Re: [Talk-cz] LPIS tracer a multipolygony

[Marián Kyral]

Ahoj,

tak jsem se konečně zdravě naštval, neb jsme narazil na pár míst, kde
dochází ke změně multipolygon -> jednoduchá cesta a nechtělo se mi ty
multipolygony mazat ručně, trochu se v tom pohrabal, něco umazal, něco
přidal a vypadá to, že to dokonce i funguje. Následně jsem povolil i
přetrasování jednoduché cesty která je jako inner ve větším multipolygonu -
les, residental area.




Ještě se mrknu na změnu multipolygon -> multipolygon - tam to asi bude
trochu složitější, ale snad se taky povede.





Snad jsem to moc nerozbil. Pokud narazíte na problém, dejte vědět.




Marián




-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Marián Kyral 
Komu: talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 8. 5. 2018 20:25:47
Předmět: Re: [Talk-cz] LPIS tracer a multipolygony
"

Dne 8.5.2018 v 12:33 Jan Macura napsal(a):

"




Pěkný sváteční den,


začal jsem v poslední době používat pLPIS tracer. Proč velká část mých snah
o jeho použití končí hláškou:
"Přetrasování tohoto typu multipolygonu není v současné době podporováno"?

Mám pocit, že se to týká úplně všech multipolygonů...



"
Viz: https://www.superlectures.com/openalt2017/tracer-lpis-aktualizace-
natrasovanych-poli-a-jak-se-vyhnout-problemum
(https://www.superlectures.com/openalt2017/tracer-lpis-aktualizace-natrasovanych-poli-a-jak-se-vyhnout-problemum)

Důvodů může být více. Ve zkratce:

* Změna z multipolygonu na normální polygon
* V multipolygonu se nachází otagovaný vnitřní polygon (natural=wood,
natural=scrub...)
* Přetrasovávaný mutipolygon pole je jako inner v nějakém jiném
multipolygonu (třeba landuse=residental)
* Outer cesta se skládá z více segmentů
* ...

 Bohužel aktuálně na to nemám prostor. Navíc moc nerozumím tomu kódu, který
dělal Martin Švec a to je přesně to co je potřeba upravit :-(

Marián

"




Díky

 H.






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

"

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

Re: [talk-au] Queensland Govt Spatial Catalogue

[Andrew Harvey]

Keep up the good work Nev. When comparing I did notice the Queensland
Protected Areas data is more current than CAPAD 2016.

On 24 May 2018 at 22:22, nwastra  wrote:

> Thanks Andrew
> I am interested in using that data in Qld.
> I am currently using Capad 2016 data to update osm in Qld and have done
> much in the southeast. When that is done I will proceed with the Qld
> Protected Areas data and it will be a big help with forestry boundaries. I
> am updating each protected area separately so will be at this for quite a
> while yet.
> Nev
>
> On 24 May 2018, at 9:35 pm, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
> Surfacing an old thread here as there have been recent developments.
>
> The "Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries" dataset from QSpatial[1]
> has been previously imported by QldProtectedAreas[2]. It's CC BY 3.0 AU
> licensed, but the data custodian (Department of Environment and Science) has
> completed the OSMF CC BY waiver[3] clearing the data for use in OSM from a
> licensing perspective. The data custodian only agreed to complete the
> waiver for that specific dataset due to concerns about the data quality of
> other datasets.
>
> As far as I'm aware we haven't been able to get the waiver completed by
> other departments who publish their data on QSpatial and we have no
> QSpatial blanket waiver, only this specific dataset.
>
> Is anyone interested in updating OSM based on some of the new data from
> this dataset? A quick scan in QGIS there are some differences (mostly due
> to new data published on QSpatial) but mostly it's consistent.
>
> To compare the two I,
>
> 1. Downloaded queensland.osm.pdf extract from http://download.
> openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/
> 2. Extracted protected areas from that file with:
> osmium tags-filter --overwrite -o qld-protected-areas.osm.pbf
> queensland.osm.pbf nwr/boundary=protected_area,national_park,state_forest
>
> Giving https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson from
> QSpatial and https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson from
> OSM which can be compared in QGIS or JOSM using the GeoJSON plugin.
>
> [1] http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_
> OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf
>
> On 26 January 2016 at 21:35, Nev Wedding  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> I have been browsing the Queensland Spatial Catalogue and noticed the
>> following
>>
>> Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries  Published date -
>> 11 Jun 2015
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/se
>> arch.page?q=%22Protected%20areas%20of%20Queensland%20-%20boundaries%22
>>
>> Nature refuges and coordinated conservation Date published -14 Sep
>> 2012
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/se
>> arch.page?q=%22Nature%20refuges%20and%20coordinated%20conser
>> vation%20areas%22
>>
>> ** Has this been imported and if not do we have permission to use to
>> edit/update the OSM
>>
>>
>> Others I noticed that may be useful were
>> Local government area boundaries
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/se
>> arch.page?q=%22Local%20government%20area%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%22
>> Locality boundaries
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/se
>> arch.page?q=%22Locality%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%22
>>
>> All are licensed under a Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia
>> licence.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-it] Vendita fuoristrada.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. May 2018, at 21:11, liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu 
>  wrote:
> 
> Una concessionaria di fuoristrada anche usate, come si tagga?
> 
> Al momento ho lasciato shop=car, con un description:it=*
> 
> Può andare shop=off_roads_car, second_hand=off_roads_car?


