Re: [talk-cz] Šablony pro Žádost o data

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 12:19 majka wrote: > > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:16, Tom Ka wrote: > >> > Shodnout se na to, jestli tu akci budeme nějak koordinovat >> co si pod timhle mam predstavit? koordinovat vice zadosti nebo co vlastne? >> > Koordinovat žádosti - tj. evidovat minimálně evidovat,

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

sent from a phone > On 1. Mar 2019, at 20:42, Simon Poole wrote: > > The good news is that most re-users of OSM data are good citizens and > even if they mistakenly haven't provided acceptable attribution, fix it the bad news is: this is by numbers of publishers, if you count (end)users it

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 23:29 schrieb Stefan Keller: > I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our > attribution guidance. > > IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST! The, rather old, issue with that, is that it stops people from providing better

[OSM-co] Venezuela Refugee Crisis

Perdona que solo hablo inglés, esta es una versión traducida de Google, mensaje original a continuación ... Saludos a la comunidad de OSM Colombia! Soy Russell Deffner del Equipo Humanitario de OpenStreetMap (HOT). Se nos pidió que viéramos cómo podríamos ayudar a la situación de los refugiados

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance. IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST! :Stefan P.S. I really would like to collect once in another thread the hidden agendas behind those * argueing against proper attribution of

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

2019-03-01, pn, 17:55 Christoph Hormann rašė: > As long as data sources you use have been produced by people who got > paid for their work (through either taxpayer money or private > investments) the discussion is moot - that is not the same league, that > isn't even the same sport. You give

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

There is another version of this. The Maps.me app shows the attribution for a couple of seconds after starting and after that it vanishes and a scale appears in the same position. Of course the Maps.me logo at the lower right corner stays there: https://photos.app.goo.gl/F7yUn4BhvxYiC8YJ7 You can

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 9:42 PM by o...@tobias-knerr.de: > I don't perceive off-map attribution as a recent trend: This style of > OSM attribution was reasonably popular even back then, especially in > mobile apps. > (...) > > This is my personal preference, but I would still require equal > prominence

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 20:20 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > ... > The words you quote don't mean what you seem to think they do; they > certainly do not authorise the OSMF to act as my agent in pursuing > claims with regard to /my/ rights. > ... This is were you are confusing things: while it is true that

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On 28.02.19 23:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > The policy, introduced with the changeover to the ODbL, says: > > "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... > For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner > of the map." As you seem to remember

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 14:57 schrieb Florian Lohoff: > ... > So please either enforce the ODbL or relicense to CC0. > > ... It is not a surprise that you are asking that, but just consider what the world would be like if we only had laws that could guaranteed to be 100% enforced. The good news is

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 1, 2019, 3:53 PM by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:56, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority to act as my agent. Did you? > > You probably agreed to >

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 16:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 01.03.19 16:04, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > Poppycock. > > The rest of us are trying to have a serious conversation here. Please > adapt or leave. And "Poppycock" is a serious word in the English language. Just like "myth" and "noise",

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] centre info retraite

> Le 1 mars 2019 à 13:59, Romain MEHUT a écrit : > > Bonjour, > > Je trouve que la 1ère proposition conviendrait bien. Sinon ce serait un > office=government > > Par contre pour une structure de conseil en orientation j'ai utilisé ce tag >

Re: [Talk-us] Road name update challenges

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:09 AM Aaron Forsythe wrote: > These are all just my opinions, so don't take as fact. I could be wrong. > > > > >> We were able to get a local GIS to release data to OSM. In analyzing > > the data, I notice that address tags are much more carefully updated > > than road

Re: [talk-cz] logo komunity OSM CZ a logo spolku OSM CR

Chápu všechny technické výhody, ale takhle zjednodušené logo mi nepřijde dobré. Na první pohled je zřetelná hlavně ta lupa, proto mi to spíš evokuje nějaký detektivní spolek. Ta mapa už je hodně potlačená. Jinak samozřejmě potřebost zjednodučené varianty chápu. Jakub On 24. 02. 19 18:54,

