Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Shu Higashi]

I wanted to tell Wikidata community in Japan how to get geolocation
from OSM without problem(trigger share-alike).
It will be a kind of guideline for them and each Wikidata editor may
do so individually.

Shu

2019-05-14 8:08 GMT+09:00, Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 14. May 2019, at 00:14, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk
>>  wrote:
>>
>> If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manually." you mean that
>> each individual Wikipedia editor makes their own decision about whether to
>> copy the lat/long, and it is not a coordinated or automated effort (not a
>> "systematic attempt to aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines), then it
>> is allowed.
>
>
> how could Wikidata not be considered a coordinated effort? I mean he is
> asking here, people are making plans how to proceed, how can this be „not
> coordinated“? Isn’t a plan to operate „individually“ already a kind of
> coordination (purposefully crafted to circumvent the licensing provisions)?
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. May 2019, at 00:14, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manually." you mean that 
> each individual Wikipedia editor makes their own decision about whether to 
> copy the lat/long, and it is not a coordinated or automated effort (not a 
> "systematic attempt to aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines), then it is 
> allowed.


how could Wikidata not be considered a coordinated effort? I mean he is asking 
here, people are making plans how to proceed, how can this be „not 
coordinated“? Isn’t a plan to operate „individually“ already a kind of 
coordination (purposefully crafted to circumvent the licensing provisions)?

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Cartographie de l'accessibilité fauteuils roulants et aveugles

[Violaine_Do]

Hello tout le monde,

Juste pour info et clore cette discussion (suite à échanges), j'ai mis à 
jour


 * le wiki FR:Handicaps (1) avec valeur wheelchair=limited ajoutée, et
   tactile_paving=bad corrigée en incorrect
 * le wiki wheelchair (2) dans la description de la clé wheelchair
 * une version 0.2 de l'osmecum  poi + 0.1 osmecum cheminement
   difficulté moyenne (option avec les cheminements dessinés à côté de
   la route) (3)

Merci à tous !

Bonne semaine,

1 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Handicaps#Acc.C3.A8s_en_fauteuil_roulant_.C3.A9lectrique


2 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=FR:Key:wheelchair=1851599=1817877


3 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_France/Osmecum#Accessibilit.C3.A9



On 09/04/2019 21:52, Vincent Bergeot wrote:

Le 09/04/2019 à 20:21, Violaine_Do a écrit :
Merci Marc, je demande ça pour les valeurs à utiliser sur le wiki 
francais (fr:handicaps) par rapport aux usages (en effet suggestion 
d'utiliser bad à la place de limited ou incorrect sur ce wiki), donc 
j'aimerais mettre ça à jour, j'osais pas changer le wiki sans vos 
retours.



Bonjour,

nous avons eu justement cette discussion autour de la valeur bad il y 
a 2 jours avec Adrien et Louis-Julien.


J'ai posé 2 osmecum 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_France/Osmecum#Les_fiches_OSMecum


je n'ai pas fait apparaître cette valeur.

Pourquoi ?

Car dans le cas des fauteuils, je pense que la valeur bad est une 
erreur (sans doute dans un processus de traduction comme access=yes).


Tel que c'est décrit (et ce n'est renseigné que dans le wiki en 
français), cela me semble surtout corresponde à limited et si besoin 
en ajoutant d'autres tags type wheelchair:description=* et/ou des 
éléments factuels de type hauteur de la marche, revêtement, ...


Taginfo nous donne 741 occurences 
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wheelchair=bad#overview) pour 
wheelchair=bad dont (553 en france 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.fr/search?q=wheelchair%3Dbad).


Donc c'est quand même un peu franco-français. Je ne suis pas sur que 
la discussion sur tagging soit nécessaire ?


à plus






Sur ma todo la traduction de kerb en fr, et trouver ces fameuses fiches.
@+

On 09/04/2019 00:44, marc marc wrote:

Bonjour,

Le 09.04.19 à 02:38, Violaine_Do a écrit :

J'ai détaillé mes questions sur la page discussion du wiki dédié :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR_talk:Handicaps

je ne comprend pas la question "qu'est-ce qu'on fait ?"
les cas les plus courant/important
tactile_paving=yes|no|incorrect
wheelchair=yes|no|limited
kerb=raised|lowered|flush

ce qui manque c'est :
- la traduction en français de la page kerb
- faire le lien vers les fiches de... heu.. Françoise je crois

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





--
Violaine_Do

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi,

If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manually." you mean that
each individual Wikipedia editor makes their own decision about whether to
copy the lat/long, and it is not a coordinated or automated effort (not a
"systematic attempt to aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines), then it is
allowed.

(The Substantial Guideline concerns the same underlying principle, but only
gives as an example a different bright line rule, so I do not think it is
useful guidance in your case. If an activity is allowed under the Geocoding
Guideline, it does not matter if the Substantial Guideline would have
already permitted it (and vice versa).)

Best,
Kathleen

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 7:35 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> provided you do it for a substantial part of OpenStreetMap data, from my
> understanding you would trigger ODbL, i.e. you would be creating a
> derivative database.
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-es] #1calletodoslosportales

[Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso]

Si especificas un poco mas como verlo. Descarga un archivo zip y ahi no veo
esa información. Y al descomprimir son varios archivos.

El numero de portal va asociado a los nombres de las calles. No podemos
subir numeración a lo loco sin tener las calles. Eso ya quita una gran
parte de España.

No podemos subir algo que esta peor cuando tenemos algo mejor porque se
haga rápido. Al final se queda el mapa lleno de información mal que nadie
va arreglar. Ademas esos datos no se pueden subir como están, hay que
compararlos con los nombres de calles, corregir nombres,... Eso ya lo hace
la aplicación de catastro ya que es necesario. Tendríamos que hacer otro
programa que lo haga con los datos de cartociudad. Si se hace esto a lo
loco ademas va a dar problemas después para la importación de catastro ya
que como he comentado compara los números de portal existentes. Vamos que
tampoco vamos a poder subir luego bien los datos de catastro sobre
numeración. Seguro que se puede mirar para no ir municipio por municipio
sacando datos y hacerlo bastante mas rápido.

Tengo una gran duda de cómo quieres usar el gestor con datos tan grandes.
¿Qué tienes pensado?

Un saludo.


El lun., 13 may. 2019 a las 21:24, yo paseopor ()
escribió:

> En los metadatos de cada archivo que te descargas tienes la fecha :)
>
> http://centrodedescargas.cnig.es/CentroDescargas/linkUnMD
>
> gmd:MD_Metadata
> gmd:fileIdentifier
>
>- gco:CharacterString:
>
>spaign_cartociudad_addresses
>
> gmd:language
>
>- gmd:LanguageCode:
>
>spa
>
> gmd:characterSet
>
>- gmd:MD_CharacterSetCode:
>
>utf8
>
> gmd:hierarchyLevel
>
>- gmd:MD_ScopeCode:
>
>dataset
>
> gmd:contact
> gmd:CI_ResponsibleParty
> gmd:organisationName
>
>- gco:CharacterString:
>
>Instituto Geográfico Nacional
>
> gmd:contactInfo
> gmd:CI_Contact
> gmd:address
> gmd:CI_Address
> gmd:electronicMailAddress
>
>- gco:CharacterString:
>
>i...@fomento.es
>
> gmd:onlineResource
> gmd:CI_OnlineResource
> gmd:linkage
>
>- gmd:URL:
>
>http://www.ign.es
>
> gmd:role
>
>- gmd:CI_RoleCode:
>
>pointOfContact
>
> gmd:dateStamp
>
>- gco:Date:
>
>2018-04-11
>
>
> La ventaja que yo le veo con el tema de catastro es que aquí sólo son 52
> archivos para todo el país como mucho, ,no unos 1 que podríamos
> conseguir via Catastro. Yo esta importación la considero "de transición"
> mientras no dispongamos de los edificios con sus direcciones. Se trataría
> de que el equipo de OSM España procesemos todos los datos de esos 50
> archivos y lo colguemos en el gestor para que irlos sumando, más allá de
> nuestras zonas de confort, dando uniformidad al mapa. Creo que siendo algo
> optimista...este verano podríamos tener todas las direcciones "oficiales"
> de España.
>
> Salut i mapes
> yopaseopor
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:32 PM Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso 
> wrote:
>
>> Buenas.
>>
>> Como ya he comentado en el grupo con la misma herramienta que se usa para
>> la importación del catastro se puede realizar la importación solo de
>> portales sin edificios. Tenemos la herramienta ya preparada y testeada. Con
>> un sistema que funciona. Con compatibilidad para posteriormente completar
>> la importación de edificios.Habría que comprobarlo, pero es de suponer que
>> igual que hace cuando importas edificios tiene en cuenta si una numeración
>> ya esta y te la descarta ( facilita evitar duplicar información). Con
>> pequeños cambios desde el sistema que se usa para importar edificios se
>> podría realizar la importación. Esta comprobado que la información de
>> Catastro en la mayoría de los casos esta mas actualizada que la de
>> Cartociudad. No le veo la ventaja a usar cartociudad respecto catastro.
>>
>> Al descargar el archivo de la numeración de castociudad no me sale de
>> cuando son los datos. Sale dentro en cierto numero cuando se puso cada
>> numero en concreto, pero no veo el archivo de cuando es. Seguro que lo
>> tengo delante y no lo veo. Si me puedes indicar dónde has visto de que
>> fecha son los datos. En general como ya se ha comentado infinidad de veces
>> cartociudad esta bastante desactualizado. Hablo de nombres franquistas
>> cambiados hace ya tiempo entre muchas otras cosas.
>>
>> Creo que hay cosas que se pueden considerar mas útiles y que faltan
>> actualmente, pero veo correcto realizar una importación de este tipo. Y si
>> es un paso natural después de tener los nombres de las calles.
>>
>> Un saludo.
>>
>> El dom., 12 may. 2019 a las 1:03, yo paseopor ()
>> escribió:
>>
>>> Buenas gente!
>>>
>>> Leyendo este tuit
>>> https://twitter.com/geocodeearth/status/1126456398114709505?s=19 de
>>> Geocode.earth vemos como se habla del avance de la búsqueda de direcciones
>>> en España.
>>> Así, a priori me he interesado un poco por encima por el tema. He
>>> encontrado varios servicios, algunos los conocía , otros no me sonaban pero
>>> todos hacen lo mismo: buscar direcciones. Y entre otros muchos datos usan
>>> los de OpenStreetMap. 

Re: [talk-cz] cyklostezka skrz vojenský újezd Libavá

[Michal Fabík]

On 5/13/19 9:42 PM, majka wrote:

Pokud se jednoznačně dohodneme na smazání


Ahoj,
za mě teda jednoznačně smazat. Teď 1. května jsem tam byl a trasa byla 
pro potřeby té akce vyznačena různými jednorázovými (kartonovými apod.) 
značkami. Jinak tam není nic, co by naznačovalo přítomnost cyklostezky, 
cyklistické trasy nebo něčeho podobného. O relaci jinak vím, poslední 
její změna je moje, protože jsem na některou z cest přidával rychlostní 
omezení, nebo co. Omlouvám se, že jsem relaci nesmazal rovnou, ale v 
Česku se trochu zdráhám dělat takovéto větší zásahy, jejichž následky 
třeba nemusím umět úplně dohlédnout.


--
Michal Fabík


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Attribution : confusion des "quest"

[deuzeffe]

On 12/05/2019 23:04, Vincent de Château-Thierry wrote:

Ca ressemble fort à ce qui se passe sur le Geoportail, où le fond OSM-FR 
est utilisé, mais où la description de la couche indique encore : "Carte 
mondiale multi-échelles basée sur le projet OpenStreetMap et diffusée 
par la société MapQuest. > La description date de l'époque où Mapquest diffusait un fond OSM
gratuitement. Ce flux a été arrêté à l'été 2016, et côté Géoportail, il 
y a eu sur la suggestion de Christian une bascule sur les tuiles OSM-FR.


Ça me faisait penser à ça, effectivement. Donc, ça se signale au 
CNOUS/CROUS ou on laisse tomber ?


--
deuzeffe

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

Re: [talk-cz] cyklostezka skrz vojenský újezd Libavá

[jzvc via talk-cz]

Jop, ted sem na to narazil taky, za me relaci odstranit. Jinak ale 
byvalo zvykem, ze tam byly cedule a zavory ... asi se v tech miliardach 
nenajde stovka na kus plechu ...


Jinak myslim ze by access private melo byt permissive. Minimalne mistni 
mivali na cast silnic v ujezdech povolenky a nektery casti byly i 
verejny, a zaviraly se jen na strelby a cviceni.


Dne 11.5.2019 v 23:52 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):

Při procházení poznámek jsem narazil na:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1702491
plus tři podobné další:

Týká se to:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2900777

Má smysl dávat do mapy cyklostezku, která je otevřená jeden den v roce?
I kdyby se tam doplnil openinghours tag, který tam teď není.

Mirek

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




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

Re: [talk-cz] cyklostezka skrz vojenský újezd Libavá

[majka]

Zrovna jsem to "zneviditelnila". Relace tedy zatím zůstala, jen jsou tam
neodpovídající značky vymazané a je to přebito pomocí prefixu "disused:"

Pokud se jednoznačně dohodneme na smazání, není problém.

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 21:40, jzvc via talk-cz 
wrote:

> Jop, ted sem na to narazil taky, za me relaci odstranit. Jinak ale
> byvalo zvykem, ze tam byly cedule a zavory ... asi se v tech miliardach
> nenajde stovka na kus plechu ...
>
> Jinak myslim ze by access private melo byt permissive. Minimalne mistni
> mivali na cast silnic v ujezdech povolenky a nektery casti byly i
> verejny, a zaviraly se jen na strelby a cviceni.
>
> Dne 11.5.2019 v 23:52 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> > Při procházení poznámek jsem narazil na:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1702491
> > plus tři podobné další:
> >
> > Týká se to:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2900777
> >
> > Má smysl dávat do mapy cyklostezku, která je otevřená jeden den v roce?
> > I kdyby se tam doplnil openinghours tag, který tam teď není.
> >
> > Mirek
> >
> > ___
> > talk-cz mailing list
> > talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> > https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>
>
>
> ___
> talk-cz mailing list
> talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
> https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz
>
___
talk-cz mailing list
talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

Re: [Talk-se] Naturvårdsverkets nya Nationella MarktäckeData

[Grigory Rechistov via Talk-se]

Hej!

Några uppdateringar.

1. `plow-roads.py` skriptet [1] är färdig och kan användas för att ta bort de
   nya noder som sitter för nära till vägar. Det gör att nya ytor inte får ha
   några "midjor" över vägar. Jag kommer att använda den för alla kommande 
rutor.

2. Som förväntat blir sammanfogningsprocessen rejält jobbigt när det redan
   finns gott om kartlagda data för en ruta. I sådana fall är det enklare att
   kartlagga de resterande objekt manuellt än att försöka fix alla varningar
   som uppstår efter tillämpningen på importlagret.
   Jag uppskattar att det finns 3-4 rutor kvar som enkelt går att lägga till
   till Katrineholms kommun.