per me è shop=car e anche per second_hand lascerei car. Casomai farei un subtag 
per specificare il tipo di car, chiederei sulla lista tagging


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

Re: [Talk-at] Public postbox für Adressveröffentlichungen

[Rainer F�genstein]

> Eine Anmerkung dazu:
> Ich verstehe nicht warum man ihm immer wieder Nahrung zuwirft in die er
> sich verbeissen kann. Wenn ihn keiner mehr so beachtet verläuft es im
> Sand. Seine Daten mögen schlussendlich korrekt sein, aber der Weg dort hin
> ist übersät mit Frechheiten, Fehler, Arroganz.

einfach eine filter-regel im mail client und gut ist's.

mfg

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

Re: [Talk-it] OsmAnd+ in offerta su Android Play

[Andreas Lattmann]

>Leggo da diverse parti le lamentele per la lentezza.

La lentezza è dovuta soprattutto ad una libreria di Android che ha dei bug già 
segnalati dagli sviluppatori di OsmAnd e non ancora risolti da Google.
È uscita da tre giorni la versione 3.0.0 di OsmAnd..

Andreas Lattmann
-- 
Inviato dal mio dispositivo Android con K-9 Mail. Perdonate la brevità. 

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

[Talk-it] Vendita fuoristrada.

[liste DOT girarsi AT posteo DOT eu]

Una concessionaria di fuoristrada anche usate, come si tagga?

Al momento ho lasciato shop=car, con un description:it=*

Può andare shop=off_roads_car, second_hand=off_roads_car?


--
_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
Simone Girardelli

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Réunion du bureau de l'OSMF ce jeudi 21h (heure de Londres)

[Vincent Privat]

Vous arrivez à vous connecter ? Je n'y parviens pas, pourtant il est 21h00.

Le 24 mai 2018 à 13:00, Severin Menard  a écrit :

> Bonjour à tous,
>
> Le bureau de la Fondation se réunit ce soir, après avoir dû repousser
> d'une semaine la réunion qui devait avoir lieu jeudi dernier. Toujours sur
> Mumble (dektop) ou Plumble (Android). Je ne suis pas sûr de pouvoir y
> assister aujourd'hui.
> Lien du brouillon des minutes qui servent d'agenda :
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-05-24
>
> Bien cordialement,
>
> Séverin
>
> ___
> 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-cz] Prihlaseni od osmap.cz

[Martin Ždila]

pred par tyzdnami sme na freemape mali podobny poblem. zmena OSM url z http
na https to vyriesila.

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:54 PM Tom Ka  wrote:

> zrejme https redirecty na api.osm.org.
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2018, 15:45 Marián Kyral  wrote:
>
>>
>> -- Původní e-mail --
>> Od: Tom Ka 
>> Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
>> Datum: 24. 5. 2018 15:24:16
>> Předmět: [Talk-cz] Prihlaseni od osmap.cz
>>
>> Ahoj,
>>
>> jen info - nefunguje prihlaseni do osmap.cz pres osm.org. ZbyCZ vi a
>> resi :-)
>>
>>
>> GDPR?
>>
>> Marián
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-cz mailing list
>> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
>> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>
> --
> 
> 
> 
> Ing. Martin Ždila
> 
> OZ Freemap Slovakia
> tel:+421-908-363-848
> mailto:martin.zd...@freemap.sk
> http://www.freemap.sk/
>
>
>
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway level crossings

[Andy Mabbett]

On 24 May 2018 at 17:37, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> But Martin (and others) _could_ use the web site to prompt investigations
> into crossing locations and manually add/edit in OSM.

+ 1

Or we could just ask them to release the data under an open licence.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-cz] Prihlaseni od osmap.cz

[Tom Ka]

zrejme https redirecty na api.osm.org.

On Thu, May 24, 2018, 15:45 Marián Kyral  wrote:

>
> -- Původní e-mail --
> Od: Tom Ka 
> Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
> Datum: 24. 5. 2018 15:24:16
> Předmět: [Talk-cz] Prihlaseni od osmap.cz
>
> Ahoj,
>
> jen info - nefunguje prihlaseni do osmap.cz pres osm.org. ZbyCZ vi a resi
> :-)
>
>
> GDPR?
>
> Marián
>
> ___
> Talk-cz mailing list
> Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>
___
Talk-cz mailing list
Talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway level crossings

[Martin Wynne]

On 24/05/2018 17:51, Martin Wynne wrote:


coincidences


Sorry, that should have been consequences.

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 24 May 2018 at 14:33, Nick Whitelegg  wrote:
> Following on from the recent topic regarding 1900 historical footpath data,
> I'd like to clarify exactly what we can and can't do currently with the
> council RoWs if possible.
>
> a) Copy designation status from council data to OSM?
>
> b) Trace an entire RoW from the council data onto OSM?