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] BAN(O): accompagnement des communes

On 28/02/2019 12:25, Christian Quest wrote: Pour une commune ou un EPCI, si ils veulent que leurs données alimentent la BAN et soient les plus réutilisables possible, OSM n'est pas la solution (because ODbL) Ayé, tu m'as désespérée :P Etalab a développé des outils simples (que je n'ai pas

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Whatever we as a community prefer, let’s not add noise to the discussion by suggesting that it’s somehow hard to do because of UX requirements (as Simon points out correctly as well). Here’s Scout on an iPhone SE (75% fewer pixels than most modern smartphones, let alone desktop browsers):

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 3:53 PM by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:56, Marc Gemis <> marc.ge...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> > I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority to act as my agent. Did you? >> >> You probably agreed to >>

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi, On 01.03.19 16:04, Andy Mabbett wrote: > Poppycock. The rest of us are trying to have a serious conversation here. Please adapt or leave. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing

Re: [Talk-it] Dubbi da principiante per modificare tag

Il 01/03/19 17:02, Paola via Talk-it ha scritto: .. Al momento sto usando sia iD che Josm :) Grazie per il suggerimento, controllo in zona se c'è qualcosa di simile. Ciao, allora lascia stare iD e prendi confidenza con JOSM Alessandro Ale_Zena_IT

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi all, I find this funny in a way. Traditionally, big corps disliked "share-alike" open source/data licences, like ODbL, GNU GPL (or the Affero GPL!), and prefer "attribution only" licences like BSD. And here we have companies not liking the attribution requirement! If they won't follow our

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Below is an example of attribution that can be seen even on small devices. For the maps that I develop, I do take care to add attribution. Testing even on my phone, I can see attribution with Portrait orientation but have problems with landscape orientation since there are not enough lines. And

Re: [Talk-it] Dubbi da principiante per modificare tag

Ciao Marco, alla fine della giornata dei workshop ero un po' "provata" ma sono stati molto interessanti, ne è valsa la pena! Al momento sto usando sia iD che Josm :) Grazie per il suggerimento, controllo in zona se c'è qualcosa di simile. -- Sent from:

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Friday 01 March 2019, Tomas Straupis wrote: > I, being a mapper in the first place, do not put OSM contribution > visible by default on webmaps I create (only after pressing data > source link), because when you have more than one data source, it is > not practical to show that much info. This

[Talk-GB] OSM Tool Updates

Just a quick message to let people know about a few recent updates to my OSM UK tools: * I've added a new class of objects to "Survey Me!" -- a tool to help mappers find local issues in need of a ground survey. OSM objects with no name=* tag where one would be expected are now shown with deep

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Friday 01 March 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in > > particular with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to > > pave over this conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as > > possible without this resulting in gross

Re: [Talk-us] Road name update challenges

These are all just my opinions, so don't take as fact. I could be wrong. >> 1. Original TIGER had Ruppe Dr at a nearby but incorrect location. This seems a common enough occurrence that a TIGER data should not be used as permanent source. It's only there to get the map started and

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 13:44, Simon Poole wrote: > Am 01.03.2019 um 12:49 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny > > wrote: > > > >> Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and > >> individual > >> mappers are unable to do it,

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 13:29, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:06 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: >> https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/ > Well, OSM *is* attributed on the bottom-right corner of the map. The > text says: "Open Street: { Data © OpenStreetMap contributors, >

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 1, 2019, 12:49 PM by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and > individual > mappers are unable to do it,

[Talk-it] Dubbi da principiante per modificare tag

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

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

2019-03-01, pn 16:25, Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > For full screen map two lines of text is perfectly OK. > Two lines for ONE source, then additional lines for other sources. That is not OK. Plus corners are good spots for action places, it is not OK when attribution occupies two corners. It

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:56, Marc Gemis wrote: > > I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority to act as my agent. Did you? > You probably agreed to > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms, not ? I believe I did. What does that have to do with my point? -- Andy