3. JOSM är inte lika pålitlig vid datauppladdningar som man skulle förvänta sig.
   Det hade hänt några gånger med mig att under en större uppladdning skickades
   första några tusen objekt iväg, sedan hände ingenting. Efter en timme 
stängdes
   ändringsuppsättningen. Man kunde se det i webbläsaren. Trots det visade JOSM
   inget fel, som om något fel inte hade hänt. Det går egentligen att få egna
   ändringar fram, men processen blir onödigt nervös. Man behöver radera flera
   dubbletter på nya objekt efter några avbrutna uppladdningsförsök. Jag vill nu
   syssla med alternativa sätt att ladda datat upp.

Efter jag är klar med den nuvarande kommunen kommer jag att tillverka nya rutor
för en annan kommun. Kan någon föreslå en nästa kommun som redan inte är väl
kartlagd? Så jag hoppas att andra skulle kunna bidra med det.

Jag planerar tillämpa alla förbättringar till datat och processen för att göra
den så smidigt som möjligt. Jag hoppas att jag fått gott om läxan nu och inte 
ska
göra samma misstag.

1. Generera om ett maskeringlager av en ny dataexport. Att använda ett åldrat
   masklager innebär högre risk för överlappande polygoner.
2. Klippa ut rutor mer noggrant så att intilliggande rutor inte överlappas. Jag
   råkade tillämpa projicering och skärning i fel ordning med Katrineholms 
kommun,
   någonting som är tråkigt att rätta till på efterhand.
3. Ploga bort rymden runt motorvägar och tillämpa andra verktyg/skript som jag
   hittills har skapat.
4. Ta hänsyn till kommuners gränser för att undvika problem med överlappande
   rutor efteråt. Min granskning av importdata vid Vingåkers/Katrineholms 
gränser
   visade sig att det var en rätt beslut att inte låta importdatat överlappa med
   sig själv annars skapar det galet mycket konflikter.

Jag bör också uppdatera den imports@osm-listan, det har varit på länge sedan
mitt sista inlägg där. SnapNewNodes-insticksmodulen skulle kunna vara till nytta
till flera mappare på längre sikt. Kanske bör jag skriva till osm-devel-listan 
någon dag.

1. https://github.com/grigory-rechistov/nmd-osm-tools/blob/master/plow-roads.py



С наилучшими пожеланиями,
Григорий Речистов.
Med vänliga hälsningar,
Grigory Rechistov
With best regards,
Grigory Rechistov
___
Talk-se mailing list
Talk-se@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se

Re: [Talk-es] #1calletodoslosportales

[yo paseopor]

En los metadatos de cada archivo que te descargas tienes la fecha :)

http://centrodedescargas.cnig.es/CentroDescargas/linkUnMD

gmd:MD_Metadata
gmd:fileIdentifier
- gco:CharacterString:

spaign_cartociudad_addresses
gmd:language
- gmd:LanguageCode:

spa
gmd:characterSet
- gmd:MD_CharacterSetCode:

utf8
gmd:hierarchyLevel
- gmd:MD_ScopeCode:

dataset
gmd:contact
gmd:CI_ResponsibleParty
gmd:organisationName
- gco:CharacterString:

Instituto Geográfico Nacional
gmd:contactInfo
gmd:CI_Contact
gmd:address
gmd:CI_Address
gmd:electronicMailAddress
- gco:CharacterString:

i...@fomento.es
gmd:onlineResource
gmd:CI_OnlineResource
gmd:linkage
- gmd:URL:

http://www.ign.es
gmd:role
- gmd:CI_RoleCode:

pointOfContact
gmd:dateStamp
- gco:Date:

2018-04-11

La ventaja que yo le veo con el tema de catastro es que aquí sólo son 52
archivos para todo el país como mucho, ,no unos 1 que podríamos
conseguir via Catastro. Yo esta importación la considero "de transición"
mientras no dispongamos de los edificios con sus direcciones. Se trataría
de que el equipo de OSM España procesemos todos los datos de esos 50
archivos y lo colguemos en el gestor para que irlos sumando, más allá de
nuestras zonas de confort, dando uniformidad al mapa. Creo que siendo algo
optimista...este verano podríamos tener todas las direcciones "oficiales"
de España.

Salut i mapes
yopaseopor


On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:32 PM Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso 
wrote:

> Buenas.
>
> Como ya he comentado en el grupo con la misma herramienta que se usa para
> la importación del catastro se puede realizar la importación solo de
> portales sin edificios. Tenemos la herramienta ya preparada y testeada. Con
> un sistema que funciona. Con compatibilidad para posteriormente completar
> la importación de edificios.Habría que comprobarlo, pero es de suponer que
> igual que hace cuando importas edificios tiene en cuenta si una numeración
> ya esta y te la descarta ( facilita evitar duplicar información). Con
> pequeños cambios desde el sistema que se usa para importar edificios se
> podría realizar la importación. Esta comprobado que la información de
> Catastro en la mayoría de los casos esta mas actualizada que la de
> Cartociudad. No le veo la ventaja a usar cartociudad respecto catastro.
>
> Al descargar el archivo de la numeración de castociudad no me sale de
> cuando son los datos. Sale dentro en cierto numero cuando se puso cada
> numero en concreto, pero no veo el archivo de cuando es. Seguro que lo
> tengo delante y no lo veo. Si me puedes indicar dónde has visto de que
> fecha son los datos. En general como ya se ha comentado infinidad de veces
> cartociudad esta bastante desactualizado. Hablo de nombres franquistas
> cambiados hace ya tiempo entre muchas otras cosas.
>
> Creo que hay cosas que se pueden considerar mas útiles y que faltan
> actualmente, pero veo correcto realizar una importación de este tipo. Y si
> es un paso natural después de tener los nombres de las calles.
>
> Un saludo.
>
> El dom., 12 may. 2019 a las 1:03, yo paseopor ()
> escribió:
>
>> Buenas gente!
>>
>> Leyendo este tuit
>> https://twitter.com/geocodeearth/status/1126456398114709505?s=19 de
>> Geocode.earth vemos como se habla del avance de la búsqueda de direcciones
>> en España.
>> Así, a priori me he interesado un poco por encima por el tema. He
>> encontrado varios servicios, algunos los conocía , otros no me sonaban pero
>> todos hacen lo mismo: buscar direcciones. Y entre otros muchos datos usan
>> los de OpenStreetMap. Estoy seguro que a tod@s os suena Nominatim, o
>> Geonames.
>> Pero me ha dado por buscar algún enlace más como por ejemplo
>>
>> https://geocode.earth/
>> https://pelias.io/
>> https://openaddresses.io/
>> (Mapzen) https://www.whosonfirst.org/
>> http://www.geonames.org/
>> (Openstreetmap) https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/
>>
>> Y es en uno de estos dónde se habla de Cartociudad y de la posibilidad de
>> "parsear" sus datos. Y aquí se me encendió la bombillita.
>> En la actualidad la relación de OSM con el IGN ha cambiado para bien y
>> podemos leer en la página de contribuidores de Openstreetmap (no de la
>> wiki) lo siguiente: "Spain: Contains data sourced from the Spanish National
>> Geographic Institute (IGN) and National Cartographic System (SCNE) licensed
>> for reuse under CC BY 4.0. "
>>
>> Si vamos a la wiki podemos encontrar los permisos firmados para dar via
>> libre a OSM en el uso de sus datos:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Importaci%C3%B3n_IGN
>>
>> Así que vamos a soltar "la bomba" y a encender el debate: propongo
>> "importar" mediante un proyecto al estilo "importación catastro" , con el
>> gestor de tareas como base para la posible importación (con todas sus fases
>> correspondientes), de todos los portales de Cartociudad.
>> Sé que hemos hablado muchas veces de la calidad de los datos de Catastro
>> y otras fuentes. Estoy seguro que al iniciar este debate habrá seguidores y
>> detractores de esta propuesta. Así que me dispongo a 

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMappers meeting in Norfolk

[nkn]

Hi

the get-together in Norwich on Saturday went well, thanks for asking. We 
were five in total and discussed all over the place. As another five 
people indicated their interest to join a future meeting, I try to keep 
up the momentum by organising a similar event in June. I hope we can 
continue the lively conversations also with the guys who were there on 
Saturday.