Using any data is ok legally if and only if it's available under a
suitable licence. Whether it's desirable to use it depends on its
accuracy and completeness. For rights of way, there are generally
three types of data/information available from councils that we might
want to use:

* The Definitive Map -- usually lines showing the Rights of Way drawn
on top of an Ordnance Survey (OS) base map.
* The Definitive Statement -- a narrative description of each Right of Way
* Electronic GIS data containing the routes of each Right of Way.

The Definitive Map and Statement form the legal record of Rights of
Way. They're "Definitive" in that if a route is included there it is
legally Right of Way, even if there's a mistake. So apart from
discrepancies between the two documents, they don't contain errors by
definition. (Though they can be incomplete, i.e. there could be Rights
of Way that aren't recorded in them.) The GIS data (that most councils
have created) is based on digitising the routes from the Definitive
Map. This dataset is usually not the legal record, and could contain
transcription errors or be out of date.

In terms of permitted usage in OSM, the Definitive Maps are off-limits
because OS claims copyright over derived maps. However, OS doesn't
claim any rights in the Definitive Statement, and OS does allow
councils to release the GIS data (without the underlying base maps)
even though it was derived from OS mapping originally. Therefore, if a
council can be persuaded to supply and suitably licence the Definitive
Statement and GIS data, then it can be used in OSM. The licence needs
to be compatible with the ODbL. The standard Open Government Licence
v3 (OGL3) meets this requirement, but be wary of councils still
releasing stuff under the now-obsolete OS OpenData Licence that was
not compatible with the ODbL. I have a (very incomplete table of which
councils have released what under appropriate licences at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/open-data -- any help to
update this would be appreciated.)

In terms desirable usage in OSM, I would generally assume that the GIS
data is an accurate representation of the Definitive Map, particularly
if it is consistent with the Definitive Statement. Therefore you could
in principle use it to armchair map Rights of Way from scratch.
However, I'd say this generally isn't a good idea, as you'd not be
able to include any of the physical characteristics of the route, and
wouldn't know if/how it crossed any field boundaries, ditches, streams
etc. Just because a route is a Right of Way, doesn't mean it's
physically usable on the ground. On the other hand, if a route is
already mapped as a highway of some sort (or can be so mapped from
licenced aerial imagery), and aligns with a route in the GIS data or
as described in the Definitive Statement, I would encourage people to
add appropriate designation=*, prow_ref=*, and access tags. If the
route on the ground differs from the Definitive Line, then I'd
recommend mapping both as separate ways: one as the physical
path/track that exists for people to use, and one as the legal line of
the right of way. My thoughts on appropriate tagging can be found at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table

In case anyone hasn't seen it, I've got a tool for comparing councils'
GIS data to OSM mapping at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . The matching is based
on tagging OSM ways with designation=* and prow_ref=* (so it doesn't
explicitly look for non-tagged highways that might line up with RoWs
in the council data) and it doesn't check the matched routes line up
apart from a check on the overall length and bounding box of each RoW.
There are only 8 authorities listed there at the moment. At the time
those were the only ones that I knoew of that had released their GIS
data under the OGL. I know a few more have since, but I haven't got
round to adding them. If anyone would like any new authorities added
that have released their data under the OGL, then please get in touch.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway level crossings

[Martin Wynne]

Jez Nicholson wrote:


But Martin (and others) _could_ use the web site to prompt investigations
into crossing locations and manually add/edit in OSM.

If Mark is right and even Network Rail have bad data it shows that you just
cannot trust anyone.

BTW Welcome to the list Martin :)

- Jez



Thanks Jez. :)

Talking of Network Rail having bad data, it can have fatal coincidences. 
See this recent report from RAIB:



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5afedd99ed915d0994b957f6/R072018_180521_Trenos.pdf

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway level crossings

[Martin Wynne]

And, from a practical perspective, even if it was available under a 
suitable licence it wouldn't be suitable for bulk import as quite a lot 
of the coordinates are too imprecise.


Hi,

I wasn't thinking of bulk import or downloading.

I added the information in my own words after visiting and mapping a 
foot crossing, including additional details about having steps down to 
the stile on one side, the nature of the surface, etc.


Added to the Description field for railway=level_crossing.

I will edit it to remove any information which can't be determined on 
the ground, such as the official Network Rail name for the crossing if 
it is not shown on a telephone or sign.


Thanks,

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway level crossings

[Jez Nicholson]

But Martin (and others) _could_ use the web site to prompt investigations
into crossing locations and manually add/edit in OSM.

If Mark is right and even Network Rail have bad data it shows that you just
cannot trust anyone.

BTW Welcome to the list Martin :)

- Jez

On Thu, 24 May 2018 at 17:07 Mark Goodge  wrote:

>
>
> On 24/05/2018 16:36, David Woolley wrote:
> > Please read the terms of use on that web site, in particular:
> >
> > "You may only print off copies, and may only download page(s) from our
> > site for your personal and non-commercial use."
> >
> > Anything included in OSM needs to have licence that permits commercial
> > use, so you cannot use the data from that web page as a source for OSM.
>
> And, from a practical perspective, even if it was available under a
> suitable licence it wouldn't be suitable for bulk import as quite a lot
> of the coordinates are too imprecise.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ___
> 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-GB] Railway level crossings

[Mark Goodge]

On 24/05/2018 16:36, David Woolley wrote:

Please read the terms of use on that web site, in particular:

"You may only print off copies, and may only download page(s) from our 
site for your personal and non-commercial use."