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 3:17 PM by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > Even OSM attribution takes full line on smaller (not older) phones. Altitude > data provider attribution wraps in such case. > For full screen map two lines of text is perfectly OK. ___ talk mailing

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

I, being a mapper in the first place, do not put OSM contribution visible by default on webmaps I create (only after pressing data source link), because when you have more than one data source, it is not practical to show that much info. My second source is altitude data (hillshade, contours,

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:51 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > ... > What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in particular > with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to pave over this > conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this > resulting in

Re: [OSM-ja] 追加提案(Re: 改定提案 - RFC - Proposed Japan tagging/Road types)

いいださん： 返答ありがとうございました。 「あんしん歩行エリア」ならば主観を交えずにマッピングできそうですね。 Taggingメーリングリストも読んできました。zone:maxspeedというタグがあることは初耳でした。 日本のゾーン30はこれで表せそうなので、living_streetの提案からは除外することにします。 石野 貴之(yumean1119) yumean1...@gmail.com 移動先: 案内 、 検索

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Friday 01 March 2019, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > But the attribution font is so tiny that is is barely noticeable. > There is attribution, but it is debatable whether using a tiny font > size makes the attribution improper or ridiculous. No, that is not debatable and neither is the second

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 10:48:54AM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > a) would require changing license again, right? Yes - And i had the question before we relicensed - Are we going to have a Licensing Working group which enforces the ODbL even in court. Probably we are now at the point where

Re: [OSM-ja] 追加提案(Re: 改定提案 - RFC - Proposed Japan tagging/Road types)

Ras and Roadさん： 返信ありがとうございます。 ＞足立区大谷田小学校前の南北の道路 この道路がliving_streetにあたるかどうかも、ご指摘の通り客観的に判断するのは難しいと思います。 居住者用車両に限るのであれば、highway=service, access=destinationでもいいように感じられました。 私が思っているliving_streetは、このようなアクセス制限はないけれども、あまり車で通ってほしくない(とマッパーが主観的に思う)道です。

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:49 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and >> individual >> mappers are unable to do it, right? > I am the copyright owner of my edits. You are the owner of

Re: [OSM-ja] 追加提案(Re: 改定提案 - RFC - Proposed Japan tagging/Road types)

いいだです。 「あんしん歩行エリア」で検索すると、警察庁と国交省が指定しているような文章があります。 （なんか実際には、市町村単位で指定してるみたいですが） これであれば、主観を交えずにマッピングできるかも？と思います。 http://www.mlit.go.jp/kisha/kisha03/06/060711_.html また、ゾーン30とのliving roadについては、過去の議論のどこかで記述があったような気がして、 検索してみたら出てきました。

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:06 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > I cannot help pointing out that the EU commission is also responsible for > one of the most ridiculous cases of improper attribution i have seen so far: > > https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/ > Well, OSM *is* attributed on the

[talk-au] MapRoulette Challenges

We've put the challenge with the wrong lane count on invisible and we will improve the output (especially the situation where the count doesn't consider bicycle lanes) and reupload it. Thanks for the feedback! Best regards! Marian Poara, Telenav From: Horea Meleg Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019

Re: [OSM-ja] 追加提案(Re: 改定提案 - RFC - Proposed Japan tagging/Road types)

Ras and Roadです。 yumean1119さん、例示ありがとうございます。 マッパーの主観に委ねるのは混乱を招くおそれが高いと考えます。 ゾーン30は法定外標識ながら全国的に統一する動きがあり、規制の範囲も 明確なので問題ないと思います。 しかし、歩行者優先の法定外標識、通学路（法定の警戒標識「学校,幼稚園, 保育所等あり（208）」、あるいは「通学路」「スクールゾーン」の補助 標識）については、その区間があいまいであることが気になります。 「観光客が多い」「安全を保持すべき道路であると考えられる」というのは

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] centre info retraite

Bonjour, Je trouve que la 1ère proposition conviendrait bien. Sinon ce serait un office=government Par contre pour une structure de conseil en orientation j'ai utilisé ce tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:office%3Deducational_institution Romain Le ven. 1 mars 2019 à 12:39, Noémie