Here is a Doodle poll to find the most suitable date in June for everone 
who is interested: https://doodle.com/poll/dsymfqm3r8g49vqt


Regards
Nora


Am 12/05/2019 um 20:30 schrieb Rob Nickerson:

Hi Nora,

I hope the Norfolk event went well yesterday. I hope to see some more 
in the future.


P.S. Once again, my apologies to the readers of the list if this is 
not properly threaded reply. I looked at nabble as suggested but 
firefox warns me that it is not correctly https secured so I won't be 
using that. I am also not planning to set up another email account for 
just this. For now you will have to live with my non-threaded replies.


Best regards,
*Rob*
(From Warwick)

___
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-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 11:49, Dave F via Talk-transit
 wrote:
> If Philip really wants a router to tell him where the nearest
> shelter (surely you can just look around you),

You're joking?!

The entire OpenStreetMap could be waved away with the phrase "surely
you can just look around you". Why tag speed limits, just look as
you're driving. Why map shorelines, just walk around til your feet get
wet. Why map bus stops, just look around you.

To give just one obvious counter-example: exact locations of shelters,
in particular of bus stop shelters, could be very useful for those
with visual disability (e.g. severe shortsightedness).

--Jarek

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Association du souvenir français

[Gwenaël Jouvin via Talk-fr]

Merci pour vos réponses.

Étant donné le flou sur le gestionnaire ou le manque d’infos sur ce que j’ai pu 
voir sur le terrain, je vais laisser en l’état ;-)

Gwenaël


Le 12/05/2019 à 19:50, Yannick a écrit :
> Le 12/05/2019 à 16:30, Gwenaël Jouvin via Talk-fr a écrit :
>> Bonjour à tous,
>>
>>
>> En ce qui concerne la cartographie des monuments aux morts, certains 
>> connaissent déjà le tag ref:FR:MemorialGenWeb [1] qui permet de lier OSM à 
>> la base de Memorial Gen Web.
>>
>> Par ailleurs, il existe une association dénommée « Le souvenir français » 
>> qui, entre autres, entretien certains monuments et tombes [2].
>> J’aimerais savoir si, lorsqu’il est évident que le monument est entretenu ou 
>> a été offert par cette association (cas de certaines plaques, présence de 
>> cocardes) il serait approprié d’ajouter la combinaison :
>> "operator"="le souvenir français"
>>
>> Dans ce qui existe, je n’ai trouvé que 2 points par taginfo et sur "name" :
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Le%20Souvenir%20Fran%C3%A7ais
>>
>> Merci.
>>
>>
>> Gwenaël
>>
>> 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:ref:FR:MemorialGenWeb
>> 2. http://le-souvenir-francais.fr/lessentiel/entretenir/
> 
> Bonsoir,
> 
> Les Monuments aux Morts des communes sont entretenus par celles-ci.
> Par contre les nombreux monuments et plaques sises dans les rues et
> routes de campagne sont sous un statut très aléatoire.
> En cas que de besoin on signale à la mairie qui fait le nécessaire et
> seulement si cela ne bouge pas on avise le Souvenir Français et/ou les
> associations d'anciens combattants.
> Les carrés militaires des cimetières sont aussi dans cette mouvance où
> le SF intervient en cas de défaut de la mairie.
> Les cimetières militaires sont entretenus par l'État sous le contrôle du SF
> 
> Amitiés
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] modification Wiki JOSM

[Vincent Privat]

Merci à toi ! :)

Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 17:46, lenny.libre  a écrit :

>
> Le 12/05/2019 à 20:17, Vincent Privat a écrit :
> > C'est bien ça. La référence de chaque page du wiki est la version
> > anglaise. Sa version s'incrémente de 1 à chaque modification.
> > On détecte si les autres pages sont à jour ou non avec ce numéro de
> > version.
> > Tu peux voir les pages qui nécessitent un mise à jour ici:
> > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Translations/Statistics
>
> Impec ce lien ! j'ai enregistré les modifications et la page est devenue
> verte, je vais essayer à ma petite vitesse et mon anglais (non fluent)
> de verdir d'autres pages Fr:
>
> cordialement
>
> Leni
>
>
> ___
> Talk-fr mailing list
> Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
>
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-ca] MAPS.ME Changeset

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 12:13, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> A MAPS.ME user added 66 attractions [1] in a changeset that included 
> Vancouver, Montreal and Vermont. While I visit Vancouver I'm not familiar 
> with any of them. I left a changeset comment that has been replied to in the 
> last 16 hours. Another user suggested reverting them.
>
> Can someone local check if this is a valid edit?
>
> [1] https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70165015

Most of the tourist=attraction are miscategorized. Some might be worth
recovering and retagging/amending existing tagging
(https://osm.org/node/6468310098, https://osm.org/node/6468319685,
https://osm.org/node/6468310088, or https://osm.org/node/6468310090 if
it's not in wrong location due to maps.me placing it in the middle of
the way), some probably not (https://osm.org/node/6468310096,
https://osm.org/node/6468287086), some duplicate existing tagging
(https://osm.org/node/6468287094).

So basically like most of other maps.me edits.

--Jarek

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

[Talk-ca] MAPS.ME Changeset

[Clifford Snow]

A MAPS.ME user added 66 attractions [1] in a changeset that included
Vancouver, Montreal and Vermont. While I visit Vancouver I'm not familiar
with any of them. I left a changeset comment that has been replied to in
the last 16 hours. Another user suggested reverting them.

Can someone local check if this is a valid edit?

[1] https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70165015

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

If separate signs.poles - double nodes
if single sign/poles - two tags on one node

DaveF


On 13/05/2019 16:02, Johnparis wrote:

If a platform is multimodal, highway=bus_stop fails, because the same node
requires (for example) railway=tram_stop



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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 13/05/2019 16:36, Johnparis wrote:

the bus stop (platform) node allows for shelter=yes/no and bench=yes/no, so
it's not really necessary to separately map them and/or group them into the
stop area.


If you've the time, map them separately  - it makes the database more 
accurate, but I still fail to see why these items need to be collected 
together. If Philip really wants a router to tell him where the nearest 
shelter (surely you can just look around you), it is possible without 
relations as OSM has *always* been geospatially aware.


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] modification Wiki JOSM

[lenny.libre]

Le 12/05/2019 à 20:17, Vincent Privat a écrit :
C'est bien ça. La référence de chaque page du wiki est la version 
anglaise. Sa version s'incrémente de 1 à chaque modification.
On détecte si les autres pages sont à jour ou non avec ce numéro de 
version.
Tu peux voir les pages qui nécessitent un mise à jour ici: 
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Translations/Statistics


Impec ce lien ! j'ai enregistré les modifications et la page est devenue 
verte, je vais essayer à ma petite vitesse et mon anglais (non fluent) 
de verdir d'autres pages Fr:


cordialement

Leni


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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[DC Viennablog]

Why does all the info need to be in one node and not on a way? Also, if there 
is a platform, it should be a polygon, not just a line. That should not be to 
micro to be mapped in true dimensions. If that object is the true only thing 
that defines the stop, it should be able to have the tags in every form (except 
multi-polygon relations)

The additional nodes make the confusing clutter!

