territoriaux) et/ou pour leur expertise 
sur sujet (les mandataires thématiques).

Certaines personnes assument d'ores et déjà ces rôles (et c'est l'occasion ici 
de les en remercier). Cependant nous restons trop peu nombreux pour faire 
tourner efficacement la machine.

Donc
... si partager votre enthousiasme pour le projet OSM vous plaît
... si vous savez dégager un peu de temps pour des actions associatives
... si vous vous sentez légitime sur des sujets métiers en lien avec OSM
... si animer une cartopartie, tenir un stand OSM, répondre au journaliste du 
coin selon l'occasion vous motive
(j'arrête la liste mais on peut l'allonger)
alors je ne peux que vous inciter à nous rejoindre pour participer au 
développement des activités de l'association. Faites vous connaître sur ce pad 
: https://annuel2.framapad.org/p/OSM-FR-inventaire-des-mandataires et/ou sur la 
liste c...@openstreetmap.fr, liste qui fédère les discussions autour des 
activités de l'association (cette liste est publique, elle n'est nullement 
réservée aux membres du CA).
D'ici quelques semaines, l'idée est de pouvoir matérialiser ce collectif, de 
l'organiser, mutualiser quelques ressources, économiser l'énergie de chacun 
tout en répondant mieux aux sollicitations.

D'avance merci pour vos retours, et désolé pour la longueur du message.

vincent pour OSM-Fr

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

Re: [Talk-it] utente che usa ortofoto G a Orbetello

[Alessandro Palmas]

Il 04/10/2017 12:55, liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu ha scritto:

Il 04/10/2017 12:49, mbranco2 ha scritto:

Beh, se nel commento del changeset c'è #hotosm, non dovrebbero esserci
problemi: per le attività dello Humanitarian OpenstreetMap Team persino
Google ha messo a disposizione - in casi specifici [1]  - le immagini
aeree; sovente sono immagini fatte ad hoc per il progetto HOT, per 
es. con

i droni.

Un progetto interessante per sapere quali ortofoto sono liberamente
utilizzabili è OpenAerialMap [2], so che in questo progetto è coinvolto
'giovand' : se ci legge può darci info aggiornate a riguardo.

Ciao,
Marco


Non so se può servire, per l'Italia questo:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Potenziali_fonti_di_dati


Leggo che alla riga dei confini amministrativi italiani c'è un punto 
interrogativo sulla compatibilità con la ODbL: chi è che può mandare una 
mail al DWG per farli togliere (scusate ma io sono con la melma sino 
agli occhi)?


Alessandro


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

Re: [Talk-it] Unione di comuni

[Damjan Gerl]

Da noi in FVG si chiamano UTI (Unioni Territoriali Intercomunali) [1]
Puoi vederle tutte in italia da overpass-turbo qui [2]

Damjan

[1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTI_Unioni_Territoriali_Intercomunali_FVG
[2] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/saO



>From  : "Dario Crespi"
>
> Grazie!
> 
> Ho provato con l'Unione dei comuni della Valletta e pare funzionare:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7632260
> Ho anche aggiunto l'ID della relazione su Wikidata:
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q41657454
> 
> Dario
> 
> Il giorno 6 ottobre 2017 12:29, Andrea Albani  ha scritto:
> 
> > Ciao,
> >
> > ci sono già parecchi esempi mappati come relazioni di tipo boundary e
> > admin_level=7
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=unione%20comuni
> >
> > Ciao
> >
> >
> > Il giorno 6 ottobre 2017 12:19, Dario Crespi  ha
> > scritto:
> >
> >> Ciao,
> >>
> >> in Italia esistono diverse unioni di comuni, come ad esempio questa <
> >> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unione_dei_comuni_della_Valvarrone>
> >>
> >> È possibile inserirli su OSM? Se sì, come? Si fa come per le province,
> >> mettendo però come admin_level 7 anziché 6?
> >>
> >> Grazie,
> >>
> >> Dario

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

Re: [Talk-it] Unione di comuni

[Dario Crespi]

Grazie!

Ho provato con l'Unione dei comuni della Valletta e pare funzionare:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7632260
Ho anche aggiunto l'ID della relazione su Wikidata:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q41657454

Dario

Il giorno 6 ottobre 2017 12:29, Andrea Albani  ha scritto:

> Ciao,
>
> ci sono già parecchi esempi mappati come relazioni di tipo boundary e
> admin_level=7
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=unione%20comuni
>
> Ciao
>
>
> Il giorno 6 ottobre 2017 12:19, Dario Crespi  ha
> scritto:
>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> in Italia esistono diverse unioni di comuni, come ad esempio questa <
>> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unione_dei_comuni_della_Valvarrone>
>>
>> È possibile inserirli su OSM? Se sì, come? Si fa come per le province,
>> mettendo però come admin_level 7 anziché 6?
>>
>> Grazie,
>>
>> Dario
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Unione di comuni

[Andrea Albani]