Anything included in OSM needs to have licence that permits commercial 
use, so you cannot use the data from that web page as a source for OSM.


And, from a practical perspective, even if it was available under a 
suitable licence it wouldn't be suitable for bulk import as quite a lot 
of the coordinates are too imprecise.


Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway level crossings

[David Woolley]

Please read the terms of use on that web site, in particular:

"You may only print off copies, and may only download page(s) from our 
site for your personal and non-commercial use."


Anything included in OSM needs to have licence that permits commercial 
use, so you cannot use the data from that web page as a source for OSM.



On 24/05/18 16:00, Martin Wynne wrote:

Hi,

I'm a newbie here, so I don't know if this has been mentioned before. 
Apologies if so.


Network Rail have an online map showing details of all level crossings 
on the system:



https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/level-crossing-safety/ 



This includes all level crossings including roads, footpaths, private 
occupation crossings, etc.


The details include the official name of the crossing, frequency and 
speed of trains, extra risk factors such as grounding of long low 
vehicles, details of the protection such as half or full barriers, 
gates, stiles, etc.


All of which can be usefully added to OSM.

Martin.

___
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

[Talk-GB] Railway level crossings

[Martin Wynne]

Hi,

I'm a newbie here, so I don't know if this has been mentioned before. 
Apologies if so.


Network Rail have an online map showing details of all level crossings 
on the system:



https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/level-crossing-safety/

This includes all level crossings including roads, footpaths, private 
occupation crossings, etc.


The details include the official name of the crossing, frequency and 
speed of trains, extra risk factors such as grounding of long low 
vehicles, details of the protection such as half or full barriers, 
gates, stiles, etc.


All of which can be usefully added to OSM.

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[Alessio Piccioli]

+1

Mi sembra molto più chiara.

A.

Il giorno 24 maggio 2018 15:44, matteocalosi  ha
scritto:

> L'utente alla fine si è detto d'accordo e scaricherà in locale le relazioni
> per poi cancellarle.
>
> Ho modificato la voce della wiki a "Una relazione va attribuita ad un
> sentiero solo se questo è segnalato da apposita segnaletica, se è
> riconosciuto ufficialmente e percorso regolarmente o è comunque
> identificabile come percorso consuetudinario consolidato. Non è sufficiente
> che l'itinerario sia descritto in una guida.", a meno che qualcuno non
> abbia
> in mente una definizione migliore.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
*Alessio Piccioli / *Amministratore unico
alessiopicci...@webmapp.it
www.webmapp.it
+39 328 53 60 803


P.Iva e CF 02266770508
CCIAA di Pisa n. 02266770508 del 01/08/2017
Capitale Sociale 10.000,00 €
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-cz] Prihlaseni od osmap.cz

[Marián Kyral]

-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Tom Ka 
Komu: OpenStreetMap Czech Republic 
Datum: 24. 5. 2018 15:24:16
Předmět: [Talk-cz] Prihlaseni od osmap.cz
"Ahoj,

jen info - nefunguje prihlaseni do osmap.cz pres osm.org. ZbyCZ vi a resi :-
)
"



GDPR?

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

Re: [Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[matteocalosi]

L'utente alla fine si è detto d'accordo e scaricherà in locale le relazioni
per poi cancellarle.

Ho modificato la voce della wiki a "Una relazione va attribuita ad un
sentiero solo se questo è segnalato da apposita segnaletica, se è
riconosciuto ufficialmente e percorso regolarmente o è comunque
identificabile come percorso consuetudinario consolidato. Non è sufficiente
che l'itinerario sia descritto in una guida.", a meno che qualcuno non abbia
in mente una definizione migliore.



--
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

[Talk-cz] Prihlaseni od osmap.cz

[Tom Ka]

Ahoj,

jen info - nefunguje prihlaseni do osmap.cz pres osm.org. ZbyCZ vi a resi :-)

Diky

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

Re: [Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[Alessio Piccioli]

Ciao a tutti,

  conosco perfettamente la zona frequentandola personalmente spesso ed
essendo presidente della sezione CAI che ha in manutenzione tutti i
sentieri della Val Serenaia che è la valle interessata dal percorso in
oggetto: sul campo non esiste niente del genere (RW37) o meglio esiste un
sentiero 37 che però non coincide con la prima parte del sentiero proposto
dalla guida. Abbiamo un socio (che noi chiamiamo vedretta della Val
Serenaia) che vive tutta l'estate nel campeggio che si trova proprio nei
pressi della partenza del percorso proposto: gli chiederò di fare
un'ulteriore verifica.

Detto questo io chiederei gentilmente di eliminare la relation: se
dovessimo inserire tutte le proposte che mettono assieme parte dei sentieri
che possiamo considerare consolidati forse sarebbe un po' troppo
confusionario.

A.

