Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Lieux-dits

[Philippe Verdy]

Je ne vois nulle part de lieux-dits comme "surfaces" dans le cadastre : les
surfaces du cadastre sont les limites de parcelles anonymes (seulement
numérotées), suivant un découpage historique avec de nombreux démembrements
et remembrements, et les groupements sont les zones cadastrales (1 ou
codées par deux lettres, parfois nommées dans certaines communes, on en a
le détail dans les fichiers "d'assemblage" comme les quartiers ou les RIS
des grandes communes plus peuplées, élaborés avec l'INSEE) et sinon les
limites de communes (ou anciennes communes ou communes membres d'une
fusion-association ou d'une commune nouvelle), ou arrondissements
municipaux.

Les lieux-dits apparaissent donc juste comme des noeuds géolocalisés
servant de repérage (on les trouve listés dans le FANTOIR). Quelques
surfaces existent mais pour les "pseudo-rues", comme les ZA/ZI/ZAC et
lotissements qu'on trouve dans le cadastre et dans les PLU; la position des
libellés ne permet pas d'identifier la liste des parcelles désignées. Ces
noms sont pourtant gardés et servent abondamment comme mémoire pour la
créaqtion de toponymes, ou pour nommer des rues ; ils ont une typologie
codée dans le FANTOIR.

Les autres surfaces identifiées sont les constructions (mais elles sont
aussi découpées parfois arbitrairement parce qu'elles sont à cheval sur
d'anciennes parcelles remembrées) et sinon en pointillés les limites
d'aménagements dans les parcelles (exemple: surfaces de parking, ou ilots
directionnels, ou piscines, ou bassins artificiels), et les cours d'eau et
étangs. Certaines communes vont un peu plus loin et inscrivent les limites
des zones à risque (zones inondables...) ou zones historiques à préserver
pour lesquelles une réglementation locale est applicable à l'urbanisme.
Mais en général c'est plutôt dans des cartes séparées du cadastre: les PLU
sont plus riches en infos que le cadastre qui a un usage plus limité,
essentiellement fiscal et comme trace des parcelles (utilisable par les
contrats notariés de cessions de propriétés ou des acquisitions publiques,
et du bornage effectué)

Même les constructions n'ont pas un placement très exact (avec souvent des
décalages parfois importants, des batiments disparus, ou dont la surface a
été étendue ou réduite mais pas modifiée depuis, et il manque plein de
petites constructions et des tas de constructions récentes pas encore
inscrites car ces changements apparaiessent sans changement de propriétaire
et nombre de constructions n'ont pas nécessité de permis de construire avec
plan détaillé déposé, juste une autorisation sommaire indiquant la surface
concernée en mètres carrés)

Les lieux-dits sont en fait comme les numéros d'adresse : juste des points.
Si vous n'admetez pas les lieux-dits, vous n'admettrez pas les numéros ;
mais plein de rues/routes n'ont pas de numéros sur le terrain et on n'a que
les noms. Le travail ne peut pas être importé automatiquement : les noms et
la typologie du FANTOIR nécessitent d'identifier sur la carte ce qui peut
être indiqué : OSM demande qu'on choisse entre "locality", "farm",
"isolated_dwelling", "hamlet", ou d'autres tags (comme les noms de bois ou
étangs) (dont cependant la surface réelle a pu aussi évoluer avec le temps
alors que le lieu-dit lui restera un noeud à sa place initiale). Cependant
ces noms sont bien plus utiles et plus connus localement même s'ils ne sont
pas affichés sur le terrain : ils sont plus utiles que les pseudo-numéros
de rue qu'on ne voit souvent pas du tout (sauf en zone urbaine dense).

Depuis que le cadastre est vectorisé, des communes plus avancées ont
utilisé leurs SIG pour délimtier plus précisément les surfaces désignées et
unifier le cadastre avec leur PLU, mais on a des décalages encore parce que
les différentes communes n'ont pas encore fait de conflation avec leurs
voisines et les modèles de triangulation et la précision a changé avec le
temps sans que repasse des géomètres. Aujourd'hui l'imagerie aérienne (par
avion ou drones) vient se substituer aux images satellites et les communes
font moins appel aux géomètres, sauf pour poser des bornages précis pour
les nouveaux aménagements à faire (là, ce sont les demandeurs des travaux
qui payent le passage du géomètre, ou les acquéreurs/vendeurs qui
s'entendent pour faire enregistrer leurs accords et font déposer les
nouveaux bornages via les notaires qui enregistrent le tout de façon
conforme; les lotisseurs qui découpent leurs parcelles préparent ces
découpages aussi avant la mise en vente des lots).

Le lun. 27 août 2018 à 01:02, Jérôme Amagat  a
écrit :

> Pour moi ce n'est pas une question d’être utile ou pas, c'est plus une
> question de cohérence ou un truc comme ça :)
> Le problème c'est que l'on va ajouté ces soit disant lieux dits avec un
> tag place=locality et on va les mélanger avec les vrai place=locality.
> J'ai l'impression qu'une partie de ces lieux dits du cadastre ne sont
> utiliser que dans le cadastre, d'autres sont utiliser pour une surface
> beaucoup plus 

Re: [Talk-in] Kerala Road mapping with FB ML data

[Naveen Francis]

Please add ur comments here, if you are ok to import the ML data.
https://github.com/osm-in/mapping/issues/1

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:15 PM muzirian  wrote:

> In late July 2018, severe flooding affected Kerala state in India due to
> unusually high rainfall during the monsoon season, Kerala's worst floods in
> nearly a century over 373 people died within a fortnight, while at least
> 280,679 people were evacuated, rescue operations are going on. kerala
> floods wikipedia 
>
> Two most used maps in disaster response
> https://www.microid.in/keralaflood/ which is used to identify flooded
> roads and https://keralarescue.in/map/ used to visualise rescue requests
> are using OSM data.
> OSM coverage for kerala is far from complete and needs lot of work.
>
> In response to the disaster mapping efforts Facebook have shared machine
> learning based road data for Kerala, and offered help of their mapping team
> to add this data to OSM.
> But we would need people with local knowledge working and validating the
> edits especially tagging.
>
> Road data - https://fb-public.box.com/s/ggo37k7bvj92jj137wr4hpmd5ba5rjt1 -
> Please download to evaluate the data. Do not import to OSM yet.
> Discussions from various channels will be collected and compiled on this
> github ticket
> https://github.com/osm-in/mapping/issues/1
>
> Kelvin
>
> ___
> 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-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Chris Jones]

Hi Martin,

1) The boundary is is clearly a fence. Thats what stops you just walking across.

You can map the trees as several natural : tree or a tree_row depending on how 
long the row is I guess. Certainly not a hedge or wood.

2) The road is a highway, the grass is a verge.. the wiki suggests you can 
either tag the verge as a property of the highway or as a separate 
landuse=grass. Your call, but to me in this case its part of the highway.

—
Chris

> On 27 Aug 2018, at 05:35, Martin Wynne  wrote:
> 
> Rural boundaries can be extraordinarily difficult to map. For example, is 
> this:
> 
> https://goo.gl/maps/FtjMZiwNj542
> 
> a) a fence,
> 
> b) a hedge,
> 
> c) a very narrow wood,
> 
> d) all three at the same time?
> 
> Is the area in front of it
> 
> a) grass,
> 
> b) highway,
> 
> c) both?
> 
> (Not mapping from Google, I walked along there recently.)
> 
> Often a wood adjoins an open area such as a water meadow. If there is a fence 
> between them, the boundary is clear, even if the wood canopy overlaps into 
> the meadow. If there isn't a fence, where do you put the boundary? The edge 
> of the canopy? The line of tree trunks? Some imaginary line between the two?
> 
> Some trees are very large and their branches can extend a significant 
> distance - across a river for example.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] station de rechargement d’hydrogène

[osm . sanspourriel]

Pas de soucis, vaut mieux poser la question que créer un doublon sans demander !

Jean-Yvon


> Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. August 2018 um 19:58 Uhr
> Von: "bruno Piguet - bruno.pig...@gmail.com" 
> 
> An: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] (osm: message 3 of 20) station de rechargement 
> d’hydrogène
>
> Au temps pour moi...
> 
> Le dim. 26 août 2018 à 14:59,  a écrit :
> 
> > L'h2 est déjà dans la liste, pourquoi l'ajouter ? Car c'est de l'hydrogene
> > liquide je suppose.
> >
> > Jean-Yvon
> >
> >
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. August 2018 um 09:56 Uhr
> > > Von: "bruno Piguet - bruno.pig...@gmail.com"
> > 
> > > An: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> > > Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] (osm: message 2 of 20) station de
> > rechargement d’hydrogène
> > >
> > > Hydrogène n'existe pas sur la page wiki qui décrit la clef fuel (
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fuel), mais il faut militer pour
> > > l'ajouter, car les stations d'hydrogène se répandent en Allemagne (
> > > https://h2.live/).
> > >
> > > Cependant, dans le cas cité ici, si c'est la pompe privée d'une seule
> > > flotte de taxi, sa cartographie précise n'a pas encore beaucoup
> > d'intérêt.
> > >
> > > Bruno.
> > >
> > > Le mar. 14 août 2018 à 11:21, Nicolas Bétheuil  a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Bonjour,
> > > >
> > > > Je viens de découvrir qu'il y a une borne de rechargement d’hydrogène
> > > > dans Paris. Elle semble être réservée pour des taxis d'une certaine
> > > > marque.
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2015/12/04/20005-20151204ARTFIG00015-une-station-hydrogene-au-coeur-de-paris.php
> > > >
> > > > Je suis surpris de voir que depuis 2015 personne n'a ajouté la station.
> > > > Ce n'est que de l'expérimentation visiblement. Pas de moyen de
> > > > paiement par exemple.
> > > >
> > > > Ça a du sens à ajouter dans OSM ?
> > > > Néanmoins taguer ça comme une station service me parait abusif. Ça
> > > > m'étonnerais que les applications qui afficherait les stations service
> > > > filtre par la dispo des carburants du coup ça pourrait afficher de
> > > > fausses informations.
> > > >
> > > > Vous en pensez quoi ?
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Talk-fr mailing list
> > > > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Talk-fr mailing list
> > > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> > >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-fr mailing list
> > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> >
> ___
> 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-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-27 01:27, Neil Matthews wrote:

> *If* there are used for looking up addresses, then there is some very slight 
> advantage to having them -- I still occasionally see websites/people 
> referring to Avon :-)

Postal counties are a whole new family-sized can of worms Everybody
knows Uxbridge is in Middlesex, and Bromley is in Kent, right?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Neil Matthews]

*If* there are used for looking up addresses, then there is some very
slight advantage to having them -- I still occasionally see
websites/people referring to Avon :-)

Neil

On 26/08/2018 23:49, Dave F wrote:

> Hi
>
> To repeat, They do exist, but only as a record of old data, not
> current. just as there's a record of Humberside & Avon. That they
> don't get altered is irrelevant.
>
> I disagree about their legality.
>
> DaveF
>  
> On 26/08/2018 23:01, Adam Snape wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the
>> traditional counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess,
>> certainly successive governments have made clear that they recognised
>> the continued existence of the traditional counties, and that
>> administrative changes neither legally abolished nor altered these
>> counties.
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale, > > wrote:
>>
>> Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and
>> serve a function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas"
>> and represent the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct
>> representative of the monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained
>> by a different legal process to the admin areas, and on occasions
>> can diverge for a limited period until they catch up with changes
>> to admin boundaries. And then there is the Stockton-on-Tees
>> anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial counties
>> of Durham and North Yorkshire.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Colin,
>>
>> Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think
>> if we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because
>> lord lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are)
>> are of any real importance, but because they provide a vaguely
>> sensible and recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call
>> counties. Certainly if administrative importance were genuinely to be
>> our criteria for mapping we would be mapping all kinds of things
>> prior to lord lieutenancies.
>>
>> In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown
>> appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was
>> justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping
>> the areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall
>> perform various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing
>> the ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and
>> exercise special rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and
>> extant boundaries are the historic/traditional boundaries of the
>> counties of Lancashire and Cornwall :)
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Mapping horse steps?