Ciao,

ci sono già parecchi esempi mappati come relazioni di tipo boundary e
admin_level=7

http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=unione%20comuni

Ciao


Il giorno 6 ottobre 2017 12:19, Dario Crespi  ha
scritto:

> Ciao,
>
> in Italia esistono diverse unioni di comuni, come ad esempio questa <
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unione_dei_comuni_della_Valvarrone>
>
> È possibile inserirli su OSM? Se sì, come? Si fa come per le province,
> mettendo però come admin_level 7 anziché 6?
>
> Grazie,
>
> Dario
>
> ___
> 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

[Talk-it] Unione di comuni

[Dario Crespi]

Ciao,

in Italia esistono diverse unioni di comuni, come ad esempio questa <
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unione_dei_comuni_della_Valvarrone>

È possibile inserirli su OSM? Se sì, come? Si fa come per le province,
mettendo però come admin_level 7 anziché 6?

Grazie,

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

[Talk-at] Landesstraßennamen

[Friedrich Volkmann]

User Negjana änderte vor 4 Monaten die Namen der niederösterreichischen 
Landesstraßenrelationen, und zwar:

- fügte er die Straßennummer (ref) zusätzlich in den Namen ein
- fügte er "Deppenleerzeichen" in die Namen ein

War diese Änderung irgendwo abgesprochen? Spricht etwas dagegen, sie 
rückgängig zu machen? Wieder ein Fall für die DWG?


Ich habe einen der Changesets hier kommentiert:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49087662
Die Änderungen ziehen sich aber über mehrere Changesets (vorhergehende und 
nachfolgende).


Negjana hat bisher nicht reagiert.

--
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

[Talk-cz] Vypadek kontrol rozcestniku

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj,

po vcerejsi aktualizaci DB enfungovalo korektne pocitani
rozcestnikupro kontroly na osm.fit.vutbr.cz (a vrstvy na osmap.cz),
nyni jiz snad vse opraveno a je to v poradku.

Bye

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

Re: [OSM-talk] All the subway systems in the world

[Ilya Zverev]

Michael Reichert wrote:
> You are aware that the RFC phase has to bee at least two weeks long?

Thanks for reminding that, I indeed think I was too hasty. There are still some 
unresolved questions, like the one about interchanges (see tagging@).

> Why does your validator find lots of errors on the S-Bahn relations in
> Berlin? I don't understand what's wrong with:
> >
>  stop node 1806004219 is not connected to a station in route (relation 14981, 
> "S-Bahnlinie S41: Innenring im Uhrzeigersinn")
> 
> The stop node is on a way referenced by the route relation.

That was a bug in the validator: it did not consider stations with 
railway=halt. I have fixed it just now.

> PS I am working on a Public Transport version 2 validator, too.
> 
> https://github.com/geofabrik/osmi_pubtrans3

Awesome, the more validators the better. I check only metro systems, which are 
harder to map properly than other public transport route types.

alan_gr wrote:
> I'm not clear how it is decided which systems are included and which aren't.
> In Spain, why is Bilbao in while Valencia, Seville, Malaga are out? I can't
> see a difference in how the last three are tagged in OSM compared to Bilbao.

Thanks Alan for pointing out the missing systems. I used a list from a 
wikipedia page, and it didn't include light rail networks. I have found the 
second list, and will add these later.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

[Jo]

True indeed. What this means, is that there can be a 'mismatch' between the
Wikipedia tag and the Wikidata tag, if the Wikidata tag is more specific
than what Wikipedia wants to create pages for.

It's normal that this happens, as both projects have a different notion of
notability. Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd will definitely not be the only cases of
this. In fact I would expect this to happen very often.

At least to me it happens quite a lot that I want to create an article on
Wikpedia, but the powers that be don't consider the subject notable.

Often this is a person with a street named after him or her. Or a bus line.
But it could be a single statue in a park, or a part of a collection in a
museum. So there will be many things we map that will have Wikidata items,
but not Wikipedia articles. And some where our information is more specific
that what WP has. Wikidata is actually an opendata project that stands
closer to OSM than WP, or it certainly can be.

Polyglot

2017-10-06 10:18 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> 2017-10-06 10:10 GMT+02:00 Jo :
>
>> What I don't understand is the problems people seem to have with
>> wikidata. If an existing wikidata entry doesn't align with what we mapped,
>> then create a new wikidata entry that does and link it to the existing
>> entries.
>>
>
>
> it's actually not that easy. I tried to do this and gave up (in the
> infamous ALDI case). Andy Mabbett had created 1 new "sub-entity" for each
> of the 2 enterprises which together are described in the wikipedia article,
> but you cannot add the wikipedia article to the new wikidata object without
> removing it from the other wikidata object (for both). As the wikidata
> object that covers both enterprises is the best fit for the WP article, I
> decided to keep the Wikipedia article linked to this, but then it didn't
> make sense to use the more precise wikidata object as reference in OSM as
> it hadn't any wikipedia article linked to it.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-10-06 10:10 GMT+02:00 Jo :