Il giorno 24 maggio 2018 13:41, Alfredo Gattai 
ha scritto:

> non e' che male interpretando la wiki ha pensato di doverlo inserire come
> codice del percorso della guida anche se sul terreno non c'e'?
> Non sarebbe il primo.
>
> 2018-05-24 13:37 GMT+02:00 Cascafico Giovanni :
>
>> Il giorno 24 maggio 2018 12:05, matteocalosi  ha
>> scritto:
>>
>>> Stavo contestando ad un mapper straniero l'aggiunta di alcune hiking
>>> route
>>> prese semplicemente da una guida stampata (col permesso dell'editore)
>>> senza
>>> alcuna segnaletica sul campo,
>>
>>
>> Quindi cosa ci fa il tag osmc:symbol=yellow:yellow:: RW37 :black ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
*Alessio Piccioli / *Amministratore unico
alessiopicci...@webmapp.it
www.webmapp.it
+39 328 53 60 803


P.Iva e CF 02266770508
CCIAA di Pisa n. 02266770508 del 01/08/2017
Capitale Sociale 10.000,00 €
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [talk-au] Queensland Govt Spatial Catalogue

[nwastra]

Thanks Andrew
I am interested in using that data in Qld.
I am currently using Capad 2016 data to update osm in Qld and have done much in 
the southeast. When that is done I will proceed with the Qld Protected Areas 
data and it will be a big help with forestry boundaries. I am updating each 
protected area separately so will be at this for quite a while yet. 
Nev

> On 24 May 2018, at 9:35 pm, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> Surfacing an old thread here as there have been recent developments.
> 
> The "Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries" dataset from QSpatial[1] has 
> been previously imported by QldProtectedAreas[2]. It's CC BY 3.0 AU licensed, 
> but the data custodian (Department of Environment and Science) has completed 
> the OSMF CC BY waiver[3] clearing the data for use in OSM from a licensing 
> perspective. The data custodian only agreed to complete the waiver for that 
> specific dataset due to concerns about the data quality of other datasets.
> 
> As far as I'm aware we haven't been able to get the waiver completed by other 
> departments who publish their data on QSpatial and we have no QSpatial 
> blanket waiver, only this specific dataset.
> 
> Is anyone interested in updating OSM based on some of the new data from this 
> dataset? A quick scan in QGIS there are some differences (mostly due to new 
> data published on QSpatial) but mostly it's consistent.
> 
> To compare the two I,
> 
> 1. Downloaded queensland.osm.pdf extract from 
> http://download.openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/
> 2. Extracted protected areas from that file with:
> osmium tags-filter --overwrite -o qld-protected-areas.osm.pbf 
> queensland.osm.pbf nwr/boundary=protected_area,national_park,state_forest
> 
> Giving https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson from QSpatial 
> and https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson from OSM which can 
> be compared in QGIS or JOSM using the GeoJSON plugin.
> 
> [1] http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas
> [3] 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf
> 
>> On 26 January 2016 at 21:35, Nev Wedding  wrote:
>> Hi
>> I have been browsing the Queensland Spatial Catalogue and noticed the 
>> following
>> 
>> Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries  Published date - 11 
>> Jun 2015
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Protected%20areas%20of%20Queensland%20-%20boundaries%22
>> 
>> Nature refuges and coordinated conservation Date published -14 Sep 2012
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Nature%20refuges%20and%20coordinated%20conservation%20areas%22
>> 
>> ** Has this been imported and if not do we have permission to use to 
>> edit/update the OSM
>> 
>> 
>> Others I noticed that may be useful were 
>> Local government area boundaries
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Local%20government%20area%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%22
>> Locality boundaries
>> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Locality%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%22
>> 
>> All are licensed under a Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia 
>> licence.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[Alfredo Gattai]

non e' che male interpretando la wiki ha pensato di doverlo inserire come
codice del percorso della guida anche se sul terreno non c'e'?
Non sarebbe il primo.

2018-05-24 13:37 GMT+02:00 Cascafico Giovanni :

> Il giorno 24 maggio 2018 12:05, matteocalosi  ha
> scritto:
>
>> Stavo contestando ad un mapper straniero l'aggiunta di alcune hiking route
>> prese semplicemente da una guida stampata (col permesso dell'editore)
>> senza
>> alcuna segnaletica sul campo,
>
>
> Quindi cosa ci fa il tag osmc:symbol=yellow:yellow:: RW37 :black ?
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Il giorno 24 maggio 2018 12:05, matteocalosi  ha
scritto:

> Stavo contestando ad un mapper straniero l'aggiunta di alcune hiking route
> prese semplicemente da una guida stampata (col permesso dell'editore) senza
> alcuna segnaletica sul campo,


Quindi cosa ci fa il tag osmc:symbol=yellow:yellow:: RW37 :black ?
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [talk-au] Queensland Govt Spatial Catalogue

[Andrew Harvey]

Surfacing an old thread here as there have been recent developments.

The "Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries" dataset from QSpatial[1]
has been previously imported by QldProtectedAreas[2]. It's CC BY 3.0 AU
licensed, but the data custodian (Department of Environment and Science) has
completed the OSMF CC BY waiver[3] clearing the data for use in OSM from a
licensing perspective. The data custodian only agreed to complete the
waiver for that specific dataset due to concerns about the data quality of
other datasets.