KR
RobinD (emergency99)

Von: Johnparis 
Gesendet: Montag, 13. Mai 2019 17:38:36
An: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

I agree that platforms should be mapped as ways only if they physically exist. 
What I'm saying is that I don't object if someone does map such an object, but 
the information from the transit agency should always be contained in a node, 
not a way, as Jo mentioned.

I usually place the node inside the closed way if it exists, but another 
possibility (and necessary if it's an unclosed way) is to make the node a part 
of the way.



On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:36 PM Dave F via Talk-transit 
mailto:talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:14, Johnparis wrote:
> I don't have any particular problem with mapping an area (closed way) or a
> way (line segment) as a platform,

Please, please only map a platform /if/ it's a physical structure.
Imaginary meta-objects  don't work in OSM

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

I think this highlights another PT schema problem - expecting too much 
from a routing engine.


On 13/05/2019 16:29, Philip Barnes wrote:


I do, but there tend to be lots of bus stops and sometimes I want it to choose 
the one with the shelter if its only a short extra walk.

Phil (trigpoint)




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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Johnparis]

I agree that platforms should be mapped as ways only if they physically
exist. What I'm saying is that I don't object if someone does map such an
object, but the information from the transit agency should always be
contained in a node, not a way, as Jo mentioned.

I usually place the node inside the closed way if it exists, but another
possibility (and necessary if it's an unclosed way) is to make the node a
part of the way.



On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:36 PM Dave F via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 13/05/2019 16:14, Johnparis wrote:
> > I don't have any particular problem with mapping an area (closed way) or
> a
> > way (line segment) as a platform,
>
> Please, please only map a platform /if/ it's a physical structure.
> Imaginary meta-objects  don't work in OSM
>
> DaveF
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[DC Viennablog]

When the platform is a really existing built thing, you would need 
highway=platform on it, and an additional highway=bus_stop at the stop pole or 
wherever. That is more clutter and worse state of the database, than if we 
would finally move to the more versatile public_transport=platform. As it is 
the only thing that the p_t:v2 scheme actually needs anyway, we could save so 
much node clutter if we would use only that.

The stop (bus, tram, whatever) is only a pin in a field? Ok, let‘s have a 
node(p_t=platform;name=*) and put only that in the route relations.

The stop has a piece of sidewalk that is built forward slightly or a true 
platform: Have a polygon with the same tags.

As usually, any mode of transport is longer and and have multiple doors, you 
can still have the polygon as saying „anywhere here, the passengers can wait“.

Why is it so bad to adapt to a scheme that got voted in favour of long ago?

Ok, some additional confusing clutter exists in this scheme, but if I 
understand the explanations here, most, if not all of that is not required.

If the render would finally render public_transport=platform nodes exactly like 
highway=bus_stop / any tram/train stop equivalent, and 
public_transport=platform polygons exactly like highway=platform, and we would 
use only that, the state of the database would be far better than the simply 
not versatile enough bus stop node.

Maybe we could at some point get to just usefully rewrite the v2 scheme 
definition to make it easier to understand. Most dislike against it seems to 
come from not understanding it correctly, as it is described to complex in some 
cases.

If we were to say, that only p_t=platform is to be used in most cases, on nodes 
or ways beside the road, and nothing else is actually required, it be more 
accessible than hw=bus_stop=platform, the relations would be almost the same 
as now, and the only thing that needs to be slightly corrected be the renders 
to finally also accept this.

Except for being older, what makes hw=bus_stop better?
You still might have to then use hw=platform and maybe p_t=platform 
additionally, it needs to be an extra node, it does not necessarily mean what 
it says (bus stop is conceptually a combination of platform and stop 
position[s]) and it is a stiff node, that only works for buses then.

What will it take for the haters to accept this (potentially) simpler, newer 
scheme?

KR
RobinD (emergency99)

Von: Dave F via Talk-transit 
Gesendet: Montag, 13. Mai 2019 17:10:21
An: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Dave F
Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 13/05/2019 07:36, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> On 13-05-19 00:14, Jo wrote:
>> I like to keep things simple, the best way to accomplish that, is by
>> having a single object for each stop that holds all the details for
>> its "lifetime". That's why I don't like the idea of 'upgrading from a
>> node to a way/area or a relation.
>
> I don't agree with you on that point. With that view we can't change
> things in OSM anymore to a more precise mapping.

A bus stop as a node to represent the sign/pole is /far/ more accurate
than an arbitrary invisible mutli-noded polygon.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Johnparis]

the bus stop (platform) node allows for shelter=yes/no and bench=yes/no, so
it's not really necessary to separately map them and/or group them into the
stop area.


On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:30 PM Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Monday, 13 May 2019, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 13/05/2019 16:14, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > >
> > > I can see that when its raining I may want the router to direct me to
> a stop with a shelter rather than stand in the rain.
> > Surely you need to be given the bus stop which will take you to your
> > destination? That /is/ the point of a router.
> >
> I do, but there tend to be lots of bus stops and sometimes I want it to
> choose the one with the shelter if its only a short extra walk.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 13/05/2019 16:14, Johnparis wrote:

I don't have any particular problem with mapping an area (closed way) or a
way (line segment) as a platform,


Please, please only map a platform /if/ it's a physical structure. 
Imaginary meta-objects  don't work in OSM


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 13 May 2019, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13/05/2019 16:14, Philip Barnes wrote:
> >
> > I can see that when its raining I may want the router to direct me to a 
> > stop with a shelter rather than stand in the rain.
> Surely you need to be given the bus stop which will take you to your 
> destination? That /is/ the point of a router.
> 
I do, but there tend to be lots of bus stops and sometimes I want it to choose 
the one with the shelter if its only a short extra walk.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 13/05/2019 16:14, Philip Barnes wrote:


I can see that when its raining I may want the router to direct me to a stop 
with a shelter rather than stand in the rain.
Surely you need to be given the bus stop which will take you to your 
destination? That /is/ the point of a router.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 13 May 2019, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/05/2019 23:14, Jo wrote:
> > About the stop_area relations, they're not needed everywhere, but they
> > could be used to show what belongs together. Of course, that would mean all
> > the objects related to the stop at one side of the street, not both sides.
> 
> Why items "belong together"?
> Does a router need to know there's a shelter, benches, litter bind etc?
> 
I can see that when its raining I may want the router to direct me to a stop 
with a shelter rather than stand in the rain. Shelters tend to have lean on 
seating.

Otherwise benches and bins may be nearby but they are not exclusively 
associated with buses. A bin is not provided by a bus company and is not fir 
the exclusive use of bus passengers.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Johnparis]

I don't have any particular problem with mapping an area (closed way) or a
way (line segment) as a platform, but I agree with Jo that the information
should be contained in a node. That node can be part of the way. From
experience, it complicates things quite a bit when you transfer the
information from the node to the way.