[Martin Wynne]

I'm tempted to map these horse-mounting steps as

 stairway=to_heaven

 http://85a.co.uk/images/little_hereford7_960x800.jpg

 http://85a.co.uk/images/little_hereford8_960x500.jpg

Other suggestions welcome. Clearly horse riders need to know where these 
useful installations are located.


Martin.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Lieux-dits

[Jérôme Amagat]

Pour moi ce n'est pas une question d’être utile ou pas, c'est plus une
question de cohérence ou un truc comme ça :)
Le problème c'est que l'on va ajouté ces soit disant lieux dits avec un tag
place=locality et on va les mélanger avec les vrai place=locality.
J'ai l'impression qu'une partie de ces lieux dits du cadastre ne sont
utiliser que dans le cadastre, d'autres sont utiliser pour une surface
beaucoup plus grande que ce qu'ils sont vraiment et donc pose un problème
pour leur placements du node quand on ne connaît pas.
D'autres doivent être "converti" en autre chose dans osm : en hameau, en
quartier, en moulin, en lac, en étang ...
On a parler ressemant d'un lieu dit sur 2 communes qui devrai être en 1
seul exemplaire dans osm.
Les lieux dits "le Bourg" qui sont en fait le centre village de la commune
et qui pour moi ne devrai pas être dans osm.

Ces lieux dits du cadastre sont très utile pour placer certaine "chose"
dans osm, je m'en sert souvent mais je n'aime pas les imports complets
d'une commune.

On pourrai les importer autrement dans osm, avec autre chose que
place=locality.
Ces lieux dits dans le cadastre représentent une surface donc faut t il
placer les tag sur un nœud ou sur une surface?
la surface c'est un groupe de parcelles. Les parcelles il a été convenu de
ne pas les importer. Des surface ou des relations multipolygones c'est très
compliqué a maintenir. (Je corrige assez souvent les relations des cantons
et des circonscription législatives est elles sont assez souvent cassées
alors pour ces "lieux dits" c'est au moins 20 fois plus de relation)

Sinon mettre les nom sur un node avec un tag spécialement créé pour ces
lieux dits sortis du cadastre.
Peut être mais dans le cadastre c'est une surface donc pourquoi empêcher à
certains d'utiliser une surface et on retourne au paragraphe précédent :)

Sinon faire comme depuis quelques temps, importer tout les noms sur des
nodes avec place=locality et laisser faire le temps et les gens pour les
transformer en autre chose comme place=hamlet ou les supprimer si il ne
sont pas utiliser localement. On pourrait aussi inciter les gens à les
modifier avec un fixme=* ou un note=*. Mais le problème, c'est que, si j'ai
bien compris, ça ne se fait pas dans osm d'importer des choses que l'on
sait en bonne partie fausse :)

Donc je vois pas vraiment de bonne solution...
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-27 00:24, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley 
> wrote:
> 
> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire, 
> rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the 
> bigger entities. This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as 
> components of districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the 
> union of the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands 
> common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the UK 
> is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county, giving 
> 100% coverage at that level.

Every point is within a district, but not every district is within a
county - unless, that is, you consider a unitary authority to be
effectively two different entities that happen to have identical
boundaries. 

I think you understood what I meant. AIUI a UA is normally technically a
district. A city is an orthogonal concept- a "city council" can be a UA
(eg Nottingham), a District (eg Canterbury) or a Civil Parish (eg
Salisbury) that has been awarded that status. And not every city has its
own council of any type (eg Bath). 

And of course a council is not an area, it is an administrative body.
There are admin areas defined in law that do not have a corresponding
council, eg the county of Berkshire and many Civil Parishes. Sometimes
they play games with the naming: Rutland County Council is not a county
council, because there is no extant county of Rutland. It is a
non-metropolitan district with unitary status, whose council is formally
called Rutland County Council District Council. 

I stand by my comment that the "sum of parts" system could work down to
the district/UA level, and not down to the civil parish level.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Hi

To repeat, They do exist, but only as a record of old data, not current. 
just as there's a record of Humberside & Avon. That they don't get 
altered is irrelevant.


I disagree about their legality.

DaveF

On 26/08/2018 23:01, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional 
counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly 
successive governments have made clear that they recognised the 
continued existence of the traditional counties, and that 
administrative changes neither legally abolished nor altered these 
counties.


On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale, > wrote:


Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve
a function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and
represent the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct
representative of the monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by
a different legal process to the admin areas, and on occasions can
diverge for a limited period until they catch up with changes to
admin boundaries. And then there is the Stockton-on-Tees
anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial counties
of Durham and North Yorkshire.


Thanks Colin,

Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think 
if we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because 
lord lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are) are 
of any real importance, but because they provide a vaguely sensible 
and recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call counties. 
Certainly if administrative importance were genuinely to be our 
criteria for mapping we would be mapping all kinds of things prior to 
lord lieutenancies.


In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown 
appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was 
justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping 
the areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall 
perform various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing 
the ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and 
exercise special rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and extant 
boundaries are the historic/traditional boundaries of the counties of 
Lancashire and Cornwall :)


Kind regards,

Adam


___
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] When is a hedge a wood?

[Dave F]

When someone's appearance is still presentable after being dragged 
backwards through one.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 23:16, Martin Wynne wrote:
Both. It's administratively and legally part of the highway, but it's 
the part of the highway which consists of a grass verge.


Thanks Mark.

I think I should map that as

landuse=highway

landcover=grass

However for some inexplicable reason, landuse=highway isn't allowed. I 
was told the reason is in the name Open *STREET* Map, although I'm none 
the wiser.


This is a terminology thing again. OSM uses "highway" to refer to the 
route you travel along, with various tags to indicate the importance and 
permissions of the route, while UK legislation uses the word to refer to 
a legal function. Another instance where this can cause problems is 
something like a public square, in many cases these are legally highways 
even if they are, at least most of the time, pedestrianised. But you 
can't tag an area as a highway, only a way. So you can't tag a public 
open space as a highway even if, legally, it is.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:

It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so 
Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object 
referenced in the bigger entities.
This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as components of 
districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the union of 
the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands 
common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the 
UK is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county, 
giving 100% coverage at that level.



Every point is within a district, but not every district is within a 
county - unless, that is, you consider a unitary authority to be 
effectively two different entities that happen to have identical boundaries.


From a legal perspective, districts (or boroughs, cities and unitary 
authorities) are the fundamental building blocks of British local 
government. Parishes or communities, where they exist, are subdivisions 
of districts. Counties or metropolitan authorities, where they exist, 
are unions of districts. The district is the "principal authority" 
defined in legislation, everything else is relative to it.


(As an aside, this is also one of the big drivers of nostalgia for the 
pre-1974 "historic" counties. The Victorian system had the county as the 
fundamental unit. So even where we still have counties, they are not the 
same as they used to be).


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Martin Wynne]

Both. It's administratively and legally part of the highway, but it's 
the part of the highway which consists of a grass verge.


Thanks Mark.

I think I should map that as

landuse=highway

landcover=grass

However for some inexplicable reason, landuse=highway isn't allowed. I 
was told the reason is in the name Open *STREET* Map, although I'm none 
the wiser.


Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional
counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly successive
governments have made clear that they recognised the continued existence of
the traditional counties, and that administrative changes neither legally
abolished nor altered these counties.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale,  wrote:

> Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve a
> function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and represent the
> jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct representative of the
> monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by a different legal process to
> the admin areas, and on occasions can diverge for a limited period until
> they catch up with changes to admin boundaries. And then there is the
> Stockton-on-Tees anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial
> counties of Durham and North Yorkshire.
>

Thanks Colin,

Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think if
we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because lord
lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are) are of any
real importance, but because they provide a vaguely sensible and
recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call counties. Certainly
if administrative importance were genuinely to be our criteria for mapping
we would be mapping all kinds of things prior to lord lieutenancies.

In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown
appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was
justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping the
areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall perform
various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing the
ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and exercise special
rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and extant boundaries are the
historic/traditional boundaries of the counties of Lancashire and Cornwall
:)

Kind regards,

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

Wochennotiz Nr. 422 14.08.2018–20.08.2018

[Wochennotizteam]

Hallo,

die Wochennotiz Nr. 422 mit vielen wichtigen Neuigkeiten aus der 
OpenStreetMap-Welt ist da:

http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2018/08/wochennotiz-nr-42/

Viel Spaß beim Lesen!
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-26 22:47, Adam Snape wrote:

> I feel I should stress at this point that we do map a fairly similar set of 
> boundaries, the so-called 'ceremonial counties'. These are basically a modern 
> attempt at providing a set of geographic county areas which don't strictly 
> follow county council administrative areas eg. the ceremonial  county of 
> Nottinghamshire actually contains Nottingham! 
> 
> If our mapping of boundary relations should only extend to administrative 
> functions we probably ought to reconsider our inclusion of ceremonial 
> counties. If we can see the value to the database of a county as a geographic 
> concept divorced from administration there might well be a case for including 
> our traditional counties.

Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve a
function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and represent the
jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct representative of the
monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by a different legal process
to the admin areas, and on occasions can diverge for a limited period
until they catch up with changes to admin boundaries. And then there is
the Stockton-on-Tees anomaly...the borough is divided between the
ceremonial counties of Durham and North Yorkshire. 

While we are at it, let's kill off the admin_level=5 regions and
introduce the new combined authorities with a metro mayor at that level.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 26/08/2018 21:47, Adam Snape wrote:



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, > wrote:



I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic'
for
something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as
being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add
boundaries that are "historic" in the sense used used by
proponents of
the traditional English counties.

Mark


I quite agree. Much of the most strident opposition seems to be to 
adding an historical (ie. now obsolete) feature. Where proponents are 
using the term 'historic' they mean 'of long-standing importance'.


It would be helpful if we ignored the fact they're named 'historic'. 
Everything is historic. That new sandwich shop that opened last week on 
the corner? It has a history of one week.


What's important is that they are not current.

I feel I should stress at this point that we do map a fairly similar 
set of boundaries, the so-called 'ceremonial counties'.