As far as I'm aware we haven't been able to get the waiver completed by
other departments who publish their data on QSpatial and we have no
QSpatial blanket waiver, only this specific dataset.

Is anyone interested in updating OSM based on some of the new data from
this dataset? A quick scan in QGIS there are some differences (mostly due
to new data published on QSpatial) but mostly it's consistent.

To compare the two I,

1. Downloaded queensland.osm.pdf extract from
http://download.openstreetmap.fr/extracts/oceania/australia/
2. Extracted protected areas from that file with:
osmium tags-filter --overwrite -o qld-protected-areas.osm.pbf
queensland.osm.pbf nwr/boundary=protected_area,national_park,state_forest

Giving https://tianjara.net/data/QLD_Protected_Areas.geojson from QSpatial
and https://tianjara.net/data/qld-protected-areas.geojson from OSM which
can be compared in QGIS or JOSM using the GeoJSON plugin.

[1] http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas
[3]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:QPWS_ProtectedAreas_CC-BY3.0_OSM_PermissionSigned.pdf

On 26 January 2016 at 21:35, Nev Wedding  wrote:

> Hi
> I have been browsing the Queensland Spatial Catalogue and noticed the
> following
>
> Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries  Published date -
> 11 Jun 2015
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Protected%20areas%20of%20Queensland%20-%20boundaries%22
>
> Nature refuges and coordinated conservation Date published -14 Sep 2012
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Nature%20refuges%20and%20coordinated%
> 20conservation%20areas%22
>
> ** Has this been imported and if not do we have permission to use to
> edit/update the OSM
>
>
> Others I noticed that may be useful were
> Local government area boundaries
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Local%20government%20area%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%
> 22
> Locality boundaries
> http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/
> search.page?q=%22Locality%20boundaries%20-%20Queensland%22
>
> All are licensed under a Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia
> licence.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[Alfredo Gattai]

ok, in questo caso trattandosi di guida "non locale" e' corretto
cancellarle, non sono percorsi consolidati di uso comune che fanno parte di
qualche consuetudine ma selezionati ad hoc da qualcuno che magari sa anche
il fatto suo ma non per questo andavano inseriti come percorsi "ufficiali"


2018-05-24 13:25 GMT+02:00 matteocalosi :

> Ma se non ha aggiunto ways non vedo cosa cambi se li ha percorsi o meno
> visto
> che i sentieri sono già mappati.
>
> La guida dovrebbe essere questa
> https://www.rother.de/rother%20wanderf%FChrer-toskana%20-%20nord-4115.htm
>
> La conoscenza dei mapper locali (che io sono) mi sembra importi poco a
> parte
> sapere che sul posto non è presente alcuna indicazione del''itinerario xx
> della guida taldeitali. O è giusto in generale aggiungere relazioni per
> itinerari indicati su pubblicazioni varie anche se non sono segnalati come
> parte di tali itinerari sul campo o non lo è.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[matteocalosi]

Ma se non ha aggiunto ways non vedo cosa cambi se li ha percorsi o meno visto
che i sentieri sono già mappati.

La guida dovrebbe essere questa
https://www.rother.de/rother%20wanderf%FChrer-toskana%20-%20nord-4115.htm

La conoscenza dei mapper locali (che io sono) mi sembra importi poco a parte
sapere che sul posto non è presente alcuna indicazione del''itinerario xx
della guida taldeitali. O è giusto in generale aggiungere relazioni per
itinerari indicati su pubblicazioni varie anche se non sono segnalati come
parte di tali itinerari sul campo o non lo è.




--
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

[OSM-talk-fr] Réunion du bureau de l'OSMF ce jeudi 21h (heure de Londres)

[Severin Menard]

Bonjour à tous,

Le bureau de la Fondation se réunit ce soir, après avoir dû repousser d'une
semaine la réunion qui devait avoir lieu jeudi dernier. Toujours sur Mumble
(dektop) ou Plumble (Android). Je ne suis pas sûr de pouvoir y assister
aujourd'hui.
Lien du brouillon des minutes qui servent d'agenda :
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-05-24

Bien cordialement,

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

Re: [Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[Alfredo Gattai]

Il problema piu' grosso e' che non li ha percorsi. Non sarebbe corretto
neanche inserirli da una vecchia cartina CAI anche con il permesso perche'
se prendi notizie vecchie di 30 anni non arricchisci la mappa, metti dentro
roba che potrebbe non esserci piu'.

Diciamo che cancellarli a prescindere forse puo' non essere la strada
giusta. Lasceri i mapper toscani che conoscono l'area giudicare.

Qualcuno sa qual'e' questa guida?

Alfredo

2018-05-24 12:52 GMT+02:00 matteocalosi :

> Esiste sul terreno nel senso che si tratta di combinazioni varie di tratti
> di
> sentieri, CAI o meno, effettivamente presenti che vanno a formare un
> itinerario consigliato dalla pubblicazione.
>
> Però non c'è segnaletica specifica, sono semplicemente appunto itinerari
> consigliati da una guida fra tante e che non mi sembra sia corretto
> aggiungere come relazioni hiking route a meno che non si ammetta che un
> qualsiasi itinerario riportato da una qualsiasi fonte può avere la sua
> relazione separata.
>
> Questa è una delle relazioni https://www.openstreetmap.org/
> relation/8281529
>
> Fra l'altro il mapper non li ha ancora percorsi personalmente e alcuni tag
> sono sbagliati ma direi che quello è il male minore.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[matteocalosi]

Ma anch'io cancellerei, però insomma se la wiki va contro alla good practice
corrente si cambia pure la wiki.