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 1:05 PM by mikel.ma...@gmail.com: > As enthusiastic as I am to see osm “in the wild”, I’m irritated by license > shaming. I know, it’s irritating by design. I don’t believe it works and just > casts a bad light of OSM. > I agree, and probably most mappers agree. That is probably

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 12:31 PM by si...@poole.ch: > > > > Am 01.03.2019 um 12:01 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > >> >> >> >> Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by >> si...@poole.ch >> : >> >>> >>> And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the >>> results of the

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 12:49 PM by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and >> individual >> mappers are unable to do

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Just as my opinions here don’t represent the osmf board, they don’t represent Mapbox either. Personally, I don’t care much about the details of attribution either way. I love to see it and regularly look for it in every map I come across. I tweeted this three weeks ago 

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Friday 01 March 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote: > [...] > > Good examples of attribution[...] Note the ODbL requires attribution of the database creator (OpenStreetMap contributors) and explaining that the data is available under the ODbL. The Copyright page says this can be done by linking

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

> > I am the copyright owner of my edits. You are the owner of yours. > > I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority to act as my agent. Did you? You probably agreed to https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms, not ? m. ___

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

I very much agree. In particular i have been pointing out the insulting and disrespectful nature of second rate attributions - that is people producing other attributions (most frequently for themselves) significantly more prominently or accessible than for OSM. There are of course corporate

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and > individual > mappers are unable to do it, right? I am the copyright owner of my edits. You are the owner of yours. I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority

Re: [Talk-it] Dubbi da principiante per modificare tag

Ciao Paola, benvenuta anche da parte mia, mi fa piacere che cominci a mappare (usi iD o Josm?) Vediamo se qualcuno è più ferrato di me su quel tag: io ho il dubbio che entrambe le amenity che citi siano relative a sedi di UNA associazione, non di più associazioni. Un modo per vedere come e quanto

[OSM-talk-fr] centre info retraite

Hello, comment cartographie-t-on un centre d'information retraite, qui permet d'en savoir plus sur ses droits et de se faire accompagner pour faire son dossier de retraite ? J'hésite entre * social_facility=outreach : puisqu'il me semble que c'est ce qu'on met pour les centres

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:01 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > > > > Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by si...@poole.ch: > > And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the > results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox >

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:51, Simon Poole wrote: > Am 01.03.2019 um 01:12 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > > 28 characters. There are many cases, such as mobile phones, where - > > depending on user settings - that's either going to be too small to be > > readable, or so big it obscures what people need

Re: [talk-cz] Šablony pro Žádost o data

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:16, Tom Ka wrote: > > Shodnout se na to, jestli tu akci budeme nějak koordinovat > co si pod timhle mam predstavit? koordinovat vice zadosti nebo co vlastne? > Koordinovat žádosti - tj. evidovat minimálně evidovat, kde se žádalo a jak to dopadlo (nebo nedopadlo) +

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 11:48 AM by si...@poole.ch: > > > > Am 01.03.2019 um 10:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > >> >> > . > > >> c) I recommend doing this, Itried mailing Mapbox about their >> license-breaking >> hiding attribution but atfirst their responded claiming that

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by si...@poole.ch: > > And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the results > of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 >

Re: [OSM-ja] 追加提案(Re: 改定提案 - RFC - Proposed Japan tagging/Road types)

yumean1119です。 先ほどの「あんしん歩行エリア」について、googleマップへのリンクでは場所が分かりにくかったので ストリートビューのスクリーンショットを貼り付けます。この看板が、OSM上の https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/462986822 の位置にあることを現地調査により確認しています。 石野 貴之(yumean1119) yumean1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-ja mailing list

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 10:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: . > c) I recommend doing this, I tried mailing Mapbox about their > license-breaking > hiding attribution but at first their responded claiming that OSBL > allows that, > after quoting that part of them they went back to not responding > > d)

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Just a couple of general comments on this. - The LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance this year see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10 - I would have preferred that the discussion take place when we've actually written