On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:10 PM Dave F via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 13/05/2019 07:36, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> > On 13-05-19 00:14, Jo wrote:
> >> I like to keep things simple, the best way to accomplish that, is by
> >> having a single object for each stop that holds all the details for
> >> its "lifetime". That's why I don't like the idea of 'upgrading from a
> >> node to a way/area or a relation.
> >
> > I don't agree with you on that point. With that view we can't change
> > things in OSM anymore to a more precise mapping.
>
> A bus stop as a node to represent the sign/pole is /far/ more accurate
> than an arbitrary invisible mutli-noded polygon.
>
> DaveF
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Johnparis]

Definitely not non-transit items.

GTFS defines the equivalent of a stop area. The Paris regional transit
agency largely reflects these as transfer points between lines of different
bus companies. It can also be useful to link a stop position to a platform,
which can be very useful when it's not clear which street the platform is
facing.

A stop area in Paris, for example, might be Gare Saint-Lazare, which would
group (a) the many bus stops (platforms) named "Gare Saint-Lazare" in the
neighborhood, (b) possibly any associated stop positions for those bus
platforms, (c) the metro lines with Gare Saint-Lazare stations, the
platforms of which differ, (d) the regional train lines that terminate at
Gare Saint-Lazare, (e) any intercity trains that go there.

In general I don't use them.

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:03 PM Dave F via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 12/05/2019 23:14, Jo wrote:
> > About the stop_area relations, they're not needed everywhere, but they
> > could be used to show what belongs together. Of course, that would mean
> all
> > the objects related to the stop at one side of the street, not both
> sides.
>
> Why items "belong together"?
> Does a router need to know there's a shelter, benches, litter bind etc?
>
>
> DaveF
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 13/05/2019 07:36, Tijmen Stam wrote:

On 13-05-19 00:14, Jo wrote:
I like to keep things simple, the best way to accomplish that, is by 
having a single object for each stop that holds all the details for 
its "lifetime". That's why I don't like the idea of 'upgrading from a 
node to a way/area or a relation.


I don't agree with you on that point. With that view we can't change 
things in OSM anymore to a more precise mapping.


A bus stop as a node to represent the sign/pole is /far/ more accurate 
than an arbitrary invisible mutli-noded polygon.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 12/05/2019 23:14, Jo wrote:

About the stop_area relations, they're not needed everywhere, but they
could be used to show what belongs together. Of course, that would mean all
the objects related to the stop at one side of the street, not both sides.


Why items "belong together"?
Does a router need to know there's a shelter, benches, litter bind etc?


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Johnparis]

If a platform is multimodal, highway=bus_stop fails, because the same node
requires (for example) railway=tram_stop



On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dave F via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 12/05/2019 19:55, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> .
> >
> > No, changing of tagging, not replication.
> > There is no need to map with highway=bus_stop anymore (save for
> > rendering on osm_carto)
>
> No. highway=bus_stop is fully relevant as the day it was first used.
> It's simple, clear, comprehensible meaning far out ways the supposedly
> "overwhelming" PT tagging which few mappers have adopted. This thread
> wouldn't have happened it is was popular. It appears dead in the water.
>
> Show me how p_t=platform adds anything to the quality of the OSM
> database over highway=bus_stop.
>
> DaveF
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 12/05/2019 19:55, Tijmen Stam wrote:
.


No, changing of tagging, not replication.
There is no need to map with highway=bus_stop anymore (save for 
rendering on osm_carto)


No. highway=bus_stop is fully relevant as the day it was first used. 
It's simple, clear, comprehensible meaning far out ways the supposedly 
"overwhelming" PT tagging which few mappers have adopted. This thread 
wouldn't have happened it is was popular. It appears dead in the water.


Show me how p_t=platform adds anything to the quality of the OSM 
database over highway=bus_stop.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Snusmumriken]

On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 08:47 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 03:50, Snusmumriken
>  wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 20:55 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> > > It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM.
> > > Clearest
> > > example is private-access ways being tagged as highway=* (plus
> > > access=no) which is a misnomer in British English (which we use)
> > 
> > Misnomers should clearly be avoided if at all possible. And here it
> > is
> > quite possible, by calling a bus stop a bus stop.
> 
> Calling a bus stop a bus stop is fine, but if we want to avoid
> misnomers, why is it under the "highway" category, along with
> expressways and speed bumps and toll gantries, and not a "public
> transport" category?

Good point. If we would start from scratch them perhaps
public_transport=bus_stop would be the logical tag. But in OSM we
usually don't do renaming of established tags. And at least the value
part is correct in the key-value pair, at that is the one most
important to get right. And the highway-key isn't really that much off.


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

Re: [OSM-ja] 鳥取西道路のタグ付けについて検証お願いします。

[石野貴之]

石野です。三浦さん検証ありがとうございます。
レンダリングのアルゴリズムに改善の余地があるのは何となく分かりましたが、私にはこういったプログラムの開発にかかわる能力はありません…。

今回のウエイについては、hayashiさんによるJapan_taggingの改定プロセスが進み次第、タギングを簡潔化する予定です。主に、access=noを本線から取り除いて(Impliesに含まれることになるはずなので)、インターチェンジの入り口の道(highway=motorway_link)の道に小型二輪(moped)や原付(mofa)の通行制限をつけるつもりでいます。

石野 貴之
yumean1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMUK AGM venue

[Jez Nicholson]

** SAVE THE DATE! **

Official notice to be posted imminently.but 'save the date' for
Saturday 29 June 2019, 1pm onwards at Newspeak House,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/478415732

Wikimedia UK are indeed interested in joint activities after the AGM
portion to hear about OSM and talk about the connections between
Wikidata/OSM/Mappers/Wikimedians.

Regards,
 Jez

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jez Nicholson 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've been to look at the proposed venue for the OSMUK AGM this morning.
> Newspeak House, very near to Brick Lane in London.
>
> The event space is really nice, will cope with 30-80 people and has an
> adjoining cafe. I'm also told that we can easily nip out to buy bagels from
> a famous local shop if we want to provide snacks. It should be ideal for an
> AGM plus any other presentations or discussions we want to arrange.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/jnicho02/47014178774/in/photostream
>
> I've also met with Wikimedia UK who are interested in joint activities, so
> will explore any "Wikidata meets OSM" crossover.
>
> Regards,
>Jez
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-transit] "more then one platform in one location"

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

Hi

On the railway=platform wiki page there's a comment:

"If there are more then one platform in one location, a relation could 
be used to "bind" them together. See Approved Public Transport Schema 
 
for more information."



What does the "more then one platform in one location" mean? Are there 
examples?


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

Re: [OSM-ja] Feature Proposal - Voting - 投票-改定提案 Japan tagging/Road types Implies and Useful combination

[yuu hayashi]

hayashiです

投票中の[改定提案 Proposed_Japan_tagging/Road_types]ですが、投票数が２件しかないため投票期間を延期いたします。
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Japan_tagging/Road_types

２週間立っても、反対意見がでなければ「改定」を実施するつもりです。

みなさまの 投票によるOSMへの貢献に期待しています。

2019年4月27日(土) 7:44 yuu hayashi :

> hayashiです
>
> [[Japan_tagging#Road_types]] の「Implies」と「Useful
> combination」項目の改定提案のVoting(承認投票)を開始しました。
>
> ５月11日（土）までを投票期間としました。
>
>
> 投票は下記のURLへ
>
> [改定提案 Proposed_Japan_tagging/Road_types]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Japan_tagging/Road_types
>
> [現行のJapan_tagging#Road_types]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan_tagging#Road_types
>
> みなさまの 投票によるOSMへの貢献に期待しています。
>
___
Talk-ja mailing list
Talk-ja@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ja

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 03:50, Snusmumriken
 wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 20:55 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> > It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM. Clearest
> > example is private-access ways being tagged as highway=* (plus
> > access=no) which is a misnomer in British English (which we use)
>
> Misnomers should clearly be avoided if at all possible. And here it is
> quite possible, by calling a bus stop a bus stop.