--
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-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[matteocalosi]

Esiste sul terreno nel senso che si tratta di combinazioni varie di tratti di
sentieri, CAI o meno, effettivamente presenti che vanno a formare un
itinerario consigliato dalla pubblicazione. 

Però non c'è segnaletica specifica, sono semplicemente appunto itinerari
consigliati da una guida fra tante e che non mi sembra sia corretto
aggiungere come relazioni hiking route a meno che non si ammetta che un
qualsiasi itinerario riportato da una qualsiasi fonte può avere la sua
relazione separata.

Questa è una delle relazioni https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8281529

Fra l'altro il mapper non li ha ancora percorsi personalmente e alcuni tag
sono sbagliati ma direi che quello è il male minore.




--
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-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Io cancellerei, alla faccia della wiki che non é dogmatica.

Il 24 mag 2018 12:05 PM, "matteocalosi"  ha scritto:

> Stavo contestando ad un mapper straniero l'aggiunta di alcune hiking route
> prese semplicemente da una guida stampata (col permesso dell'editore) senza
> alcuna segnaletica sul campo, cosa che pensavo fosse sbagliata e che credo
> sia stata oggetto di cancellazione in precedenza.
>
> Il problema è che guardando la wiki
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Hiking) sarei nel torto:
>
> Relazioni per i sentieri
> "Una relazione va attribuita ad un sentiero solo se questo è segnalato da
> apposita segnaletica, *se ci sono delle guide che lo descrivono* o se è
> riconosciuto ufficialmente e percorso regolarmente."
>
> Se la mia contestazione originale è corretta io proporrei di cancellare la
> parte evidenziata o anche aggiungere specificamente il suo contrario:
>
> "Una relazione va attribuita ad un sentiero solo se questo è segnalato da
> apposita segnaletica o se è riconosciuto ufficialmente e percorso
> regolarmente. *Non è sufficiente che esistano guide che lo descrivono.*"
>
> Oppure ci sta che sia veramente io nel torto e che per qualsiasi percorso
> di
> n-mila guide escursionistiche si possa aggiungere una relazione separata
> finchè l'editore dà il permesso.
>
> Per paragone la wiki principale non si schiera nè da una parte nè
> dall'altra
> ma parla semplicemente di serie di sentieri percorsa regolarmente:
> "A route is a customary or regular line of travel, often pre-determined and
> publicised. It consist of paths taken repeatedly by various people."
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[Alessandro]

Il 24/05/2018 12:05, matteocalosi ha scritto:

Stavo contestando ad un mapper straniero l'aggiunta di alcune hiking route
prese semplicemente da una guida stampata (col permesso dell'editore) senza
alcuna segnaletica sul campo, cosa che pensavo fosse sbagliata e che credo
sia stata oggetto di cancellazione in precedenza.

Il problema è che guardando la wiki
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Hiking) sarei nel torto:

Relazioni per i sentieri
"Una relazione va attribuita ad un sentiero solo se questo è segnalato da
apposita segnaletica, *se ci sono delle guide che lo descrivono* o se è
riconosciuto ufficialmente e percorso regolarmente."

Se la mia contestazione originale è corretta io proporrei di cancellare la
parte evidenziata o anche aggiungere specificamente il suo contrario:

"Una relazione va attribuita ad un sentiero solo se questo è segnalato da
apposita segnaletica o se è riconosciuto ufficialmente e percorso
regolarmente. *Non è sufficiente che esistano guide che lo descrivono.*"

Oppure ci sta che sia veramente io nel torto e che per qualsiasi percorso di
n-mila guide escursionistiche si possa aggiungere una relazione separata
finchè l'editore dà il permesso.

Per paragone la wiki principale non si schiera nè da una parte nè dall'altra
ma parla semplicemente di serie di sentieri percorsa regolarmente:
"A route is a customary or regular line of travel, often pre-determined and
publicised. It consist of paths taken repeatedly by various people."




Come prima regola deve esistere sul terreno. Se esiste ed è su una guida 
tenderei ad inserirlo (nota il 'tenderei') anche se non ha una sua 
relazione.
Un'altra domanda importante è: ma questo sentiero l'ha anche percorso o 
ha disegnato alla bell'e meglio?


Alessandro

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

[Talk-it] Wiki relazioni sentieri

[matteocalosi]

Stavo contestando ad un mapper straniero l'aggiunta di alcune hiking route
prese semplicemente da una guida stampata (col permesso dell'editore) senza
alcuna segnaletica sul campo, cosa che pensavo fosse sbagliata e che credo
sia stata oggetto di cancellazione in precedenza.