My understanding is these are separate from admin boundaries & current?

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

Re: [Talk-de] Wege des WSV an den Kanälen / tagging

[Florian Lohoff]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 09:32:01PM +0200, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
> Am 22.08.2018 um 13:43 schrieb chris66:
> > Habe im Forum eine (inoffizielle) Abstimmung eingestellt:
> 
> Meine dortige, von schon zweien bestechend empfundene Antwort auch hier:
> 
> Ich weiß nicht, wie man da auf service kommen soll ...
> 
> In der Reihe ...
> - Forstwirtschaftsweg,
> - Landwirtschaftsweg,
> - Wasserwirtschaftsweg
> ... gibt es die Gemeinsamkeit "Wirtschaftsweg", also track

Wasserwirtschaft hat aber nichts mit Wasserstraßen zu tun. Habe ich ja
ausführlich dargelegt. Wassewirtschaft ist Wassergewinnung. Hier
geht es um "Firmengelände" nach Aussage der WSV. Das besagen sogar die
Schilder. "Betriebsgelände des WSV - Fußgänger und Radfahrer frei"

Das hat mit Wirtschaftsweg im Sinne der Agrarwirtschaft nichts zu tun.

> - das Erreichen des eigenen Kanals
> ... als bestimmend annehmen, um es als service zu bezeichnen, müsste man ...
> - das Erreichen des eigenen Ackers,
> - das Erreichen des eigenen Waldstücks oder Hochsitzes
> ... auch als Anlass nehmen, alle sonstigen tracks zu service zu machen ...

Nein - Der Kanal ist ein Betriebsgelände des WSV und die Wege sind auf
dem Betriebsgelände und die Nutzung als Fuß-/Radweg wird nur geduldet.

Ein befestigter Weg zum Erreichen eines Feldes ist eben nur für
das erreichen des Feldes und ist häufig in Privatbesitz.


Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-26 22:05, Martin Wynne wrote:

>> I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
>> demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
>> seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
>> consensus in favour of deletion.
> 
> Should this consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?

Normally OSM is very mapper-centric, possibly too much so. If there was
a bit more engagement from the data consumer community we might reach a
more balanced consensus, rather than the current status where we are
often afraid to raise the quality bar for contributors for fear of
frightening them off or something. 

Data modelling is an art Striking the right balance between too much
and not enough detail, what to put in and what to leave out, remembering
that what you want to get out determines what you have to put in. If you
expect to be able to see the distinction between A and B, then the data
to enable that distinction must be in the database directly, or it must
be derivable from data that IS present. Until the tagging is sufficient
for some algorithm to make that distinction, the problem has not been
solved.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge,  wrote:

>
> I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for
> something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as
> being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add
> boundaries that are "historic" in the sense used used by proponents of
> the traditional English counties.
>
> Mark
>

I quite agree. Much of the most strident opposition seems to be to adding
an historical (ie. now obsolete) feature. Where proponents are using the
term 'historic' they mean 'of long-standing importance'.

I feel I should stress at this point that we do map a fairly similar set of
boundaries, the so-called 'ceremonial counties'. These are basically a
modern attempt at providing a set of geographic county areas which don't
strictly follow county council administrative areas eg. the ceremonial
county of Nottinghamshire actually contains Nottingham!

If our mapping of boundary relations should only extend to administrative
functions we probably ought to reconsider our inclusion of ceremonial
counties. If we can see the value to the database of a county as a
geographic concept divorced from administration there might well be a case
for including our traditional counties.

Adam

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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:

> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire, 
> rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the 
> bigger entities.

This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as components of
districts and UA's though. You cannot define a district as the union of
the parishes. There are unparished areas, detached parts and "lands
common" which complicate the model. However I believe every point in the
UK is within some district/UA, and every district is within a county,
giving 100% coverage at that level.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 16:37, Andrew Black wrote:
Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide 
whether it is wanted.

Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.


As a relatively recent newcomer to OSM as a contributor, I was wondering 
about that. Does OSM have the equivalent of Wikipedia's "Articles for 
Deletion" where issues like this can be discussed and, hopefully, a 
consensus reached?


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 20:54, Colin Smale wrote:


There is a wiki page for boundary=historic, which I think makes it
clear that these boundaries should not be in OSM.
I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for 
something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as 
being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add 
boundaries that are "historic" in the sense used used by proponents of 
the traditional English counties.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Disagree. We all add data which abides by certain rules & criteria. We 
vet it ourselves as we're adding it. If a contributor fails to do that, 
they should be expected to justify the reasons. This hasn't occurred. 
That they still exist as historical documents is not a viable argument.


As Dave W. pointed out, it's the thin end of the wedge.

DaveF

On 26/08/2018 19:45, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to 
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for 
those seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a 
clear consensus in favour of deletion.


Kind regards,

Adam

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38 Andrew Black, > wrote:


Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to
decide whether it is wanted.
Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:

I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is
obvious there is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the
other, and as usual the debate just fizzles out with no
conclusion. If we do nothing, the data stays in the database
because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it can't be
documented for fear of legitimising it.

Is this the best we can do?



On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black
mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>> wrote:

I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant
to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will
"never change" is irrelevant. They add no quality to the
database.They should be removed."





On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:

I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We
have some options...

1) remove them all

2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them

3) leave them in the database and document them, even
though they are controversial, to say the least

Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things
that are in OSM to be documented in some way, e.g. in
the wiki

Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM
otherwise espouses, maybe we can go for option 3?

Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be
removed, but then I think it should be the
responsibility of the DWG to make that determination,
communicate the decision, and do the reverts.

On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:


No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic
data, irrelevant to OSM. They are neither "current or
real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
They add no quality to the database.They should be
removed.

DaveF

On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:


It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time
smb001 has been making steady progress across
England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
historic county boundaries being in OSM.

I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging
in the wiki.

Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I
am not aware of?



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 21:05, Martin Wynne wrote:

I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
consensus in favour of deletion.


Should this consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?


Most users will be blissfully unaware that they are there, since they 
won't be rendered in most cases.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 20:35, Martin Wynne wrote:
Rural boundaries can be extraordinarily difficult to map. For example, 
is this:


  https://goo.gl/maps/FtjMZiwNj542

a) a fence,

b) a hedge,

c) a very narrow wood,

d) all three at the same time?


I'd call it a hedgerow. I'm not sure if OSM has a tag for that, distinct 
to a hedge (which is a different thing, despite the similarity in name).



Is the area in front of it

a) grass,

b) highway,

c) both?


Both. It's administratively and legally part of the highway, but it's 
the part of the highway which consists of a grass verge.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Martin Wynne]

I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
consensus in favour of deletion.


Should this consensus be among OSM mappers or OSM users?

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[Mark Goodge]

On 26/08/2018 20:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 08/26/2018 12:46 PM, Colin Smale wrote:

It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
steady progress across England.


I think he shouldn't have done this. He should have argued his case here
and the community should have come to an explicit resolution, rather
than one party creating a "status quo".


I agree.


Personally, I am very much against mapping historic boundaries in OSM,
mostly because the exemption from the "on the ground" rules that apply
to current administrative borders (they are so important that we make an
exception) don't hold for historic boundaries.


And also because there is no single entity otherwise known as the 
"historic" boundaries. Even before the major changes in the 1970s 
(objection to which is what a lot of the passion for the historic 
boundaries stems from), they were not perfectly stable. The Victorians 
were inveterate tinkerers, they adjusted boundaries continually even if 
only at a much more local level than the 1974 reforms.


Any mapped historic boundaries are, therefore, nothing more than a 
snapshot of what they were at a particular moment in time, not a record 
of how things have always been. Even the KML downloads provided by the 
Association of British Counties, the prime cheerleader for the historic 
counties, is offered in two different definitions which match different 
snapshots of the boundaries.


The historic boundaries are useful for a number of historic research and 
educational uses. But they are only properly meaningful when used in the 
form which matches the date being researched. Unless we are going to 
have every variant of the historic boundaries mapped on OSM (in which 
case, we should also map newer but now defunct administrative 
boundaries, such as the county of Avon), there's no real value in 
mapping them in OSM at all. Leave them to dedicated historic projects 
where the data is relevant.


Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-26 20:45, Adam Snape wrote:

> Hi, 
> 
> I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to demonstrate 
> majority support for its retention. I think it is for those seeking to have 
> others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear consensus in favour of 
> deletion.

I haven't done a scientific analysis of all the standpoints expressed on
this thread over the past weeks, but I suspect the support for deletion
is not unanimous, although it may be a majority of the relatively small
number of participants. There is a case being made for retention as
well. BUT, if we are to allow this data to persist in OSM, then we
should at least ensure it is appropriately documented. There is a wiki
page for boundary=historic, which I think makes it clear that these
boundaries should not be in OSM. We will need to find a turn of phrase
for the wiki page to explain that there are exceptions to the general
rule. 

If the data is to remain in the database I would definitely like to see
some kind of metadata added to the relations, with source and either
start/end dates or a single validity date.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] station de rechargement d’hydrogène

[Philippe Verdy]

La pollution des sols par l'hydrogène est quasi nulle, contrairement au gaz
butane/propane. L'hydrogène est très facilement synthétisé dans
l'environnement.

Au pire il va acidifier un peu le sol en cas de dissolution mais la
dissolution est très faible et vite cet acide oxyde le milieu et les
plantes assimilent les résidus. Mais l'hydrogène se dissous très peu dans
l'eau (la part qui se dissous correspond surtout à celle déjà faible des
ions réducteurs présents dans l'eau dont les produits pour la traiter comme
la soude, ou les carbonates également ajoutés pour protéger les
canalisations de l'oxydation). Si l'environnement tire l'hydrogène pour le
"brûler" (sans flamme) dans l'oxygène (et en tirer l'énergie), cela ne
produit que de l'eau pure...

Le principal danger de l'hydrogène n'est pas la pollution mais les fuites
et sa concentration en niches souterraines potentiellement explosives (mais
on a le même risque avec tout gaz carburant). L'hydrogène liquide est très
fortement compressible, il y a le risque de détente de pression car ce
liquide est très volatile: une fuite souterraine peut revenir en surface et
former une nappe de gaz, mais l'hydogène étant léger il s'élège dans l'air
et ne reste pas au sol comme le butane ou le propane, il est donc vite
dissipé et cette nappe ne s'étend pas loin. S'il sélève dans l'atmosphère,
il va se combiner à l'oxygène et "bruler" partiellement par le rayonnement
solaire.