Calling a bus stop a bus stop is fine, but if we want to avoid
misnomers, why is it under the "highway" category, along with
expressways and speed bumps and toll gantries, and not a "public
transport" category?

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

Re: [Talk-es] #1calletodoslosportales

[Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso]

Buenas.

Como ya he comentado en el grupo con la misma herramienta que se usa para
la importación del catastro se puede realizar la importación solo de
portales sin edificios. Tenemos la herramienta ya preparada y testeada. Con
un sistema que funciona. Con compatibilidad para posteriormente completar
la importación de edificios.Habría que comprobarlo, pero es de suponer que
igual que hace cuando importas edificios tiene en cuenta si una numeración
ya esta y te la descarta ( facilita evitar duplicar información). Con
pequeños cambios desde el sistema que se usa para importar edificios se
podría realizar la importación. Esta comprobado que la información de
Catastro en la mayoría de los casos esta mas actualizada que la de
Cartociudad. No le veo la ventaja a usar cartociudad respecto catastro.

Al descargar el archivo de la numeración de castociudad no me sale de
cuando son los datos. Sale dentro en cierto numero cuando se puso cada
numero en concreto, pero no veo el archivo de cuando es. Seguro que lo
tengo delante y no lo veo. Si me puedes indicar dónde has visto de que
fecha son los datos. En general como ya se ha comentado infinidad de veces
cartociudad esta bastante desactualizado. Hablo de nombres franquistas
cambiados hace ya tiempo entre muchas otras cosas.

Creo que hay cosas que se pueden considerar mas útiles y que faltan
actualmente, pero veo correcto realizar una importación de este tipo. Y si
es un paso natural después de tener los nombres de las calles.

Un saludo.

El dom., 12 may. 2019 a las 1:03, yo paseopor ()
escribió:

> Buenas gente!
>
> Leyendo este tuit
> https://twitter.com/geocodeearth/status/1126456398114709505?s=19 de
> Geocode.earth vemos como se habla del avance de la búsqueda de direcciones
> en España.
> Así, a priori me he interesado un poco por encima por el tema. He
> encontrado varios servicios, algunos los conocía , otros no me sonaban pero
> todos hacen lo mismo: buscar direcciones. Y entre otros muchos datos usan
> los de OpenStreetMap. Estoy seguro que a tod@s os suena Nominatim, o
> Geonames.
> Pero me ha dado por buscar algún enlace más como por ejemplo
>
> https://geocode.earth/
> https://pelias.io/
> https://openaddresses.io/
> (Mapzen) https://www.whosonfirst.org/
> http://www.geonames.org/
> (Openstreetmap) https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/
>
> Y es en uno de estos dónde se habla de Cartociudad y de la posibilidad de
> "parsear" sus datos. Y aquí se me encendió la bombillita.
> En la actualidad la relación de OSM con el IGN ha cambiado para bien y
> podemos leer en la página de contribuidores de Openstreetmap (no de la
> wiki) lo siguiente: "Spain: Contains data sourced from the Spanish National
> Geographic Institute (IGN) and National Cartographic System (SCNE) licensed
> for reuse under CC BY 4.0. "
>
> Si vamos a la wiki podemos encontrar los permisos firmados para dar via
> libre a OSM en el uso de sus datos:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Importaci%C3%B3n_IGN
>
> Así que vamos a soltar "la bomba" y a encender el debate: propongo
> "importar" mediante un proyecto al estilo "importación catastro" , con el
> gestor de tareas como base para la posible importación (con todas sus fases
> correspondientes), de todos los portales de Cartociudad.
> Sé que hemos hablado muchas veces de la calidad de los datos de Catastro y
> otras fuentes. Estoy seguro que al iniciar este debate habrá seguidores y
> detractores de esta propuesta. Así que me dispongo a escuchar y leer pros y
> contras.
> Todos sabemos quien está detrás de Cartociudad y sabemos cual es el
> estándar de calidad de trabajo del Instituto Geográfico Nacional.
> También sabemos cuantos portales tenemos introducidos en España y cuantas
> zonas de km y km2 no tienen ninguno introducido. Si hace tres años en la
> comunidad catalana entendimos que las calles de OSM no podían estar sin
> nombre si queríamos ser un buscador útil...entendereis que este es un
> debate complementario en la misma dirección.
>
> Soy consciente de que tenemos en marcha la importación de Catastro y que
> estos datos son sólo una ínfima parte de lo que prentendemos importar como
> resultado... Y es que yo en ningún momento he dicho que esa otra
> importación deba pararse o pausarse. Propongo realizarlas en paralelo. Como
> experiencia personal puedo decir que no se tarda lo mismo en introducir un
> portal que un edificio, y creo que es más asequible, mientras no surgen las
> ganas de generar todo el proceso que requiere un proyecto de importación de
> catastro (yo llevo un año con mi localidad, ahí continuamos, lo
> conseguiremos), sí sería más asequible mientras no se ejecuta la grande
> hacer la conflación de estos otros datos desde el Gestor de tareas con lo
> ya existente en OSM de una forma bastante más rápida de municipios enteros.
>
> Y es que hablando o no de la conveniencia de esta importación en el grupo
> de Telegram se puso como ejemplo la importación "fallida" (a priori) de
> Ávila.
> Con una consulta rápida 

Re: [Talk-lt] Susitikimas Kaune

[Paulius Zaleckas]

Gal ne iki pat pabaigos, bet bandyčiau prisijungti.

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:33 PM Tomas Straupis  wrote:
>
> Sveiki
>
>   Ar būtų norinčių susitikti Kaune pakalbėti apie OpenStreetMap?
>
>   Iš Vilniaus paskutinių susitikimų patirties matosi, kad
> klausimų/temų būna gerokai daugiau, nei vakaras turi laiko :-)
>   Planas yra šį trečiadienį (2019-05-15) nuo tarkim 1700 iki 2200
> Kauno „Špunkoje“ - Vingiuose Dubingiuose:
>   https://craftbeer.openmap.lt/#c/18/54.89845/23.91774/0/0/p3894637865
>
>   Būtų gerai žinoti bent apytikslį žmonių skaičių. Brūkštelkite, kas
> galvojate prisijungti. Ar į sąrašyną, ar man asmeniškai.
>
>   Ačiū ir iki!
>
> --
> Tomas
>
> ___
> Talk-lt mailing list
> Talk-lt@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lt

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

[Talk-lt] Susitikimas Kaune

[Tomas Straupis]

Sveiki

  Ar būtų norinčių susitikti Kaune pakalbėti apie OpenStreetMap?

  Iš Vilniaus paskutinių susitikimų patirties matosi, kad
klausimų/temų būna gerokai daugiau, nei vakaras turi laiko :-)
  Planas yra šį trečiadienį (2019-05-15) nuo tarkim 1700 iki 2200
Kauno „Špunkoje“ - Vingiuose Dubingiuose:
  https://craftbeer.openmap.lt/#c/18/54.89845/23.91774/0/0/p3894637865

  Būtų gerai žinoti bent apytikslį žmonių skaičių. Brūkštelkite, kas
galvojate prisijungti. Ar į sąrašyną, ar man asmeniškai.

  Ačiū ir iki!

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Jo]

Indeed, that's were we don't seem to be able to agree.

Let's say all bus stops are mapped on nodes to get started.

Then a mapper notices there is a platform near to some of them. Those
platforms can simply be drawn, in addition, to the nodes that represent
such stops. No need to transfer from a node to a way and update all the
route relations where that stop is used.