Il problema è che guardando la wiki
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Hiking) sarei nel torto:

Relazioni per i sentieri
"Una relazione va attribuita ad un sentiero solo se questo è segnalato da
apposita segnaletica, *se ci sono delle guide che lo descrivono* o se è
riconosciuto ufficialmente e percorso regolarmente."

Se la mia contestazione originale è corretta io proporrei di cancellare la
parte evidenziata o anche aggiungere specificamente il suo contrario:

"Una relazione va attribuita ad un sentiero solo se questo è segnalato da
apposita segnaletica o se è riconosciuto ufficialmente e percorso
regolarmente. *Non è sufficiente che esistano guide che lo descrivono.*"

Oppure ci sta che sia veramente io nel torto e che per qualsiasi percorso di
n-mila guide escursionistiche si possa aggiungere una relazione separata
finchè l'editore dà il permesso.

Per paragone la wiki principale non si schiera nè da una parte nè dall'altra
ma parla semplicemente di serie di sentieri percorsa regolarmente:
"A route is a customary or regular line of travel, often pre-determined and
publicised. It consist of paths taken repeatedly by various people."





--
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-at] Public postbox für Adressveröffentlichungen

[Johann Haag]

talk Radio ein
Darf ich bei dieser Gelegenheit die Frage stellen, wer hier mittelbar oder
unmittelbar für eine Amtliche Dienststelle in Österreich arbeitet. Und hier
in seiner Arbeitszeit postet.
Ich kann ausschließen dass meine Arbeit als wiki the map in OSM in irgend
einer weise mit der Marktgemeinde St. Johann in Tirol in Zusammenhang steht.

Soeben im schönen Burgenland und genieße hier die Aussicht,
talk Radio aus.

Am 23. Mai 2018 um 13:40 schrieb "Peter Müller" :

> Vielen Dank für die Info, ich habe das auch schon gesehen.
> Habe mal aus Interesse vor ein paar Tagen der DWG geschrieben, die haben
> auch schon ein Auge darauf geworfen und beobachten. Derzeit gibt es aber
> noch keinen Grund einzugreifen, sie hoffen das die Community das schafft
> und aussitzt.
>
> Eine Anmerkung dazu:
> Ich verstehe nicht warum man ihm immer wieder Nahrung zuwirft in die er
> sich verbeissen kann. Wenn ihn keiner mehr so beachtet verläuft es im Sand.
> Seine Daten mögen schlussendlich korrekt sein, aber der Weg dort hin ist
> übersät mit Frechheiten, Fehler, Arroganz.
> Sehr nettes Beispiel ist die "Klar-Namen-Sache" inkl Firma. Er verlangt es
> von jedem, verschweigt aber das er für das Umweltamt St Johann in Tirol
> gearbeitet hat/noch immer tut( http://www.st.johann.net/Haag_Johann ),
> seit neusten ist "wiki the map" ein Service der Firma Umweltservice St.
> Johann in Tirol (siehe Impressum auf www.wikithemap.org ).
>
> Lasst euch doch nicht so verarschen...lasst ihn einfach mühsam alle
> Adressen per Hand hinzufügen, mir wäre schade um die Zeit, und so macht es
> wenigstens wer ;-)
>
>
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2018 um 13:16 Uhr
> > Von: "Stefan K." 
> > An: Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
> > Betreff: [Talk-at] Public postbox für Adressveröffentlichungen
> >
> > Hallo,
> > wikithemap plant eine Stelle einzurichten, wo Gemeinden direkt neue
> > Adressen melden können, damit Couchmapper nicht auf die Daten des BEV
> > warten müssen. Er scheint das ganze nicht mit der LWG vorab besprochen
> > zu haben, sondern hat das direkt mal öffentlich zugänglich gemacht.
> > Der Thread ist zu finden unter
> > https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=700491#p700491
> >
> > Da es alle betrifft und wikithemap sich mal wieder der mailingliste
> > verweigert, schreibe ich das hier mal.
> >
> > Beste grüße
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-at mailing list
> > Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-at mailing list
> Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
>



-- 
Elektronikermeister Johann Haag
Innsbruckerstraße 42
6380 St. Johann in Tirol
ÖSTERREICH
Tel: +43 664/174 7414
Mailto:johannh...@hxg.at
___
Talk-at mailing list
Talk-at@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at

Re: [Talk-in] Rendering Tamilnadu map in Tamil

[Soundharya AM]

Hi Kamal,

That's a good effort.

Appreciate your work and great to see the maps in Tamil.

Kudos!

Kind regards,
Soundharya.

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Aruna S  wrote:

> Sounds great!
>
> ___
> Talk-in mailing list
> Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in
>
>
___
Talk-in mailing list
Talk-in@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-in

Re: [Talk-it] OsmAnd+ in offerta su Android Play

[Jo]

Anche io lo ho obtenuto con reduzione un anno fá. Sono molto contento, é
pieno di funzionalitá.

Polyglot

2018-05-24 7:51 GMT+02:00 Alessandro :

> Apro G Play e vedo che è in offerta a 4,49€
>
> Leggo da diverse parti le lamentele per la lentezza. In effetti col Samung
> S3 è abbastanza lento, con S8 va benissimo
>
> Alessandro
>
> ___
> 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