L'autre risque est celui du froid : en cas de fuite, l'évaporation de l'H2
liquide produit un froid intense (plus intense que nombre d'hydrocarbures)
qui congèle ce qui est autour (comme pour l'azote liquide), l'eau de
l'environnement (y compris sa vapeur dans l'air) va former de la glace
(d'eau) qui en gelant peut comprimer les valves, joints ou soudures. Ce
froid peut être la cause de fissures des conduites et valves qui peuvent
rompre brutalement comme du verre en cas de choc très léger: la cassure
produit alors une fuite encore plus importante, une détente brutale du
liquide, un refroidissement encore plus intense ; lors de la casse des
valves et la détente brutale de gaz, si des pièces métalliques
s'entrechoquent il peut y avoir une étincelle suffisante pour produire une
explosion thermique (à condition qu'il y ait assez d'oxygène comburant
autour, mais la pression de la bulle d'hydrogène chasse l'oxygène et le
mélange ne se fait pas aussi facilement qu'avec les hydrocarbures ;
l'inflammation ne se produit qu'en surface de la bulle d'hydrogène, et la
flamme s'étire verticalement très vite et forme un puits de convection,
cette flamme ne se propage pas loin autour et se forme alors surtout en
hauteur et très peu au niveau du sol)

L'H2 est rarement transporté par des conduites souterraines/gazoducs (sauf
dans installations très locales et protégées par un périmètre de sécurité),
mais mais uniquement en bouteilles et containers/citernes à l'extérieur (en
cas de fuite sur une installation, le volume qui sera détendu sera limité,
et on peut détecter la formation de glace près des fuites; normalement pour
les conduites tubulaires il y a des capteurs de pression et de température
: toute baisse de pression ou toute chute de température doit fermer les
valves posées régulièrement pour isoler la section qui fuit).

Les fuites de gazoducs d'hydrocarbures sont fréquentes, et pas faciles à
détecter (en général on ne voit pas de glace se former, la détente gazeuse
des hydrocarbures n'absorbant pas beaucoup d'énergie), le danger de la
formation des nappes explique pourquoi on y ajoute obligatoirement des
arômes très odorants, souvent benzéniques (mais ils réduisent l'efficacité
du carburant; ces arômes sont très polluants et toxiques et se concentrent
dans le sol pour longtemps, ils sont plus difficiles à purger que les
hydrocarbures carburants) ; pour l'H2, il n'y a pas besoin d'ajouter ces
arômes.

Le dim. 26 août 2018 à 20:16, Jérôme Seigneuret 
a écrit :

> Pour ce qui est des stations privé je les ajoute pour tester des
> itinéraires optimisés. Je pense que ça a donc un intérêt. Au niveau
> environnement cela a aussi un intérêt car en car de fuite la pollution des
> sols aura aussi un sacré impact.
>
> Le dim. 26 août 2018 à 19:59, bruno Piguet  a
> écrit :
>
>> Au temps pour moi...
>>
>> Le dim. 26 août 2018 à 14:59,  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> L'h2 est déjà dans la liste, pourquoi l'ajouter ? Car c'est de
>>> l'hydrogene liquide je suppose.
>>>
>>> Jean-Yvon
>>>
>>>
>>> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. August 2018 um 09:56 Uhr
>>> > Von: "bruno Piguet - bruno.pig...@gmail.com"
>>> 
>>> > An: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>>> > Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] (osm: message 2 of 20) station de
>>> rechargement d’hydrogène
>>> >
>>> > Hydrogène n'existe pas sur la page wiki qui décrit la clef fuel (
>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fuel), mais il faut militer
>>> pour
>>> > l'ajouter, car les stations d'hydrogène se répandent en Allemagne (
>>> > https://h2.live/).
>>> >
>>> > Cependant, dans le cas cité ici, si 

[Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

[Martin Wynne]

Rural boundaries can be extraordinarily difficult to map. For example, 
is this:


 https://goo.gl/maps/FtjMZiwNj542

a) a fence,

b) a hedge,

c) a very narrow wood,

d) all three at the same time?

Is the area in front of it

a) grass,

b) highway,

c) both?

(Not mapping from Google, I walked along there recently.)

Often a wood adjoins an open area such as a water meadow. If there is a 
fence between them, the boundary is clear, even if the wood canopy 
overlaps into the meadow. If there isn't a fence, where do you put the 
boundary? The edge of the canopy? The line of tree trunks? Some 
imaginary line between the two?


Some trees are very large and their branches can extend a significant 
distance - across a river for example.


Thanks.

Martin.

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Lieux-dits

[Christian Rogel]

> Le 25 août 2018 à 16:30, marc marc  a écrit :
> 
> Le 23. 08. 18 à 15:13, djakk djakk a écrit :
>> place= administrative_locality 
>> quand on recopie le cadastre ?
> 
> cela ne me semble pas une bonne idée.
> la question est plutôt de se demander son utilité et d'agir en fonction.


J’ai essayé d’expliquer que le concept d’utilité n’a guère de sens quand on 
participe à du crowdsourcing.
On ne demande pas aux autres ce qu’ils croient utile, mais, si cela soulève un 
intérêt chez eux.
On ne cartographie avec un esprit de codeur (même si la cartographie ne peut se 
passer de codage).

> 
> si quelqu'un croit comme dit dans un autre message, que certains 
> notaires ou acheteur utilisent osm pour trouver les lieux dit
> mentionné dans un acte administratif, alors autant discuter
> d'un import national au lieu de faire des milliers de clic.
> sinon il faudrait trouver un moyen de se limiter aux lits
> dit "toujours dit", càd toujours utilisé (j'ignore par exemple
> si on peux avoir un retour des recherches nominatim pour connaître
> les lieux cherché sur osm mais manquants).


Selon mon expérience, et je crois en avoir beaucoup, cela ne serait pas 
intéressant de pratiquer des imports massifs, car la localisation cadastrale 
est assez souvent imprécise ou même obsolète;
Pour les hameaux, il arrive que les noms soient absents, mais, qu’on ne puisse 
les retrouver que dans les noms des regroupements de parcelles.
Autre « piège », les distinctions entre haut et bas (d’en haut, d’abas) ne sont 
plus usitèes si le quartier est urbanisé.

> 
> par contre pour l'instant on est dans le pire des 2
> certains pensent être utile a passer des heures à importer des lieux
> qui ne sont peut-être pas utile (alors qu'un import en bonne et dû forme 
> prendrait moins temps), tout en ayant aucun moyen de masse
> pour valider les erreurs de cet import "distribué"

Encore, cette idée de « l’utilité », qui est d’autant moins pertinente que le 
renseignement des toponymes est peu chronophage par rapport à d’autres 
localisations, comme les arrêts de bus (une dizaine de tags + l'abribus (ou le 
poteau, la poubelle, le pavage tactile).
Là, l’import serait raisonnable, si la géolocalisation est exacte. On n’y est 
pas encore.

Pour moi, les préjugés sur les lieux-dits ressortissent à deux biais : désir 
d’une carte « propre » et manque de familiarité avec la façon dont les gens se 
repèrent hors de grandes villes.
Perso, les références sur les armoires techniques ne sont pas plus »utiles » 
que les lieux-dits.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Lieux-dits

[Christian Rogel]

> Le 25 août 2018 à 16:30, marc marc  a écrit :
> 
> Le 23. 08. 18 à 15:13, djakk djakk a écrit :
>> place= administrative_locality 
>> quand on recopie le cadastre ?
> 
> cela ne me semble pas une bonne idée.
> la question est plutôt de se demander son utilité et d'agir en fonction.


J’ai essayé d’expliquer que le concept d’utilité n’a guère de sens quand on 
participe à du crowdsourcing.
On ne demande pas aux autres ce qu’ils croient utile, mais, si cela soulève un 
intérêt chez eux.
On ne cartographie avec un esprit de codeur (même si la cartographie ne peut se 
passer de codage).

> 
> si quelqu'un croit comme dit dans un autre message, que certains 
> notaires ou acheteur utilisent osm pour trouver les lieux dit
> mentionné dans un acte administratif, alors autant discuter
> d'un import national au lieu de faire des milliers de clic.
> sinon il faudrait trouver un moyen de se limiter aux lits
> dit "toujours dit", càd toujours utilisé (j'ignore par exemple
> si on peux avoir un retour des recherches nominatim pour connaître
> les lieux cherché sur osm mais manquants).


Selon mon expérience, et je crois en avoir beaucoup, cela ne serait pas 
intéressant de pratiquer des imports massifs, car la localisation cadastrale 
est assez souvent imprécise ou même obsolète;
Pour les hameaux, il arrive que les noms soient absents, mais, qu’on ne puisse 
les retrouver que dans les noms des regroupements de parcelles.
Autre « piège », les distinctions entre haut et bas (d’en haut, d’abas) ne sont 
plus usitèes si le quartier est urbanisé.

> 
> par contre pour l'instant on est dans le pire des 2
> certains pensent être utile a passer des heures à importer des lieux
> qui ne sont peut-être pas utile (alors qu'un import en bonne et dû forme 
> prendrait moins temps), tout en ayant aucun moyen de masse
> pour valider les erreurs de cet import "distribué"

Encore, cette idée de « l’utilité », qui est d’autant moins pertinente que le 
renseignement des toponymes est peu chronophage par rapport à d’autres 
localisations, comme les arrêts de bus (une dizaine de tags + l'abribus (ou le 
poteau, la poubelle, le pavage tactile).
Là, l’import serait raisonnable, si la géolocalisation est exacte. On n’y est 
pas encore.

Pour moi, les préjugés sur les lieux-dits ressortissent à deux biais : désir 
d’une carte « propre » et manque de familiarité avec la façon dont les gens se 
repèrent hors de grandes villes.
Perso, les références sur les armoires techniques ne sont pas plus »utiles » 
que les lieux-dits.


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Lieux-dits

[Christian Rogel]

> Le 25 août 2018 à 16:30, marc marc  a écrit :
> 
> Le 23. 08. 18 à 15:13, djakk djakk a écrit :
>> place= administrative_locality 
>> quand on recopie le cadastre ?
> 
> cela ne me semble pas une bonne idée.
> la question est plutôt de se demander son utilité et d'agir en fonction.


J’ai essayé d’expliquer que le concept d’utilité n’a guère de sens quand on 
participe à du crowdsourcing.
On ne demande pas aux autres ce qu’ils croient utile, mais, si cela soulève un 
intérêt chez eux.
On ne cartographie avec un esprit de codeur (même si la cartographie ne peut se 
passer de codage).

> 
> si quelqu'un croit comme dit dans un autre message, que certains 
> notaires ou acheteur utilisent osm pour trouver les lieux dit
> mentionné dans un acte administratif, alors autant discuter
> d'un import national au lieu de faire des milliers de clic.
> sinon il faudrait trouver un moyen de se limiter aux lits
> dit "toujours dit", càd toujours utilisé (j'ignore par exemple
> si on peux avoir un retour des recherches nominatim pour connaître
> les lieux cherché sur osm mais manquants).


Selon mon expérience, et je crois en avoir beaucoup, cela ne serait pas 
intéressant de pratiquer des imports massifs, car la localisation cadastrale 
est assez souvent imprécise ou même obsolète;
Pour les hameaux, il arrive que les noms soient absents, mais, qu’on ne puisse 
les retrouver que dans les noms des regroupements de parcelles.
Autre « piège », les distinctions entre haut et bas (d’en haut, d’abas) ne sont 
plus usitèes si le quartier est urbanisé.