If I'm not mistaken, in the Netherlands, all house numbers are mapped on
nodes, which are contained within building outlines. I don't really like
that a spatial query is needed to connect buildings to addresses, but as
far as 'tranquility' in the data goes, it's a nice solution.

Back to PT. What most data consumers need is to know where can I
board/alight from the vehicles. A set of coordinates near to where the bus
passes + an indication on which side of the street the doors will open.

For drawing maps we need that + an overview of the itineraries, i.e. the
ways the bus passes on.

For routing we basically only need the stops in the right order +
timetables that come from elsewhere. But it's nice to have the coordinates
of the stops directly available.

Polyglot

Polyglot



On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:36 AM Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> On 13-05-19 00:14, Jo wrote:
> > I like to keep things simple, the best way to accomplish that, is by
> > having a single object for each stop that holds all the details for its
> > "lifetime". That's why I don't like the idea of 'upgrading from a node
> > to a way/area or a relation.
>
> I don't agree with you on that point. With that view we can't change
> things in OSM anymore to a more precise mapping.
>
> IMHO it shouldn't be the internal OSM database ID that makes something a
> "logical object", but the ref on that object.
> Say you're transitioning from a node to a way for a bus stop, simply
> copy the relevant tags from that node to the way.
>
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Snusmumriken]

On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 20:55 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> a "public_transport=platform" is not defined as being "platform"
> (raised good concrete flooring) but as "the place where people wait
> to board a bus/tram/train". Whatever form that is.
> 
> It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM. Clearest 
> example is private-access ways being tagged as highway=* (plus 
> access=no) which is a misnomer in British English (which we use)

Misnomers should clearly be avoided if at all possible. And here it is
quite possible, by calling a bus stop a bus stop.




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

Re: [Talk-it-lazio] informazioni

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. May 2019, at 09:29, ieduea aclo  wrote:
> 
> Ma caricando le tracce gps direttamente sul portale openstreetmaps, le mappe 
> si creano automaticamente?


purtroppo no, come potrebbe funzionare? Un conto è il percorso, ma chi farebbe 
la classificazione delle strade e percorsi, i nomi, i limiti e divieti, i sensi 
unici? Poi ci sono già parecchi dati nel Reatino, se si creasse in automatico i 
percorsi che hai registrato tu, ci sarebbero probabilmente tante 
sovrapposizioni.
Poi il GPS registra solitamente tanti punti in più rispetto ai dati di 
OpenStreetMap, dove una linea retta viene rappresentata da due punti e non di 
più.

Buon inizio!

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

[talk-cz] Ředitel Trasa s.r.o.

[Petr Schönmann]

Jen taková zajímavost, jestli by třeba někdo nechtěl uvolnit KČT trasy
zevnitř :D
https://www.jobs.cz/rpd/1376634948/?rps=217
___
talk-cz mailing list
talk-cz@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz
https://openstreetmap.cz/talkcz

[Talk-it-lazio] informazioni

[ieduea aclo]

Salve a tutti volevo migliore la mappa del Reatino.
Volevo chiedervi una piccola info.
Ma caricando le tracce gps direttamente sul portale openstreetmaps, le
mappe si creano automaticamente?

Oppure devo modifcare tutto manualmente?

Grazie.

Facciamo un gruppo su facebook?
Saluti
Davide Verna
___
Talk-it-lazio mailing list
Talk-it-lazio@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it-lazio

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Tijmen Stam]

On 13-05-19 00:14, Jo wrote:
I like to keep things simple, the best way to accomplish that, is by 
having a single object for each stop that holds all the details for its 
"lifetime". That's why I don't like the idea of 'upgrading from a node 
to a way/area or a relation.


I don't agree with you on that point. With that view we can't change 
things in OSM anymore to a more precise mapping.


IMHO it shouldn't be the internal OSM database ID that makes something a 
"logical object", but the ref on that object.
Say you're transitioning from a node to a way for a bus stop, simply 
copy the relevant tags from that node to the way.



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

Re: [Talk-transit] Old railways

[Tijmen Stam]

On 13-05-19 01:33, Mike N wrote:

On 5/12/2019 1:45 PM, Tijmen Stam wrote:
Btw, do you know of a way to copy data from one layer in JOSM to 
another, while keeping it at the exact same position?


Edit / Paste at Source Position (CTRL+ALT+V).


Thank you (and John Whelan)


I still wish it was easier to migrate objects to Open Historical Map.


The method I used yesterday was
1. download from OSM (or Overpass Turbo) into JOSM
2. Copy wanted data to new layer
3. edit (if necessary)
4. change api in JOSM
5. upload

  While I also don't think that Razed railways without a trace no longer 
belong in OSM, there's a bit of tradition that allowed them here.  Since 
they don't render on the default OSM site, I leave the old tracks for now.


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



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

Re: [Talk-it] Pietre miliari poco miliari

[Dario Crespi]

Si trova a Lonate Pozzolo, appena a sud rispetto Malpensa. Corre da Lonate
fino ai canali Industriale e Villoresi.

Dario

Il Lun 13 Mag 2019, 00:18 danbag--- via Talk-it 
ha scritto:

> E dove si trova esattamente nel Parco del Ticino ?
>
> Ciao
>
> Danilo
>
> Il 12/05/2019 16:48, Dario Crespi ha scritto:
>
> Per i singoli reperti potresti trovare qualcosa in historic (taginfo) e
>> anche questa pagina suggerisce historic=*
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aexhibit
>>
>
> Ecco, proprio quello che cercavo.
>
> sembra una sorta di museo, certo, se uno facesse 50 chilometri per
>> arrivarci rimarrebbe probabilmente male, oppure è più grande di quanto si
>> vede?
>>
>
> Ci sono un centinaio di queste "stzioni" (quelle relative alla parte
> militare sono migliori). Si estende per più di 2 km all'interno del parco
> naturale del Ticino e oltre a queste cose abbastanza artigianali ci sono
> trincee, muri paraschegge, piste aeree. Quindi nel suo piccolo è
> interessante :-)
>
> Grazie ancora,
>
> Dario
>
> Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 16:12 Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 12. May 2019, at 15:53, Dario Crespi  wrote:
>>
>> Sempre lungo la stessa strada, che è una sorta di museo a cielo aperto,
>> ci sono anche delle installazioni particolari: alcune raccolgono oggetti
>> agricoli e altri artefatti di interesse etnografico, mentre altre
>> raccolgono residui bellici della seconda guerra mondiale (punte di
>> moschetto, proiettili, bombe da addestramento, eccetera): come fare per
>> queste?
>>
>>
>>
>> sembra una sorta di museo, certo, se uno facesse 50 chilometri per
>> arrivarci rimarrebbe probabilmente male, oppure è più grande di quanto si
>> vede?
>>
>> Utilizzerei un’area per il museo, se tourism=museum va bene, anche fee=no
>> e indoor=no che sta molto avanti a outdoor=only/yes
>>
>> Per i singoli reperti potresti trovare qualcosa in historic (taginfo) e
>> anche questa pagina suggerisce historic=*
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aexhibit
>> (cfr. “history”)
>>
>> Ciao, Martin
>> ___
>> Talk-it mailing list
>> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing 
> listTalk-it@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
>
> --
> Danilo Baggini
> Via Madonna di Campagna 15
> 28922 VERBANIA (VB)
> blog: www.shaulatre.blogspot.com
> cell: +39 3492423238
>
>
>
> 
>  Mail
> priva di virus. www.avg.com
> 
> <#m_8720206138814249931_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> 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