> What I don't understand is the problems people seem to have with wikidata.
> If an existing wikidata entry doesn't align with what we mapped, then
> create a new wikidata entry that does and link it to the existing entries.
>


it's actually not that easy. I tried to do this and gave up (in the
infamous ALDI case). Andy Mabbett had created 1 new "sub-entity" for each
of the 2 enterprises which together are described in the wikipedia article,
but you cannot add the wikipedia article to the new wikidata object without
removing it from the other wikidata object (for both). As the wikidata
object that covers both enterprises is the best fit for the WP article, I
decided to keep the Wikipedia article linked to this, but then it didn't
make sense to use the more precise wikidata object as reference in OSM as
it hadn't any wikipedia article linked to it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

[Jo]

Or a bot=https://fancyurl.iou/lawyeredcontract.json

to clearly define what the bot can and cannot do?

Personally I think we need all the help we can get from automation, but it
needs to remain 'overseen' by an actual mapper.

That's why I like the todo list plugin in JOSM a lot. And why I try to help
with developing tools to find errors and do trivial fixes. Especially
relations are relatively brittle in the OSM world.

So I understand the resistance against Yuri's automated handling of
wikidata tags. What he should do, is make his suggestions for improvement
available through our validation tools and then have mappers process them.

What I don't understand is the problems people seem to have with wikidata.
If an existing wikidata entry doesn't align with what we mapped, then
create a new wikidata entry that does and link it to the existing entries.

You could argue that's not strictly mapping anymore, but it does enhance
open data as a whole. So I think it is worthwhile to do it.

If it were possible to link from Wikidata to OSM, I'm sure it would be done
that way, but since there are no stable ids on our side, tags are the only
way to do it.

In JOSM it's possible to see which labels are behind the numbers. It should
be trivial to do so in Id as well. And why not on the standard rendering
too?

Polyglot

2017-10-06 9:45 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 6. Oct 2017, at 06:02, Yves  wrote:
> >
> > @JB, I understood the bot=no tag like the add=no sticker on your
> physical mailbox
>
>
> yes, just like every active mapper having  tens of thousands of mailboxes
> to add stickers to. What about an opt in? Add a bot=yes if you want your
> edits modified by bots...
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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: [OSM-talk] DWG survey on organised editing

[Frederik Ramm]

Everyone,

On 20.09.2017 06:51, Paul Norman wrote:
> The Data Working Group is conducting a survey as part of its work on a
> policy covering paid mapping.

We plan to close the survey on Sunday night (at 23:59:59 UTC), that's 2
days and 16 hours from now. We'll then take some time to analyze the
results and share them with you, then draft a policy informed by the
results and the discussion here and elsewhere, and present that for
further discussion.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

[OSM-co] Bad imports in the vicinity of Pereiras

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   the DWG has removed a couple of un-discussed imports of landuse and
waterways near Pereiras, performed by users PC10, opengislab, and
LADAMAFRIA. Here's a screenshot of the landuse

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/pereiras.png

The imports all had bad tagging and bad data quality (the landuse was
"blocky" as if automatically traced from a low resolution map, the
streams were intersecting already existing waterway data, and nothing
bore any resemblance to available aerial imagery).

In their changeset comments the users sometimes claimed this was some
sort of community project and asked that their data be left untouched
which of course is not a suitable approach for OSM. Sometimes it was
also claimed that the data had been somehow auto-generated from SRTM.

Example changesets with discussion:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52370849

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52370840

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52370776

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52245612

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52244523

User block messages:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1484

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1492


I don't know anything about who makes these edits. In one comment they
talk about "remote sensing", perhaps there's some sort of university
department in the vicinity that is responsible or some other
organisation that runs these "projects". Anyway, there seems to be a
massive misunderstanding about how OSM works.

I have suggested to them to discuss the matter on this (talk-co) mailing
list, maybe somebody shows up some day and you can discuss the matter
with them.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Oct 2017, at 06:02, Yves  wrote:
> 
> @JB, I understood the bot=no tag like the add=no sticker on your physical 
> mailbox


yes, just like every active mapper having  tens of thousands of mailboxes to 
add stickers to. What about an opt in? Add a bot=yes if you want your edits 
modified by bots...

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

[OSM-talk-ie] weeklyOSM #376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 376,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9517/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 376,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9517/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 376,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9517/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-in] weeklyOSM #376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 376,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9517/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 376,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9517/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-africa] weeklyOSM #376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 376,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9517/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-africa mailing list
Talk-africa@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-africa

[talk-ph] weeklyOSM #376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 376,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9517/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[Talk-cz] Pozvánka na mapathon v Ostravě

[David Kocich]

Dobré ráno,
rád bych Vás všechny pozval na mapathon v Ostravě. Více informací o akci a
možnosti registrace je uvedeno zde https://www.facebook.com/
events/271893656654851, tak neváhejte a přijďte se zúčastnit!

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