> 
> par contre pour l'instant on est dans le pire des 2
> certains pensent être utile a passer des heures à importer des lieux
> qui ne sont peut-être pas utile (alors qu'un import en bonne et dû forme 
> prendrait moins temps), tout en ayant aucun moyen de masse
> pour valider les erreurs de cet import "distribué"

Encore, cette idée de « l’utilité », qui est d’autant moins pertinente que le 
renseignement des toponymes est peu chronophage par rapport à d’autres 
localisations, comme les arrêts de bus (une dizaine de tags + l'abribus (ou le 
poteau, la poubelle, le pavage tactile).
Là, l’import serait raisonnable, si la géolocalisation est exacte. On n’y est 
pas encore.

Pour moi, les préjugés sur les lieux-dits ressortissent à deux biais : désir 
d’une carte « propre » et manque de familiarité avec la façon dont les gens se 
repèrent hors de grandes villes.
Perso, les références sur les armoires techniques ne sont pas plus »utiles » 
que les lieux-dits.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania

[David Woolley]

On 26/08/18 20:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:

I think we should all think twice before duplicating and triplicating
data in OSM just because there's yet another boundary that includes
Hampshire. We should find a way to reference existing boundaries instead
of copying them.


It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so 
Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object 
referenced in the bigger entities.


On the original question, I would say that the thin end of the wedge is 
going in and needs to be stopped.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] boundary mania (was: 'historic' county boundaries added to the database)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 08/26/2018 12:46 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
> steady progress across England. 

I think he shouldn't have done this. He should have argued his case here
and the community should have come to an explicit resolution, rather
than one party creating a "status quo".

Personally, I am very much against mapping historic boundaries in OSM,
mostly because the exemption from the "on the ground" rules that apply
to current administrative borders (they are so important that we make an
exception) don't hold for historic boundaries.

But there's a general problem with boundary relations getting out of
hand. Take this little unnamed waterway here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/614127384

which is meanwhile a member of 19 different boundary relations:

* South East England European Parliamant Constituency
* The admin_level=8 boundaries New Forest and East Dorset
* New Forest West UK Parliament Constituency (4152802)
* Alderholt Civil Parish and Damerham Civil Parish
* Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire Downs AONB (2664452)
* Dorset historic county and Wiltshire historic county
* an administrative region called "South West England" and an
administrative region called "South East England", both admin_level 5
* The Hampshire Constabulary boundary ("boundary=police") which exists
twice (relations 3999378, 8188274) if any proof was needed that this is
getting out of hand even for those who added it
* The Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service boundary ("boundary=fire")
* Hampshire County and Dorset County
* Hampshire Ceremonial County and Dorset Ceremonial County
* A statistical boundary called "Hampshire and Isle of Wight"

I have not analyzed these in detail and I won't make an attempt to tell
the readers of this mailing list which of these make sense to have in
your country. But I have a hunch that, say, the statistical boundary
"Hampshire and Isle of Wight" is not actually defined as a boundary. I
have a hunch that if the boundary of Hampshire were to change, then this
statistical area would also change - because it is *not* defined by
geometry, but just by reference to existing administrative boundaries.

I think we should all think twice before duplicating and triplicating
data in OSM just because there's yet another boundary that includes
Hampshire. We should find a way to reference existing boundaries instead
of copying them.

Practically all of the relations above have version numbers in the
hundreds, version numbers that have again increased when smb1001 did his
historic boundary mapping - of course he hasn't changed anything in the
statistical boundary "Hampshire and Isle of Wight" but still he's listed
as last modifier of this relation just because he has just split up a
way that was part of the Hampshire boundary.

I think if we continue heaping ever more boundary relations onto what we
have, we'll make things less and less understandable, less and less
maintainable.

But that's a general remark, not *specificall* aimed at history county
boundaries.

Bye
Frederik

PS: Of course, public transport relations are an even bigger culprit.
There are a handful of ways in OSM in England that are member of more
then 100 relations, mostly bus routes as far as I can see.

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
consensus in favour of deletion.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38 Andrew Black, 
wrote:

> Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide
> whether it is wanted.
> Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is obvious there
>> is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and as usual the
>> debate just fizzles out with no conclusion. If we do nothing, the data
>> stays in the database because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it
>> can't be documented for fear of legitimising it.
>>
>> Is this the best we can do?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black <
>> andrewdbl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They
>>> are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
>>> They add no quality to the database.They should be removed."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale  wrote:
>>>
 I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options...

 1) remove them all

 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them

 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
 controversial, to say the least

 Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM
 to be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki

 Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
 maybe we can go for option 3?


 Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then
 I think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
 determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.

 On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:

 No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant
 to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change"
 is irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.

 DaveF

 On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:

 It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
 steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
 historic county boundaries being in OSM.

 I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.

 Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?


 ___
 Talk-GB mailing 
 listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] suivit de l'intégration des batiments dans osm

[Jérôme Seigneuret]

>
> >   - Noir : Invalidé. Quelqu'un a signalé l'élément comme mal renseigné
> >   - Rouge : Critique. Jamais validé et dernière modification ancienne
> >   - Orange : Moyenne. Jamais validé et dernière modification récente ou
> > déjà validé et dernière modification ancienne
> >   - Vert : Faible. Déjà validé et dernière modification récente
>
> j'ai toujours été étonné que le noir est pire que rouge.
>
C'est des règles de sémiologie. Dans ce cas c'est généré en TLS (tu joues
sur 2 vecteurs  Teinte et Luminance)
Vert Jaune Orange Rouge > vecteur de teinte
Blanc et Noir > vecteur de luminance

Le blanc (ou le gris) étant l'absence de données ou la valeur 0 dans les
règles de sémiologie (luminance au max)
Si l'on ajout la luminance comme vecteur on peut ajouter des paliers aux
couleurs avec une teinte claire et une teinte foncé. Plus sombre par
opposition la valeur 0
Donc le noir et le palier ultime en valeur max quand on utilise la luminance

mais sinon pour le cadastre cela pourrait donner :
> noir : quelqu'un a signalé la zone comme mal renseigné (bâtiment
> nouveau/modifié/détruit ou géométrie trop approximative)
> rouge : personne n'a téléchargé le cadastre de cette zone
> orange : téléchargement récent mais intégration non confirmée ou
> confirmation ancienne
> vert : validation récente.
>
Après j'aurai pas mis le noir pour signalé un problème (j'aurais mis vert
jaune orange rouge)
rouge étant vraiment assimilé comme un problème

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

Re: [Talk-cz] A-GPS Re: Zkusenosti s openstreetcam vs mapovani rychlosti na silnicich

[Marián Kyral]

On 8/26/18 1:26 PM, majka wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:28, Marián Kyral  > wrote:
>
> On 8/26/18 8:52 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Ahoj!
> >
> >> Taky jsem na to chtěl použít svůj předchozí telefon, ale ten
> bez SIM
> >> karty nebyl schopen zafixovat GPS, takže smůla. Telefon dostala
> dcerka a
> >> u té dosloužil.
> > Telefon bez SIM karty nema asistenci na GPS, takze ta GPS funguje
> > ... o poznani hur.
> >
> > Ale fungovat by mela, staci najit peknou velkou louku, telefon
> polozit
> > doprostred, par kroku se vzdalit a pockat 15 minut :-).
>
> A-GPS data stažena, ale ani po dvou hodinách se nechytl :-(
>
> Asi moc malá louka.
>
> Marián
>
>
> Pokud je to Android:
>
> Je zapnutá "vysoká přesnost" a vyhledávání sítí WIFI? 
> Protože největší rozdíl věšinou není aGPS - ta pomáhá GPS samotné -
> ale většinou zaměření podle sítí, jak mobilních operátorů tak i WIFI.
> Funguje to i bez SIM. V případě potíží je pak třeba fix dělat předem,
> v dosahu WIFI. Tj. doma / na benzínce / v obchodě se napojit na WIFI,
> pro jistotu nechat stáhnout almanach (umí třeba Locus) a nechat udělat
> fix. Pak nechat GPS (navigace / Locus / ...) běžet - a až do odpojení
> GPS funguje bez problémů. Bohužel na louce bývá problém nějakou
> otevřenou síť najít, ale "vysoká přesnost" se mi už chytla i uprostřed
> lesa, kde to vzalo WIFI bod patrně z nějakého zařízení vodárny.
>
> Mobil bez SIM pro navigaci používám bežně. U starého mobilu s
> problematickou GPS navíc pomáhalo nejprve spustit mapy Google, nechat
> je najít fix a pak teprve spouštět preferovanou navigaci - mapy Google
> jsou zkrátka lépe optimalizované ohledně toho, jak si povídají se
> systémem.
>

Taky jsem si říkal, že by to mělo fungovat, ale prostě to nefungovalo. A
telefon už nemám, takže už to nevyzkouším.

Marián


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] station de rechargement d’hydrogène

[Jérôme Seigneuret]

Pour ce qui est des stations privé je les ajoute pour tester des
itinéraires optimisés. Je pense que ça a donc un intérêt. Au niveau
environnement cela a aussi un intérêt car en car de fuite la pollution des
sols aura aussi un sacré impact.

Le dim. 26 août 2018 à 19:59, bruno Piguet  a
écrit :

> Au temps pour moi...
>
> Le dim. 26 août 2018 à 14:59,  a écrit :
>
>> L'h2 est déjà dans la liste, pourquoi l'ajouter ? Car c'est de
>> l'hydrogene liquide je suppose.
>>
>> Jean-Yvon
>>
>>
>> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. August 2018 um 09:56 Uhr
>> > Von: "bruno Piguet - bruno.pig...@gmail.com"
>> 
>> > An: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> > Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] (osm: message 2 of 20) station de
>> rechargement d’hydrogène
>> >
>> > Hydrogène n'existe pas sur la page wiki qui décrit la clef fuel (
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fuel), mais il faut militer
>> pour
>> > l'ajouter, car les stations d'hydrogène se répandent en Allemagne (
>> > https://h2.live/).
>> >
>> > Cependant, dans le cas cité ici, si c'est la pompe privée d'une seule
>> > flotte de taxi, sa cartographie précise n'a pas encore beaucoup
>> d'intérêt.
>> >
>> > Bruno.
>> >
>> > Le mar. 14 août 2018 à 11:21, Nicolas Bétheuil  a
>> écrit :
>> >
>> > > Bonjour,
>> > >
>> > > Je viens de découvrir qu'il y a une borne de rechargement d’hydrogène
>> > > dans Paris. Elle semble être réservée pour des taxis d'une certaine
>> > > marque.
>> > >
>> > >
>> http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2015/12/04/20005-20151204ARTFIG00015-une-station-hydrogene-au-coeur-de-paris.php
>> > >
>> > > Je suis surpris de voir que depuis 2015 personne n'a ajouté la
>> station.
>> > > Ce n'est que de l'expérimentation visiblement. Pas de moyen de
>> > > paiement par exemple.
>> > >
>> > > Ça a du sens à ajouter dans OSM ?
>> > > Néanmoins taguer ça comme une station service me parait abusif. Ça
>> > > m'étonnerais que les applications qui afficherait les stations service
>> > > filtre par la dispo des carburants du coup ça pourrait afficher de
>> > > fausses informations.
>> > >
>> > > Vous en pensez quoi ?
>> > >
>> > > ___
>> > > Talk-fr mailing list
>> > > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>> > >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-fr mailing list
>> > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>> >
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] station de rechargement d’hydrogène

[bruno Piguet]

Au temps pour moi...