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Well wrote this yesterday at 3 AM, however due to the images it got stuck so im uploading them else where. Over the last months i have expressed my concern about these interpretations of "its not on ODbL", OSMF requests dont count a thing, or it should be write "must" instead of "should". Most of

Re: [talk-cz] Šablony pro Žádost o data

čt 28. 2. 2019 v 13:23 odesílatel majka napsal: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JdhYGi2828bTwjkW6e3CAdyh_FeoJMlk8I8SfIHuGE0/edit > Ale opravdu je nemá dávat smysl do GoogleDoc, pokud se neshodneme na > variantě, jak to bude vypadat. Protože v PDF všichni vidí totéž, Word a > LibreOffice

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 2:51 AM by mikel.ma...@gmail.com: > ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to happen, or anything about > equivalence with other attribution. So even if OSMF were to take on > enforcement, there's nothing to specific to enforce. > Untrue, see "You must include a notice

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 01:12 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 22:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > >> "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... >> For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner >> of the map." > 28 characters. There are

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Feb 28, 2019, 11:35 PM by rich...@systemed.net: > This response might be: > > a) we are happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will > update our requirements to say so > b) we will informally tolerate attribution being behind a credits screen but > we do not intend to

Re: [Talk-pt] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Well wrote tis yesterday at 3 AM, however due to the images it got stuck so im uploading them else where. Over the last months i have expressed my concern about these interpretations of "its not on ODbL", OSMF requests dont count a thing, or it should be write "must" instead of "should". Most of

Re: [Talk-it] Dubbi da principiante per modificare tag

Grazie mille! Altro dubbio, qual è il tag più indicato per segnalare che l'edificio è una sede delle associazioni amenity=social_centre o amenity=community_centre? Per quest'ultimo ho letto nella wiki che in italiano si intende il centro sociale, ma no è il caso di questo edificio...quindi per

Re: [Talk-de] Behindertenparkplätze und fee=*

Moin, Am 26.02.2019 um 22:35 schrieb Richard: Solle man solche Fälle mit fee=yes+fee:disabled=no bzw mit der conditional Variante fee:conditional=yes + fee:conditional=no @ disabled; mappen? Es geht nicht um Behindertenparkplätze sondern um 'normale' Parkplätze für Behinderte mit Park-

Re: [OSM-ja] 追加提案(Re: 改定提案 - RFC - Proposed Japan tagging/Road types)

yumean1119です。皆様コメントありがとうございます。 ＞ Ras and Roadさん 法定の交通標識としては「歩行者優先」は存在しないことは存じています。(そのため、「標識」ではなく「看板」と書きました。) 自分が実際に目撃したものとしては、岡山県都窪郡早島町にある「あんしん歩行エリア」という表示があります。 参考として当該箇所のgoogle mapへのリンクを張っておきます。 https://www.google.co.jp/maps/@34.6052449,133.8300921,3a,75y,180h,89.57t ＞ いいださん ＞

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mikel Maron wrote: > We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. > We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation > can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion > will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting

[Talk-it] come contare le rotonde in una zona

Qualcuno ha già creato una ricerca Overpass per estrarre il numero di rotonde in una determinata zona o comune? Il problema è che tante rotonde sono spaccate in più pezzi, quindi la semplice ricerca per junction=roundabaut produce un numero troppo alto. Grazie Volker

Re: [talk-cz] Značení obce

Ha Noj wrote: Ahoj. Narazil jsem na problém jak zmapovat začátek a konec obce. Na jedno místě končí jedna obec a hned začíná druhá a na stejném místě z druhé strany to samé. Do názvu se vejde jen jeden název obce *** Myslím, že jsem to dával do jednoho, stejně je to jen symbolické

Re: [talk-cz] Značení obce

> Ahoj. Narazil jsem na problém jak zmapovat začátek a konec obce. Na jedno > místě končí jedna obec a hned začíná druhá a na stejném místě z druhé > strany to samé. Do názvu se vejde jen jeden název obce > *** Myslím, že jsem to dával do jednoho, stejně je to jen symbolické (pro orientaci v mapě)