Le dim. 26 août 2018 à 14:59,  a écrit :

> L'h2 est déjà dans la liste, pourquoi l'ajouter ? Car c'est de l'hydrogene
> liquide je suppose.
>
> Jean-Yvon
>
>
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. August 2018 um 09:56 Uhr
> > Von: "bruno Piguet - bruno.pig...@gmail.com"
> 
> > An: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> > Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] (osm: message 2 of 20) station de
> rechargement d’hydrogène
> >
> > Hydrogène n'existe pas sur la page wiki qui décrit la clef fuel (
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fuel), mais il faut militer pour
> > l'ajouter, car les stations d'hydrogène se répandent en Allemagne (
> > https://h2.live/).
> >
> > Cependant, dans le cas cité ici, si c'est la pompe privée d'une seule
> > flotte de taxi, sa cartographie précise n'a pas encore beaucoup
> d'intérêt.
> >
> > Bruno.
> >
> > Le mar. 14 août 2018 à 11:21, Nicolas Bétheuil  a
> écrit :
> >
> > > Bonjour,
> > >
> > > Je viens de découvrir qu'il y a une borne de rechargement d’hydrogène
> > > dans Paris. Elle semble être réservée pour des taxis d'une certaine
> > > marque.
> > >
> > >
> http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2015/12/04/20005-20151204ARTFIG00015-une-station-hydrogene-au-coeur-de-paris.php
> > >
> > > Je suis surpris de voir que depuis 2015 personne n'a ajouté la station.
> > > Ce n'est que de l'expérimentation visiblement. Pas de moyen de
> > > paiement par exemple.
> > >
> > > Ça a du sens à ajouter dans OSM ?
> > > Néanmoins taguer ça comme une station service me parait abusif. Ça
> > > m'étonnerais que les applications qui afficherait les stations service
> > > filtre par la dispo des carburants du coup ça pourrait afficher de
> > > fausses informations.
> > >
> > > Vous en pensez quoi ?
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Talk-fr mailing list
> > > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> > >
> > ___
> > Talk-fr mailing list
> > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> >
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

[Talk-de] Erinnerung Berliner OSM Hackweekend 15.&16.09.2018

[Christopher Lorenz]

Hallo,

zur Erinnerung möchte ich auf das Berliner OSM-Hack-Weekend
am 15./16.9.2018 aufmerksam machen. Alle Infos dazu gibt es
auf der Wiki- und Meetup-Seite [1][2].

Das Wichtigste:

Wann:  15./16.09.2018 jeweils ab 10:00 Uhr
Wo: mindbox Berlin, Holzmarktstraße 6-9, 10179 Berlin
ÖPNV: S+U-Jannowitzbrücke
Karte:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1244345598#map=19/52.51439/13.41968

Am Freitagabend 14.9. trifft sich die Berliner und Brandenburger
Community zum
Stammtisch ab 19:00 Uhr im Resonanz [3], hier sind auch alle Gäste des
Hackweekends willkommen.

Samstag ab 10:00 startet das Hack Weekend in der mindbox. Snacks und
Getränke sowie Pizza werden zur Verfügung gestellt.

Am Samstag werden wir ab 19:00 Uhr uns in einer Lokalität treffen und
den Abend
ausklingen lassen.

Viele Grüße,

Christopher

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Berlin_Hack_Weekend_September_2018
[2] https://www.meetup.com/de-DE/OSM-Berlin-Brandenburg/events/251912823/
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Berlin/Stammtisch



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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Andrew Black]

Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide
whether it is wanted.
Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale  wrote:

> I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is obvious there
> is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and as usual the
> debate just fizzles out with no conclusion. If we do nothing, the data
> stays in the database because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it
> can't be documented for fear of legitimising it.
>
> Is this the best we can do?
>
>
>
> On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black 
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They
>> are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
>> They add no quality to the database.They should be removed."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options...
>>>
>>> 1) remove them all
>>>
>>> 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them
>>>
>>> 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
>>> controversial, to say the least
>>>
>>> Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM to
>>> be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
>>>
>>> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
>>> maybe we can go for option 3?
>>>
>>>
>>> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then I
>>> think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
>>> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
>>>
>>> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to
>>> OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is
>>> irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.
>>>
>>> DaveF
>>>
>>> On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:
>>>
>>> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
>>> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
>>> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
>>>
>>> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
>>>
>>> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing 
>>> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 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-in] Importing Kerala, India road network from Facebook's ML generated data

[muzirian]

In late July 2018, severe flooding affected the Indian state of Kerala due
to unusually high rainfall during the monsoon season.
It was the worst flooding in Kerala in nearly a century.Over 373 people
died within a fortnight, while at least 280,679 people were evacuated. It
is estimated that 1,247,496 people have found shelter in various relief
camps.

Disaster response websites using OpenStreetMap are the following:
* Microid.in/keralaflood is used to identify flooded roads -
https://www.microid.in/keralaflood/
* Keralarescue.in/map used to visualise rescue requests -
https://keralarescue.in/map/ , https://process.keralarescue.in/rescue

Facebook released road data generated with machine learning in Kerala  and
they offered help to mobilize their team to the data in OSM.
Please see the discussion here:  https://github.com/osm-in/mapping/issues/1

Our proposed plan is to allow FB mapping team to do the initial import
using their internal tools that takes care of conflation, connectivity
fixes, etc.
OSM-India community will then validate the imported data focusing on the
highway tagging following the India road tagging scheme:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Tags/Highway

Looking forward to your comments and suggestions.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome.  It is obvious there is 
not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and as usual the debate 
just fizzles out with no conclusion. If we do nothing, the data stays in the 
database because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it can't be documented 
for fear of legitimising it. 

Is this the best we can do?



On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black  
wrote:
>I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They
>are
>neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
>They add no quality to the database.They should be removed."
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale 
>wrote:
>
>> I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some
>options...
>>
>> 1) remove them all
>>
>> 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them
>>
>> 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
>> controversial, to say the least
>>
>> Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM
>to
>> be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
>>
>> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
>> maybe we can go for option 3?
>>
>>
>> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but
>then I
>> think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
>> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
>>
>> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
>>
>> No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant
>to
>> OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never
>change" is
>> irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be
>removed.
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>> On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been
>making
>> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to
>these
>> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
>>
>> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
>>
>> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing
>listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Andrew Black]

I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They are
neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
They add no quality to the database.They should be removed."





On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale  wrote:

> I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options...
>
> 1) remove them all
>
> 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them
>
> 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
> controversial, to say the least
>
> Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM to
> be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
>
> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
> maybe we can go for option 3?
>
>
> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then I
> think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
>
> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
>
> No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to
> OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is
> irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.
>
> DaveF
>
> On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
>
> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
>
> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] Remote Sensing / DOP / DIY people

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

I've built from scratch and tested an aircraft based on Kline-Fogleman 
modified KFm2 airfoil. It's wingspan is 75 cm (aprox. 30 inches). The 
cost of the airframe is less that 5 USD (a sheet of foam-board 2 USD, a 
stick of hot glue 50 cents, the packing tape 1 USD, two zip ties 20 
cents.).


Here is the link to a small article with photos and a video: 
http://ausleuchtung.ch/kfm2/ , which I wrote. This airframe is dead 
simple, it takes three-four hours to built, less if one did it before.


I scraped motor, two servos, receiver from a retired glider, but if 
bought new they would cost about 100 USD. However, these electronic 
devices are reusable and practically unbreakable.


Best regards,

Oleksiy


>Still cant beat ~50$ for a good kite pieces of string and a block of wood

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:19 AM Florian Lohoff,  wrote:

> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:12:49PM -0400, James wrote:
> > cheaper and simpler would be a kite and a picavet system. I was looking
> > into building a FPV, but just getting it to fly in a pattern gets
> expensive
> > quickly(even building from scratch)
>
> INav on a flight controller like the Omnibus F4 should be able to do
> that for you.
>
> Flo
> --
> Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
>  UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 12:59 +0100, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > They add no quality to the database.
> 
> They do for someone wanting to know where the historic boundaries
> lie.

In that case they would be more appropriate in OHM.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

[talk-au] ACT, Australia Buildings Import

[Andrew Harvey]

I'm interested in seeing buildings in ACT Australia imported into
OpenStreetMap in line with the Import Guidelines
.

At this stage I'm seeking buy in from the local community as well as
feedback on the plan.

The data is available from http://actmapi.act.gov.au/datadownload/ and is
CC BY 4.0 licensed and the OSMF CC BY waiver has been completed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:ACT_Government_20180314_Permission_to_Incorporate_CCBY_data_into_OSM.PDF
.

1. Attribute Mapping

The existing building classifications don't exactly line up with OSM
building tags and this is something easy to contribute via survey so most
buildings have the generic building=yes tag or building=residential tag.

source:geometry=ACTMapi has been added to each feature.

2.  Import Plan

I've done some processing to the source data at
https://github.com/andrewharvey/au-actmapi-osm-import the .osm file is at
https://tianjara.net/data/act_building_footprints.osm.xz

The import would use a dedicated imports account and not would either use
the geometry replace tool in JOSM or not replace existing buildings. I'm
keen for any feedback from the local ACT mappers.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[Talk-ca] hebdoOSM Nº 422 2018-08-14-2018-08-20

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 422 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/10636/

Bonne lecture !

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] station de rechargement d’hydrogène

[osm . sanspourriel]

L'h2 est déjà dans la liste, pourquoi l'ajouter ? Car c'est de l'hydrogene 
liquide je suppose.

Jean-Yvon


> Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. August 2018 um 09:56 Uhr
> Von: "bruno Piguet - bruno.pig...@gmail.com" 
> 
> An: talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk-fr] (osm: message 2 of 20) station de rechargement 
> d’hydrogène
>
> Hydrogène n'existe pas sur la page wiki qui décrit la clef fuel (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fuel), mais il faut militer pour
> l'ajouter, car les stations d'hydrogène se répandent en Allemagne (
> https://h2.live/).
> 
> Cependant, dans le cas cité ici, si c'est la pompe privée d'une seule
> flotte de taxi, sa cartographie précise n'a pas encore beaucoup d'intérêt.
> 
> Bruno.
> 
> Le mar. 14 août 2018 à 11:21, Nicolas Bétheuil  a écrit :
> 
> > Bonjour,
> >
> > Je viens de découvrir qu'il y a une borne de rechargement d’hydrogène
> > dans Paris. Elle semble être réservée pour des taxis d'une certaine
> > marque.
> >
> > http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2015/12/04/20005-20151204ARTFIG00015-une-station-hydrogene-au-coeur-de-paris.php
> >
> > Je suis surpris de voir que depuis 2015 personne n'a ajouté la station.
> > Ce n'est que de l'expérimentation visiblement. Pas de moyen de
> > paiement par exemple.
> >
> > Ça a du sens à ajouter dans OSM ?
> > Néanmoins taguer ça comme une station service me parait abusif. Ça
> > m'étonnerais que les applications qui afficherait les stations service
> > filtre par la dispo des carburants du coup ça pourrait afficher de
> > fausses informations.
> >
> > Vous en pensez quoi ?
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-fr mailing list
> > Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
> >
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>


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

[OSM-talk-fr] hebdoOSM Nº 422 2018-08-14-2018-08-20

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 422 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/10636/

Bonne lecture !

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

[Talk-ht] hebdoOSM Nº 422 2018-08-14-2018-08-20

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 422 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/10636/

Bonne lecture !

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ht mailing list
Talk-ht@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ht
Notez! Vous pouvez utiliser Google Translate (http://translate.google.com) pour 
traduire les messages.

[Talk-africa] hebdoOSM Nº 422 2018-08-14-2018-08-20

[theweekly . osm]

Bonjour,

Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 422 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître 
*en français*. Un condensé à retrouver sur :

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/10636/

Bonne lecture !

hebdoOSM ? 
Qui : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
Où : 
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

Re: [Talk-es] ¿Ha desaparecido la capa Catastro?

[Héctor Ochoa]

También PNOA, he puesto un issue en el repositorio de iD:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5250
Saludos

El dom., 26 ago. 2018 a las 14:17, Fco. Javier González Jiménez (<
fjavier...@hotmail.com>) escribió:

> Hola,
>
>
>
> Veo que hoy ha desaparecido la capa del Catastro del editor web.
>
>
>
> ¿Sabéis algo de que ocurre?
>
>
>
> Saludos
> ___
> Talk-es mailing list
> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
>


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

[Talk-es] ¿Ha desaparecido la capa Catastro?

[Fco . Javier González Jiménez]

Hola,

Veo que hoy ha desaparecido la capa del Catastro del editor web.

¿Sabéis algo de que ocurre?

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

Re: [Talk-pt] Talk-pt Digest, Vol 103, Issue 4

[Nuno Caldeira]

Devem permanecer. É o que está na legislação da classificação da rede 
viária DL222/98


https://www.amt-autoridade.pt/media/1269/decreto-lei-nº-2221998-de-17-de-julho.pdf 




Às 13:00 de 26/08/2018, talk-pt-requ...@openstreetmap.org escreveu:

Send Talk-pt mailing list submissions to
talk-pt@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-pt-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-pt-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-pt digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. A22 / IC4 / IP1 nat_ref (Alexandre Moleiro)
2. Re: A22 / IC4 / IP1 nat_ref (Marcos Oliveira)


--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 13:29:57 +0100
From: Alexandre Moleiro 
To: "Lista de discuss,o para Portugal"

Subject: [Talk-pt] A22 / IC4 / IP1 nat_ref
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Boas.

Na A22 e respectivos acessos já não existem placas com as referências IC4
ou IP1, faz sentido manter a tag nat_ref nesses troços com as referências
IC4 ou IP1 ?

Os routers usam essas referências mas quem for a conduzir não vai ver
nenhuma placa com IC4 ou IP1.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

I think there's certainly an argument for including the traditional
boundaries. There's certainly enough people arguing the pros for us to say
that there's no clear consensus against it. As you say, there is a certain
culture of tolerance within OSM that would be at odds with removal.

I do, however, take some issue with the source chosen. The OS's dataset is
based upon the administrative counties formed after the local government
act 1888. Whilst no doubt very useful for genealogistst or those with an
interest in 1888-1974 administrative history, the LGA really marked the
first significant divergence between counties as administrative entities
and their traditional boundaries.

As the aim of the exercise would appear to be mapping the traditional
boundaries rather than mapping obsolete administrative boundaries, I echo
the earlier suggestion that the Historic Counties Trust's dataset would be
a more appropriate source.

Kind regards,

Adam



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 11:47 Colin Smale,  wrote:

> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
>
> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
>
> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
> ___
> 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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Martin Wynne]

They add no quality to the database.


They do for someone wanting to know where the historic boundaries lie.

For example in cross-referencing the old OS County Series maps, see for 
example:


 https://maps.nls.uk/view/121856992#zoom=3=8515=14122=BT

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options... 

1) remove them all 

2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them 

3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
controversial, to say the least 

Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM to
be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki 

Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
maybe we can go for option 3?

Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then I
think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts. 

On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:

> No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. 
> They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is 
> irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.
> 
> DaveF
> 
> On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making 
>> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these 
>> historic county boundaries being in OSM. 
>> 
>> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki. 
>> 
>> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of? 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-es] Corregir Metro de Granada

[Carlos Antonio Rivera]

Buenos días,
he estado recopilando datos de OSM y el Metro de Granada.

Las dudas que tenemos están entre tram y light_rail, creo que subway está
más que descartado.
Adjunto 2 documentos con la información recogida.
A continuación destaco algunas de las características del Metro de Granada
que pueden ayudar a diferenciar entre tranvía y metro ligero:

   -

   Mayormente circula en vía por la superficie y junto a la carretera, no
   en vía separada.
   -

   Frecuentemente hay 2 vías cercanas paralelas, una para cada sentido.
   -

   Cruces a nivel sin protección.
   -

   Se conduce a la vista. Desconozco la señalización que hay a lo largo del
   recorrido.
   -

   Velocidad de conducción menor a la de un autobús.
   -

   Vía no elevada sobre el suelo.
   -

   No tiene tercer riel.


Para mí las características se parecen más a las de tram que light_rail.
Me parecen muy interesantes las recomendaciones que aparecen en
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dlight_rail y que he
adjuntado al documento de la parte de OSM.

Gracias por los comentarios anteriores, espero vuestras opiniones sobre
esto, a ver si se va aclarando y se deja en condiciones.

Un saludo

El dom., 26 ago. 2018 a las 9:08, Daniel Callejas Sevilla (<
daniel.callejas.sevi...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> Hola.
>
> El «metro» de Granada circula en todo su recorrido por vías exclusivas, ya
> sea en superficie o en subterráneo, y a excepción únicamente de los lugares
> donde se cruza con otras cosas, en los que tiene prioridad en los
> semáforos. Por este criterio, no debería ser tram, puesto que la definición
> de tram implica que las vías comparten la calzada con otros tipos de
> transporte.
>
> Sin embargo, sus paradas (en superficie) son simples marquesinas con una
> máquina para vender billetes, sin edificación en las pistas de superficie,
> que separe al público de las vías. Se conduce de forma «visual» (sin
> señales de vía libre como las de los trenes). Y, en superficie, circula a
> una velocidad igual o inferior a un autobús urbano dado que el conductor va
> en modo visual y tiene que poder parar en cualquier momento para evitar
> accidentes (peatones, bicicletas, coches, ... atravesando las vías). Por
> estos criterios (especialmente la ausencia de señales ferroviarias y la
> velocidad), no debería ser light rail.
>
> Personalmente yo lo etiquetaría como tram, que es a lo que más se
> aproxima, y sugiero una etiqueta adicional (quizá access=designated?) para
> indicar que las vías no son transitables con ningún otro medio de
> transporte.
>
> Un saludo,
> Daniel.
>
> Ps me he basado en el contenido de la wiki en inglés:
> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dtram
> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dlight_rail
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 20:06  wrote:
>
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 20:05:45 +0200
>> From: Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso 
>> To: winfi...@gmail.com,  Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-es] Corregir Metro de Granada
>> Message-ID:
>> > we_suzmlr_8zx...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hola.
>>
>> La duda no es con metro sino con metro ligero que no es lo mismo. El metro
>> ligero va tanto por superficie como subterraneo. Como metro creo que no
>> esta etiquetado en ningún momento. Si lo esta estamos tardando en
>> cambiarlo
>> jeje.
>>
>> La duda esta en si usar metro ligero (tren ligero) o tranvía.
>>
>> En sitios como la wikipedia se considera metro ligero
>> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_de_Granada pero tampoco esta claro.
>> La
>> distinción entre uno y otro no es muy grande.
>>
>> Saludos.
>>
>> El sáb., 25 ago. 2018 a las 19:55, Jo () escribió:
>>
>> > Hola Carlos,
>> >
>> > Lo he mirado un poco y no entiendo muy bien porqué lo llaman metro. Solo
>> > hay un corto pedazo que es subterraneo.
>> >
>> > Pienso que es mejor utilisar railway=tram en las vias como en las
>> > relaciones.
>> >
>> > Si alguna vez tienes ganas de discutir el mapeo de transporte público en
>> > Granada, o quieres una demonstración como el plugin PT_Assistant de JOSM
>> > puede ser útil para mapearlo, podemos hacer un Google Hangout.
>> >
>> > Saludos,
>> >
>> > Polyglot
>> >
>> > Op za 25 aug. 2018 om 15:26 schreef kapazao :
>> >
>> >> Hola a todos,
>> >> mi proposición es la de corregir toda la estructura del Metro de
>> Granada
>> >> en
>> >> OSM.
>> >>
>> >> Hace unos meses realicé algunas ediciones en este al ver que algunos
>> >> tramos
>> >> de vía estaban establecidos como light_rail y otros como tram.
>> >> Los establecí todos a tram para unificar, tras estudiar las diferencias
>> >> entre las etiquetas de transporte ferroviario.
>> >> Puede verse en el conjunto de cambios
>> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58554501
>> >>   , donde hablé con
>> el
>> >> usuario /sanchi/ del tema, pero quedó la cosa en el aire.
>> >>
>> >> No hay por ahora una 

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to 
OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" 
is irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.


DaveF

On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:


It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been 
making steady progress across England. I take it that means 
acquiescence to these historic county boundaries being in OSM.


I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.

Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?



___
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-cz] A-GPS Re: Zkusenosti s openstreetcam vs mapovani rychlosti na silnicich

[majka]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:28, Marián Kyral  wrote:

> On 8/26/18 8:52 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Ahoj!
> >
> >> Taky jsem na to chtěl použít svůj předchozí telefon, ale ten bez SIM
> >> karty nebyl schopen zafixovat GPS, takže smůla. Telefon dostala dcerka a
> >> u té dosloužil.
> > Telefon bez SIM karty nema asistenci na GPS, takze ta GPS funguje
> > ... o poznani hur.
> >
> > Ale fungovat by mela, staci najit peknou velkou louku, telefon polozit
> > doprostred, par kroku se vzdalit a pockat 15 minut :-).
>
> A-GPS data stažena, ale ani po dvou hodinách se nechytl :-(
>
> Asi moc malá louka.
>
> Marián
>

Pokud je to Android:

Je zapnutá "vysoká přesnost" a vyhledávání sítí WIFI?
Protože největší rozdíl věšinou není aGPS - ta pomáhá GPS samotné - ale
většinou zaměření podle sítí, jak mobilních operátorů tak i WIFI. Funguje
to i bez SIM. V případě potíží je pak třeba fix dělat předem, v dosahu
WIFI. Tj. doma / na benzínce / v obchodě se napojit na WIFI, pro jistotu
nechat stáhnout almanach (umí třeba Locus) a nechat udělat fix. Pak nechat
GPS (navigace / Locus / ...) běžet - a až do odpojení GPS funguje bez
problémů. Bohužel na louce bývá problém nějakou otevřenou síť najít, ale
"vysoká přesnost" se mi už chytla i uprostřed lesa, kde to vzalo WIFI bod
patrně z nějakého zařízení vodárny.

Mobil bez SIM pro navigaci používám bežně. U starého mobilu s
problematickou GPS navíc pomáhalo nejprve spustit mapy Google, nechat je
najít fix a pak teprve spouštět preferovanou navigaci - mapy Google jsou
zkrátka lépe optimalizované ohledně toho, jak si povídají se systémem.

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

Re: [Talk-it] quando wikipedia sbaglia

[Dario Crespi]

Ciao. È sufficiente modificare le coordinate qui:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3144282

Dario

Il giorno dom 26 ago 2018 alle ore 12:40 claudio62PG  ha
scritto:

> Sto mappando qui a Perugia  l'Ipogeo di san Manno guardando su wikipedia la
> mappa (OSM) lo mette al centro dello stadio del Perugia
> Ipogeo 
>
> changeset 62003494 
>
> Che fare per correggere la situazione?
> ciao
> Claudio
>
>
>
> --
> 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-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Colin Smale]

It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to
these historic county boundaries being in OSM. 

I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki. 

Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-it] quando wikipedia sbaglia

[claudio62PG]

Sto mappando qui a Perugia  l'Ipogeo di san Manno guardando su wikipedia la
mappa (OSM) lo mette al centro dello stadio del Perugia  
Ipogeo   

changeset 62003494   

Che fare per correggere la situazione?
ciao
Claudio



--
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-cz] A-GPS Re: Zkusenosti s openstreetcam vs mapovani rychlosti na silnicich

[Marián Kyral]

On 8/26/18 8:52 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Ahoj!
>
>> Taky jsem na to chtěl použít svůj předchozí telefon, ale ten bez SIM
>> karty nebyl schopen zafixovat GPS, takže smůla. Telefon dostala dcerka a
>> u té dosloužil.
> Telefon bez SIM karty nema asistenci na GPS, takze ta GPS funguje
> ... o poznani hur.
>
> Ale fungovat by mela, staci najit peknou velkou louku, telefon polozit
> doprostred, par kroku se vzdalit a pockat 15 minut :-).

A-GPS data stažena, ale ani po dvou hodinách se nechytl :-(

Asi moc malá louka.

Marián


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

Re: [Talk-de] http://wms.openstreetmap.de/

[Ludwig Baumgart]

Hallo Sven,

die Daten von Radolfzell sind alte Luftbilder von 2010, die würde ich 
nicht umziehen.

Falls jemand diese braucht, vermittle ich gerne diese Daten.
Ich frage mal in Radolfzell nach, ob von dort neues Material angeboten 
würde.


mhGruß
Ludwig

On 15.08.2018 16:20, Sven Geggus wrote:

im Zuge der Strato-Server Abschaltung ziehe ich auch Teile von
http://wms.openstreetmap.de/ nach everest.openstreetmap.de um.

Leider kann aber nicht alles mit, weil das teilweise sehr große Dateien sind
und unsere neuen SSD nicht mehr ganz so groß sind wie unsere alten Platten.

Insbesondere die Daten von Witten, Bonn-Rheinsieg und Radolfzell sind groß.

Bitte schreibt mir doch welche Layer noch benötigt werden.



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

[Talk-africa] OSMkilawiki #422 2018-08-14-2018-08-20

[weeklyteam]

Habari za OpenStreetMap, swala 422, sasa linapatikana kwenye mtandao katika 
lugha ya Kiswahili, kutupa muhtasari wa mambo yote yanayotokea katika ulimwengu 
wa OpenStreetMap: 

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/sw/archives/10636/

Furahia!

OSMkilawiki? 
uwe nani? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages
uwe wapi? 
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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] micro-mapping de parkings

[djakk djakk]

Moi j’aime bien ce micro-mapping :)


djakk


Le dim. 26 août 2018 à 01:58, Philippe Verdy  a écrit :

> Les surfaces de parkings devraient être connectées, longées ou traversées
> par des rues ou voies d'accès. Les emplacements précis (forcément à côté)
> ne sont donc pas adaptés au amenity=parking.
> En revanche on peut tout à fait délimiter en évitant d'inclure des zones
> arborées/herbeuses ou réservées aux piétons (hors simples chemins qui les
> traverse), tant qu'on maintient une connexion aux voies d'accès.
> Les zones précises amenity=parking_space sont à inclure dans ces zones de
> parking et n'ont pas besoin d'être connectées car c'est le parking
> englobant qui les "connecte" au réseau
>
> Le sam. 25 août 2018 à 23:42, marc marc  a
> écrit :
>
>> Bonsoir,
>>
>> Le 25. 08. 18 à 23:03, Muselaar a écrit :
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/47.63874/6.84850
>>
>> c'est une erreur.
>> il devrait y a avoir un seul parking qui englobe le tout.
>> si on veux renseigner au niveau de la place, il y a
>> amenity=parking_space dont l'utilité par ex est de renseigner
>> l'endroit précis d'une place PMR ou autre place "thématique"
>>
>> Cordialement,
>> Marc
>> ___
>> Talk-fr mailing list
>> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] station de rechargement d’hydrogène

[bruno Piguet]

Hydrogène n'existe pas sur la page wiki qui décrit la clef fuel (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fuel), mais il faut militer pour
l'ajouter, car les stations d'hydrogène se répandent en Allemagne (
https://h2.live/).

Cependant, dans le cas cité ici, si c'est la pompe privée d'une seule
flotte de taxi, sa cartographie précise n'a pas encore beaucoup d'intérêt.

Bruno.

Le mar. 14 août 2018 à 11:21, Nicolas Bétheuil  a écrit :

> Bonjour,
>
> Je viens de découvrir qu'il y a une borne de rechargement d’hydrogène
> dans Paris. Elle semble être réservée pour des taxis d'une certaine
> marque.
>
> http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2015/12/04/20005-20151204ARTFIG00015-une-station-hydrogene-au-coeur-de-paris.php
>
> Je suis surpris de voir que depuis 2015 personne n'a ajouté la station.
> Ce n'est que de l'expérimentation visiblement. Pas de moyen de
> paiement par exemple.
>
> Ça a du sens à ajouter dans OSM ?
> Néanmoins taguer ça comme une station service me parait abusif. Ça
> m'étonnerais que les applications qui afficherait les stations service
> filtre par la dispo des carburants du coup ça pourrait afficher de
> fausses informations.
>
> Vous en pensez quoi ?
>
> ___
> 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-es] Corregir Metro de Granada

[Daniel Callejas Sevilla]

Hola.

El «metro» de Granada circula en todo su recorrido por vías exclusivas, ya
sea en superficie o en subterráneo, y a excepción únicamente de los lugares
donde se cruza con otras cosas, en los que tiene prioridad en los
semáforos. Por este criterio, no debería ser tram, puesto que la definición
de tram implica que las vías comparten la calzada con otros tipos de
transporte.

Sin embargo, sus paradas (en superficie) son simples marquesinas con una
máquina para vender billetes, sin edificación en las pistas de superficie,
que separe al público de las vías. Se conduce de forma «visual» (sin
señales de vía libre como las de los trenes). Y, en superficie, circula a
una velocidad igual o inferior a un autobús urbano dado que el conductor va
en modo visual y tiene que poder parar en cualquier momento para evitar
accidentes (peatones, bicicletas, coches, ... atravesando las vías). Por
estos criterios (especialmente la ausencia de señales ferroviarias y la
velocidad), no debería ser light rail.

Personalmente yo lo etiquetaría como tram, que es a lo que más se aproxima,
y sugiero una etiqueta adicional (quizá access=designated?) para indicar
que las vías no son transitables con ningún otro medio de transporte.

Un saludo,
Daniel.

Ps me he basado en el contenido de la wiki en inglés:
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dtram
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dlight_rail

On Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 20:06  wrote:

>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 20:05:45 +0200
> From: Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso 
> To: winfi...@gmail.com,  Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap
> 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-es] Corregir Metro de Granada
> Message-ID:
>  we_suzmlr_8zx...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hola.
>
> La duda no es con metro sino con metro ligero que no es lo mismo. El metro
> ligero va tanto por superficie como subterraneo. Como metro creo que no
> esta etiquetado en ningún momento. Si lo esta estamos tardando en cambiarlo
> jeje.
>
> La duda esta en si usar metro ligero (tren ligero) o tranvía.
>
> En sitios como la wikipedia se considera metro ligero
> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_de_Granada pero tampoco esta claro. La
> distinción entre uno y otro no es muy grande.
>
> Saludos.
>
> El sáb., 25 ago. 2018 a las 19:55, Jo () escribió:
>
> > Hola Carlos,
> >
> > Lo he mirado un poco y no entiendo muy bien porqué lo llaman metro. Solo
> > hay un corto pedazo que es subterraneo.
> >
> > Pienso que es mejor utilisar railway=tram en las vias como en las
> > relaciones.
> >
> > Si alguna vez tienes ganas de discutir el mapeo de transporte público en
> > Granada, o quieres una demonstración como el plugin PT_Assistant de JOSM
> > puede ser útil para mapearlo, podemos hacer un Google Hangout.
> >
> > Saludos,
> >
> > Polyglot
> >
> > Op za 25 aug. 2018 om 15:26 schreef kapazao :
> >
> >> Hola a todos,
> >> mi proposición es la de corregir toda la estructura del Metro de Granada
> >> en
> >> OSM.
> >>
> >> Hace unos meses realicé algunas ediciones en este al ver que algunos
> >> tramos
> >> de vía estaban establecidos como light_rail y otros como tram.
> >> Los establecí todos a tram para unificar, tras estudiar las diferencias
> >> entre las etiquetas de transporte ferroviario.
> >> Puede verse en el conjunto de cambios
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58554501
> >>   , donde hablé con
> el
> >> usuario /sanchi/ del tema, pero quedó la cosa en el aire.
> >>
> >> No hay por ahora una especificación clara del tipo de transporte que
> >> habría
> >> que poner y por el momento en las vías hay una cosa y en la relación
> otra.
> >>
> >> Pido ayuda para establecer cuál sería el tipo correcto de este
> transporte
> >> y
> >> corregirlo por completo.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Spain-f5409873.html
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-es mailing list
> >> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
> >>
> > ___
> > Talk-es mailing list
> > Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
> >
> --
> Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso - Sanchi
> Blog http://jorgesanz.es/
>
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

[Talk-cz] A-GPS Re: Zkusenosti s openstreetcam vs mapovani rychlosti na silnicich

[Pavel Machek]

Ahoj!

> Taky jsem na to chtěl použít svůj předchozí telefon, ale ten bez SIM
> karty nebyl schopen zafixovat GPS, takže smůla. Telefon dostala dcerka a
> u té dosloužil.

Telefon bez SIM karty nema asistenci na GPS, takze ta GPS funguje
... o poznani hur.

Ale fungovat by mela, staci najit peknou velkou louku, telefon polozit
doprostred, par kroku se vzdalit a pockat 15 minut :-).

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


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